IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No.: EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff, v. CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA, a Maryland Corporation, d/b/a CROWLEY COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, and DOMINION CORRECTIONAL SERVICES LLC, an Oklahoma Corporation, d/b/a CROWLEY COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY,
Defendants.
COMPLAINT and JURY TRIAL DEMAND
NATURE OF THE ACTION This is a public enforcement action to correct (1) the unlawful pattern or practice of maintaining a hostile work environment based on gender in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et. seq. (“Title VII”), and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a, and (2) the unlawful pattern or practice of retaliating against employees for complaining about discrimination, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a. This action seeks to provide appropriate relief to Marcia Manchego, Christine Newland, Sabinitha Baron, and similarly situated individuals adversely affected by such practices. Plaintiff, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”),
1

contends Defendants, Correctional Corporation of America, Inc., d/b/a Crowley County Correctional Facility (hereafter, “CCA”) and Dominion Correctional Services, Inc. d/b/a Crowley County Correctional Facility (hereafter, “Dominion”) have discriminated against Charging Parties and similarly situated individuals, because of their gender, female, by subjecting them to sexual harassment and a hostile work environment, by failing to take prompt remedial action intended to eliminate the sexual harassment, and by retaliating against Manchego, Newland and similarly situated individuals for complaining about or opposing the hostile work environment, all in violation of Title VII.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction of this court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Sections 703(a), 704, 706(f)(1), 706(f)(3), of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2(a), 2000e-3, 2000e-5(f)(1), 2000e-5(f)(3), and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §1981a. 2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff EEOC is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of 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. The female employees who filed the charges of discrimination with the EEOC hereafter will be referred to as “Manchego,” “Newland,” and “Baron” or collectively as “Charging
2

Parties.” 5. The Crowley County Correctional Facility is a prison located at Olney Springs, Colorado, and began operations in approximately 1998. 6. From December 2000 until January 2003, Defendant Dominion Correctional Services, an Oklahoma corporation, operated Crowley County Correctional Facility. 7. In or around January 2003, Defendant Corrections Corporation of America purchased or assumed the assets and liabilities of Dominion, and accordingly is liable for all claims that Plaintiff may have against Dominion. CCA currently operates the facility. 8. At the times relevant to the allegation in this complaint, Crowley County Correctional Facility was operated and controlled by Defendants Dominion or CCA. 9. At the times relevant to the allegations in this complaint, Dominion was a corporation, incorporated in the State of Oklahoma, licensed to do business within the state of Colorado. 10. At the times relevant to the allegations in this complaint, Dominion employed at least 15 employees 11. At the times relevant to the allegations in this complaint, CCA was a corporation, incorporated in the State of Maryland, licensed to do business within the state of Colorado. 12. At the times relevant to the allegations in this complaint, CCA employed at least 15 employees. 13. At all relevant times, Defendant CCA 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). CCA. 14. At all relevant times, Defendant Dominion has continuously been an employer engaged
3

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). CCA. 15. From about January 2003, Defendant CCA was the employer of the employees working at Crowley County Correctional Facility within the meaning of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e. 16. From December 2000 until January 2003, Defendant Dominion was the employer of the employees working at Crowley County Correctional Facility within the meaning of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e.
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 17. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Marcia Manchego, Christine Newland, and Sabinitha Baron, employees at Crowley County Correctional Facility during the relevant times, filed charges of discrimination with the EEOC alleging violations of Title VII by Defendants. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.
First Claim: Gender-Based Hostile Work Environment and Sexual Harassment 18. Since at least 2000, Defendant Dominion, and since at least 2003 Defendant CCA, have engaged in unlawful employment practices at Crowley County Correctional Facility, in violation of section 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(a), by allowing its employees, including but not limited to management level officials, to sexually harass Manchego, Newland, Baron, and a class of other similarly situated female employees. This harassment altered the terms and conditions of employment and created a hostile work environment for Manchego, Newland, Baron, and a class of other similarly situated female employees. 19. Male managers and correctional officers participated in harassing conduct toward female employees and fostered a sexual and gender-based hostile work environment in which male
4

managers and co-workers were encouraged to harass and retaliate against female employees. 20. The unlawful sexual harassment and gender-based harassment involved repeated, serious, verbal and physical harassment of the female employees, which included, but was not limited to, the following conduct:
(a) Starting with the interviewing process of new hires, male supervisors made comments about whether or not to hire a prospective female employee based upon her attractiveness, whether she might be “easy to get to bed,” or whether she might be easily manipulated.
(b) Females who resisted sexual activity suffered consequences, including without limitation: hostile and demeaning verbal and physical advances, undesirable and even dangerous shift assignments, and reduced opportunities for advancement.
(c) Female employees were routinely groped, pawed, and physically assaulted by male management and male co-workers.
(d) The retaliatory atmosphere against women who reported sexual harassment or who supported others who complained of rights protected under Title VII contributed to and perpetuated the hostile work environment.
21. The offensive sexual conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive as to alter the terms and conditions of employees subjected to the conduct. 22. The sexual harassment in the work place created a hostile work environment based on gender. 23. Defendants were aware of the sexual harassment and aware that some managers participated in the harassment.
5

24. Defendants engaged in a continuing pattern or practice of tolerating and fostering a sexually hostile work environment. 25. Defendants failed to take reasonable measures to prevent and promptly remedy sexual harassment in the workplace. 26. The effect of the events and conduct described above, including the sexual harassment by managers and Defendants’ failure to promptly and adequately respond to employee complaints of sexual harassment and to correct sexual harassment of which it was aware, has been to deprive Manchego, Newland, Baron, and other similarly situated employees of equal employment opportunities. 27. The unlawful employment practices described above were intentional. 28. The unlawful employment practices described above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Manchego, Newland, Baron, and other similarly situated employees.
Second Claim: Retaliation 29. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint. 30. Since at least calendar year 2000, Defendant Dominion, and since at least calendar year 2003, Defendant CCA, have engaged in unlawful employment practices at Crowley County Correctional Facility, in violation of section 704(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-3, by allowing its male employees, including but not limited to management level officials, to retaliate against Manchego, Newland, and other similarly situated female employees who complained of discrimination or refused to participate in or acquiesce to the hostile work environment. This retaliation altered the terms and conditions of employment for Manchego, Newland, and other
6

similarly situated female employees for complaining about sexual harassment or for supporting rights protected under Title VII. 31. Newland engaged in protected activities in that she opposed the sexual harassment and complained to the highest Dominion and CCA managers at Crowley about the sexual harassing conduct of the Chief of Security and of the pattern or practice of sexual harassment. 32. Manchego engaged in protected activities in that she supported the complaint of a female supervisor about sexual harassment and retaliation. 33. The retaliatory acts directed at Manchego, Newland, and similarly situated female employees included, but were not limited to conduct as set forth below:
(a) subjecting Manchego, Newland, and other similarly situated female employees to increased scrutiny on the job after they voiced complaints of harassment and/or retaliation;
(b) failing to investigate internal claims of harassment and retaliation, and thus contributing to the perpetuation of a pervasive and severe hostile work environment;
(c) making false charges against Manchego, Newland, and other similarly situated female employees in order to justify retaliatory discipline, discharge, or refusal to allow the individual to return to work;
(d) publicizing the claims brought by Manchego, Newland, and other similarly situated female employees to other male managers and male co-workers, which resulted in ostracism and hostile actions by their male supervisors and male coworkers;
7

(e) assigning Newland and similarly situated females to substantial changes in their work assignments, including lack of support with inmates that exposed them to the risk of physical harm;
(f) assigning Newland and similarly situated females to isolated areas to perform work assignments with their alleged harassers, thereby exposing them to actual and threatened physical abuse by their male harassers.
34. Defendants failed to take reasonable measures to prevent retaliation against Manchego, Newland, and similarly situated female employees. 35. Defendants retaliated against Manchego, Newland, and similarly situated female employees for complaining about the sexual harassment or for engaging in other Title VII protected activities, and/or to deter other female employees from exercising rights protected by Title VII. 36. The effect of the continuing pattern or practices complained of in the paragraphs above has been to deprive Manchego, Newland, and similarly situated females of equal employment opportunities based their Title VII protected activities. 37. The continuing unlawful pattern or practices complained of in the paragraphs above were intentional. 38. The continuing unlawful pattern or practices complained of in the paragraphs above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Manchego, Newland, and similarly situated female employees.
8

PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants CCA and Dominion, their officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in any employment policy or practice which creates a sexually or retaliatory hostile work environment or otherwise discriminates on the basis of sex or retaliates in response to Title VII protected activities; B. Order Defendants CCA and Dominion to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for women, and which eradicate the effects of its past unlawful employment practices, including retaliation; C. Order Defendants CCA and Dominion to make whole Manchego, Newland, Baron and similarly situated females by providing appropriate back pay with pre-judgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices; D. Order Defendants CCA and Dominion to make whole Manchego, Newland, and similarly situated former employee employees, by reinstating them in their previously held positions or the equivalent thereof or, in the alternative, by providing appropriate front pay in amounts to be determined at trial; E. Order Defendants CCA and Dominion to make whole Manchego, Newland, Baron, and other similarly situated individuals, by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described above;
9

F. Order Defendants CCA and Dominion to make whole Manchego, Newland, Baron, and other similarly situated individuals, by providing compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses, including emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life and humiliation;
G. Order Defendants CCA and Dominion to pay Manchego, Newland, Baron, and other similarly situated individuals punitive damages for its malicious and/or reckless conduct described above, in amounts to be determined at trial;
H. Order Defendants CCA, Dominion, to provide training to its officers, managers and employees regarding discriminatory harassment and retaliation in the workplace;
I. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest; and
J. Award the Commission its costs in this action. JURY TRIAL DEMAND
The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its Complaint. DATED this 29th day of September, 2006.
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
10

s/ Nancy A. Weeks NANCY A. WEEKS Supervisory Trial Attorney EEOC Denver Field Office 303 E. 17th Ave., Suite 510 Denver, CO 80203 nancy.weeks@eeoc.gov 303-866-1947 s/ Lynn L. Palma LYNN L. PALMA Senior Trial Attorney lynn.palma@eeoc.gov 303-866-1347
11

 
 Case 1:06-cv-01956-EWN-MJW Document 9-2 Filed 11/28/2006 Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 06-cv-01956-EWN-MJW
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
and
SABINITA BARRON, MARCIA MANCHEGO and CHRISTINE NEWLAND,

Plaintiff, Intervenors,

v.

CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA, a Maryland Corporation, d/b/a CROWLEY COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, and

DOMINION CORRECTIONAL SERVICES,

LLC, an Oklahoma Corporation, d/b/a

CROWLEY COUNTY CORRECTIONAL

FACILITY,

Defendants.

______________________________________________________________________________

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION ______________________________________________________________________________
COME NOW Sabinita Barron, Marcia Manchego and Christine Newland (“Intervenors”),
by and through their attorneys, Roseman & Kazmierski, LLC, and, for a Complaint in Intervention
against Defendants and each of them, state and allege as follows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This Court has jurisdiction over Intervenors’ claims of sex discrimination and retaliation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3) and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1343(a)(4).

2. Venue herein is proper under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3). Intervenors’ claims of sex discrimination and retaliation arose within the District of Colorado.

3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), is the agency of the United States of America that is charged with the administration, interpretation, and enforcement of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq., and

Case 1:06-cv-01956-EWN-MJW Document 9-2 -2-

Filed 11/28/2006 Page 2 of 6

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. Each Intervenor is a female citizen of the United States. At all times pertinent hereto, each Intervenor was employed by one of the Defendants.
5. Each Defendant is an “employer” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b). At all times pertinent hereto, each Defendant engaged in an industry affecting commerce and had fifteen (15) or more employees for each working day in each of twenty (20) or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year.
JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENTS 6. Each Intervenor timely filed one or more charges of sex discrimination that satisfied the requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b) with Plaintiff. Each such charge was filed within three hundred (300) days after the most recent of the unlawful employment actions alleged therein. 7. Plaintiff named Intervenors in its Complaint.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF For a First Claim for Relief against Defendants and each of them, Intervenors adopt and incorporate by reference herein the allegations contained in Paragraphs Nos. 1 through7, inclusive, of this Complaint in Intervention, and further state and allege as follows: 8. Intervenors hereby join in and adopt the Complaint filed by Plaintiff in this case, as if recited in its entirety herein. 9. Defendant Dominion Correctional Services, LLC (“Dominion”), violated 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1) by discriminating against Intervenor Barron because of her sex. As a direct and proximate result of such actions, Intervenor Barron has been, is, and in the future will be deprived of income in the form of wages and prospective retirement benefits and other benefits due her as an employee, in a sum to be proven at trial. 10. Defendant Corrections Corporation of America (“CCA”) violated 42 U.S.C. § 2000e2(a)(1) by discriminating against Intervenor Manchego because of her sex. As a direct and proximate result of such actions, Intervenor Manchego has been, is, and in the future will be deprived of income in the form of wages and prospective retirement benefits and other benefits due her as an employee, in a sum to be proven at trial.

Case 1:06-cv-01956-EWN-MJW Document 9-2 -3-

Filed 11/28/2006 Page 3 of 6

11. Defendants and each of them violated 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1) by discriminating against Intervenor Newland because of her sex. As a direct and proximate result of such actions, Intervenor Newland has been, is, and in the future will be deprived of income in the form of wages and prospective retirement benefits and other benefits due her as an employee, in a sum to be proven at trial.
12. In addition, as a direct and proximate result of such actions, each Intervenor has suffered and continues to suffer severe emotional distress.
13. Further, Defendants and each of them engaged in the said discriminatory practice or practices with malice or with reckless indifference to Intervenors’ federally protected rights. As a result, each Intervenor is entitled to recover, and should recover, punitive or exemplary damages from the Defendant or Defendants that engaged in the said discriminatory practice or practices with malice or with reckless indifference to her federally protected rights..
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF For a Second Claim for Relief, Intervenors adopt and incorporate by reference herein the allegations contained in Paragraphs Nos. 1 through 13, inclusive, of this Complaint in Intervention, and further state and allege as follows: 14. Defendant Dominion violated 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) by discriminating against Intervenor Barron because she opposed one or more employment practices that she believed in good faith to constitute sex discrimination and/or because she filed a charge of employment discrimination with Plaintiff. 15. Defendant CCA violated 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) by discriminating against Intervenor Manchego because she opposed one or more employment practices that she believed in good faith to constitute sex discrimination and/or because she filed a charge of employment discrimination with Plaintiff. 16. Defendants and each of them violated 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) by discriminating against Intervenor Newland because she opposed employment practices that she reasonably believed to constitute sex discrimination and/or because she filed a charge of employment discrimination with Plaintiff.

Case 1:06-cv-01956-EWN-MJW Document 9-2 -4-

Filed 11/28/2006 Page 4 of 6

17. As a direct and proximate result of such actions, each Intervenor has been, is, and in the future will be deprived of income in the form of wages and prospective retirement benefits and other benefits due her as an employee, in a sum to be proven at trial.
18. In addition, as a direct and proximate result of such actions, each Intervenor has suffered and continues to suffer severe emotional distress.
19. Further, Defendants and each of them engaged in the said discriminatory practice or practices with malice or with reckless indifference to each Intervenor’s federally protected rights. As a result, each Intervenor is entitled to recover, and should recover, punitive or exemplary damages from the Defendant or Defendants that engaged in the said discriminatory practice or practices with malice or with reckless indifference to her federally protected rights.
WHEREFORE, Intervenors respectfully prays that this Court: A. Issue a declaratory judgment that the acts, policies, practices, and procedures of Defendants and each of them set forth in the Complaint in Intervention herein violated and continue to violate Intervenors’ rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq.; B. Order Defendant Dominion to pay Intervenor Barron back pay, reimbursement for lost pension and other benefits and expenses, and the present value other future lost earnings and future lost pension and other benefits and expenses, in an amount to be shown at trial; C. Order Defendant CCA to make Intervenors Manchego and Newland whole by reinstating her to her former position with it, providing appropriate back pay and reimbursement for lost pension and other benefits and expenses, in an amount to be shown at trial; and, should this Court determine that reinstatement is not a practicable option for either Intervenor Manchego or Newland, to pay such Intervenor back pay, reimbursement for lost pension and other benefits and expenses, and the present value other future lost earnings and future lost pension and other benefits and expenses, in an amount to be shown at trial; D. Enter judgment in favor of Intervenors and against Defendants and each of them for compensatory and punitive damages, in an amount to be shown at trial;

Case 1:06-cv-01956-EWN-MJW Document 9-2 -5-

Filed 11/28/2006 Page 5 of 6

E. Grant to each Intervenor any attorney’s fees she may incur, plus her costs, expert witness fees, disbursements, and pre - and post-judgment interest; and
F. Grant such other and additional relief as may to this Court seem proper

Respectfully submitted,
ROSEMAN & KAZMIERSKI, LLC
s/Barry D. Roseman BARRY D. ROSEMAN 1120 Lincoln Street, Suite 1607 Denver, Colorado 80203 Telephone: (303) 839-1771 FAX: (303) 861-9214 E-mail: broseman@nela.org
Attorneys for Intervenors
INTERVENORS DEMAND TRIAL BY JURY ON ALL ISSUES SO TRIABLE RAISED HEREIN
Address of Intervenor Sabinita Barron:
1104 Virginia Drive Rocky Ford, CO 81067
Address of Intervenor Marcia Manchego:
15153 County Road E.25 Ordway, CO 81063
Address of Intervenor Christine Newland:
2505 Verde Drive, Apt. 335 Colorado Springs, CO 80910

Case 1:06-cv-01956-EWN-MJW Document 9-2 -6-

Filed 11/28/2006 Page 6 of 6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that, on the twenty-eighth day of November 2006, a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing Complaint in Intervention was sent via CM/ECF electronic filing, addressed to the following parties:

Lynn L. Palma, Esq. Nancy A. Weeks, Esq. EEOC Field Office 303 East 17th Avenue, Suite 510 Denver, CO 80203

Colleen M. Rea, Esq. Peter F. Munger, Esq. John C. Lowrie, Esq. Ford & Harrison, LLP 1675 Broadway, Suite 1250 Denver, CO 80202

s/Jessica E. Floyd Jessica E. Floyd

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No.: 06-cv-1956-EWN-MJN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff, v. CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA, a Maryland Corporation, d/b/a CROWLEY COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, and DOMINION CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware Corporation, d/b/a CROWLEY COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; DOMINION CORRECTIONAL PROPERTIES, LLC, d/b/a CROWLEY COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; and DOMINION VENTURE GROUP, d/b/a CROWLEY COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY,
Defendants.
AMENDED COMPLAINT and JURY TRIAL DEMAND
NATURE OF THE ACTION This is a public enforcement action to correct (1) the unlawful pattern or practice of maintaining a hostile work environment based on gender in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et. seq. (“Title VII”), and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a, and (2) the unlawful pattern or practice of retaliating against employees for complaining about discrimination, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a. This action seeks to provide appropriate relief to Marcia Manchego,
1

Christine Newland, Sabinitha Baron, and similarly situated individuals adversely affected by such practices. Plaintiff, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), contends Defendants, Correctional Corporation of America, Inc., d/b/a Crowley County Correctional Facility (hereafter, “CCA”) and Dominion Correctional Services, LLC. d/b/a Crowley County Correctional Facility, Dominion Correctional Properties, LLC, d/b/a Crowley County Correctional Facility, and Dominion Venture Group, d/b/a Crowley County Correctional Facility (hereafter collectively referred to as “Dominion”) have discriminated against Charging Parties and similarly situated individuals, because of their gender, female, by subjecting them to sexual harassment and a hostile work environment, by failing to take prompt remedial action intended to eliminate the sexual harassment, and by retaliating against Manchego, Newland and similarly situated individuals for complaining about or opposing the hostile work environment, all in violation of Title VII.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction of this court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Sections 703(a), 704, 706(f)(1), 706(f)(3), of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2(a), 2000e-3, 2000e-5(f)(1), 2000e-5(f)(3), and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §1981a. 2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff EEOC is the agency of the United States of America charged with the
2

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. The female employees who filed the charges of discrimination with the EEOC hereafter will be referred to as “Manchego,” “Newland,” and “Baron” or collectively as “Charging Parties.” 5. The Crowley County Correctional Facility is a prison located at Olney Springs, Colorado, and began operations in approximately 1998. 6. From December 2000 until January 2003, Defendants Dominion operated Crowley County Correctional Facility. 7. In or around January 2003, Defendant Corrections Corporation of America purchased or assumed the assets and liabilities of Dominion, and accordingly is liable for all claims that Plaintiff may have against Dominion. CCA currently operates the facility. 8. At the times relevant to the allegation in this complaint, Crowley County Correctional Facility was operated and controlled by Defendants Dominion or CCA. 9. At the times relevant to the allegations in this complaint, Dominion were corporations, that were licensed to do business within the state of Colorado. 10. At the times relevant to the allegations in this complaint, Dominion employed at least 15 employees 11. At the times relevant to the allegations in this complaint, CCA was a corporation, incorporated in the State of Maryland, licensed to do business within the state of Colorado. 12. At the times relevant to the allegations in this complaint, CCA employed at least 15 employees.
3

13. At all relevant times, Defendant CCA 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). CCA. 14. At all relevant times, Defendants Dominion has or have continuously been an employer or employers 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). CCA. 15. From about January 2003, Defendant CCA was the employer of the employees working at Crowley County Correctional Facility within the meaning of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e. 16. From December 2000 until January 2003, Defendant Dominions was or were the employer(s) of the employees working at Crowley County Correctional Facility within the meaning of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e.
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 17. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Marcia Manchego, Christine Newland, and Sabinitha Baron, employees at Crowley County Correctional Facility during the relevant times, filed charges of discrimination with the EEOC alleging violations of Title VII by Defendants. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.
First Claim: Gender-Based Hostile Work Environment and Sexual Harassment 18. Since at least 2000, Defendants Dominion, and since at least 2003 Defendant CCA, have engaged in unlawful employment practices at Crowley County Correctional Facility, in violation of section 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(a), by allowing its employees, including but not limited to management level officials, to sexually harass Manchego, Newland, Baron, and a class of other similarly situated female employees. This harassment altered the terms and
4

conditions of employment and created a hostile work environment for Manchego, Newland, Baron, and a class of other similarly situated female employees. 19. Male managers and correctional officers participated in harassing conduct toward female employees and fostered a sexual and gender-based hostile work environment in which male managers and co-workers were encouraged to harass and retaliate against female employees. 20. The unlawful sexual harassment and gender-based harassment involved repeated, serious, verbal and physical harassment of the female employees, which included, but was not limited to, the following conduct:
(a) Starting with the interviewing process of new hires, male supervisors made comments about whether or not to hire a prospective female employee based upon her attractiveness, whether she might be “easy to get to bed,” or whether she might be easily manipulated.
(b) Females who resisted sexual activity suffered consequences, including without limitation: hostile and demeaning verbal and physical advances, undesirable and even dangerous shift assignments, and reduced opportunities for advancement.
(c) Female employees were routinely groped, pawed, and physically assaulted by male management and male co-workers.
(d) The retaliatory atmosphere against women who reported sexual harassment or who supported others who complained of rights protected under Title VII contributed to and perpetuated the hostile work environment.
21. The offensive sexual conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive as to alter the terms and conditions of employees subjected to the conduct.
5

22. The sexual harassment in the work place created a hostile work environment based on gender. 23. Defendants were aware of the sexual harassment and aware that some managers participated in the harassment. 24. Defendants engaged in a continuing pattern or practice of tolerating and fostering a sexually hostile work environment. 25. Defendants failed to take reasonable measures to prevent and promptly remedy sexual harassment in the workplace. 26. The effect of the events and conduct described above, including the sexual harassment by managers and Defendants’ failure to promptly and adequately respond to employee complaints of sexual harassment and to correct sexual harassment of which it was aware, has been to deprive Manchego, Newland, Baron, and other similarly situated employees of equal employment opportunities. 27. The unlawful employment practices described above were intentional. 28. The unlawful employment practices described above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Manchego, Newland, Baron, and other similarly situated employees.
Second Claim: Retaliation 29. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint. 30. Since at least calendar year 2000, Defendants Dominion, and since at least calendar year 2003, Defendant CCA, have engaged in unlawful employment practices at Crowley County Correctional Facility, in violation of section 704(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-3, by allowing
6

its male employees, including but not limited to management level officials, to retaliate against Manchego, Newland, and other similarly situated female employees who complained of discrimination or refused to participate in or acquiesce to the hostile work environment. This retaliation altered the terms and conditions of employment for Manchego, Newland, and other similarly situated female employees for complaining about sexual harassment or for supporting rights protected under Title VII. 31. Newland engaged in protected activities in that she opposed the sexual harassment and complained to the highest Dominion and CCA managers at Crowley about the sexual harassing conduct of the Chief of Security and of the pattern or practice of sexual harassment. 32. Manchego engaged in protected activities in that she supported the complaint of a female supervisor about sexual harassment and retaliation. 33. The retaliatory acts directed at Manchego, Newland, and similarly situated female employees included, but were not limited to conduct as set forth below:
(a) subjecting Manchego, Newland, and other similarly situated female employees to increased scrutiny on the job after they voiced complaints of harassment and/or retaliation;
(b) failing to investigate internal claims of harassment and retaliation, and thus contributing to the perpetuation of a pervasive and severe hostile work environment;
(c) making false charges against Manchego, Newland, and other similarly situated female employees in order to justify retaliatory discipline, discharge, or refusal to allow the individual to return to work;
7

(d) publicizing the claims brought by Manchego, Newland, and other similarly situated female employees to other male managers and male co-workers, which resulted in ostracism and hostile actions by their male supervisors and male coworkers;
(e) assigning Newland and similarly situated females to substantial changes in their work assignments, including lack of support with inmates that exposed them to the risk of physical harm;
(f) assigning Newland and similarly situated females to isolated areas to perform work assignments with their alleged harassers, thereby exposing them to actual and threatened physical abuse by their male harassers.
34. Defendants failed to take reasonable measures to prevent retaliation against Manchego, Newland, and similarly situated female employees. 35. Defendants retaliated against Manchego, Newland, and similarly situated female employees for complaining about the sexual harassment or for engaging in other Title VII protected activities, and/or to deter other female employees from exercising rights protected by Title VII. 36. The effect of the continuing pattern or practices complained of in the paragraphs above has been to deprive Manchego, Newland, and similarly situated females of equal employment opportunities based their Title VII protected activities. 37. The continuing unlawful pattern or practices complained of in the paragraphs above were intentional. 38. The continuing unlawful pattern or practices complained of in the paragraphs above were
8

done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Manchego, Newland, and similarly situated female employees.
9

PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants CCA and Dominion, their officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in any employment policy or practice which creates a sexually or retaliatory hostile work environment or otherwise discriminates on the basis of sex or retaliates in response to Title VII protected activities; B. Order Defendants CCA and Dominion to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for women, and which eradicate the effects of its past unlawful employment practices, including retaliation; C. Order Defendants CCA and Dominion to make whole Manchego, Newland, Baron and similarly situated females by providing appropriate back pay with pre-judgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices; D. Order Defendants CCA and Dominion to make whole Manchego, Newland, and similarly situated former employee employees, by reinstating them in their previously held positions or the equivalent thereof or, in the alternative, by providing appropriate front pay in amounts to be determined at trial; E. Order Defendants CCA and Dominion to make whole Manchego, Newland, Baron, and other similarly situated individuals, by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described above;
10

F. Order Defendants CCA and Dominion to make whole Manchego, Newland, Baron, and other similarly situated individuals, by providing compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses, including emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life and humiliation;
G. Order Defendants CCA and Dominion to pay Manchego, Newland, Baron, and other similarly situated individuals punitive damages for its malicious and/or reckless conduct described above, in amounts to be determined at trial;
H. Order Defendants CCA, Dominion, to provide training to its officers, managers and employees regarding discriminatory harassment and retaliation in the workplace;
I. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest; and
J. Award the Commission its costs in this action. JURY TRIAL DEMAND
The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its Complaint. DATED this 11th day of January, 2007
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
11

s/ Nancy A. Weeks NANCY A. WEEKS Supervisory Trial Attorney EEOC Denver Field Office 303 E. 17th Ave., Suite 510 Denver, CO 80203 nancy.weeks@eeoc.gov 303-866-1947 s/ Lynn L. Palma LYNN L. PALMA Senior Trial Attorney lynn.palma@eeoc.gov 303-866-1347
12

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 06-cv-01956-EWN-MJW
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
and
SABINITA BARRON, MARCIA MANCHEGO and CHRISTINE NEWLAND,

Plaintiff, Intervenors,

v.

CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA, a Maryland Corporation, d/b/a CROWLEY COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, and

DOMINION CORRECTIONAL SERVICES,

LLC, a Delaware Corporation, d/b/a

CROWLEY COUNTY CORRECTIONAL

FACILITY; DOMINION CORRECTIONAL

PROPERTIES, LLC, d/b/a CROWLEY

COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY;

and DOMINION VENTURE GROUP,

d/b/a CROWLEY COUNTY

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY,

Defendants.

______________________________________________________________________________

AMENDED COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION ______________________________________________________________________________
COME NOW Sabinita Barron, Marcia Manchego and Christine Newland (“Intervenors”),
by and through their attorneys, Roseman & Kazmierski, LLC, and, for an Amended Complaint in
Intervention against Defendants and each of them, state and allege as follows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This Court has jurisdiction over Intervenors’ claims of sex discrimination and retaliation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3) and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1343(a)(4).

2. Venue herein is proper under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3). Intervenors’ claims of sex discrimination and retaliation arose within the District of Colorado.

-2-
3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), is the agency of the United States of America that is charged with the administration, interpretation, and enforcement of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq., 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. Each Intervenor is a female citizen of the United States. At all times pertinent hereto, each Intervenor was employed by one of the Defendants.
5. Each Defendant is an “employer” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b). At all times pertinent hereto, each Defendant engaged in an industry affecting commerce and had fifteen (15) or more employees for each working day in each of twenty (20) or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year.
JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENTS 6. Each Intervenor timely filed one or more charges of sex discrimination that satisfied the requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b) with Plaintiff. Each such charge was filed within three hundred (300) days after the most recent of the unlawful employment actions alleged therein. 7. Plaintiff named Intervenors in its Complaint.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF For a First Claim for Relief against Defendants and each of them, Intervenors adopt and incorporate by reference herein the allegations contained in Paragraphs Nos. 1 through7, inclusive, of this Complaint in Intervention, and further state and allege as follows: 8. Intervenors hereby join in and adopt the Complaint filed by Plaintiff in this case, as if recited in its entirety herein. 9. Defendants Dominion Correctional Services, LLC, Dominion Correctional Properties, LLC and Dominion Venture Group (“Dominion”), violated 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1) by discriminating against Intervenor Barron because of her sex. As a direct and proximate result of such actions, Intervenor Barron has been, is, and in the future will be deprived of income in the form of wages and prospective retirement benefits and other benefits due her as an employee, in a sum to be proven at trial.

-3-
10. Defendant Corrections Corporation of America (“CCA”) violated 42 U.S.C. § 2000e2(a)(1) by discriminating against Intervenor Manchego because of her sex. As a direct and proximate result of such actions, Intervenor Manchego has been, is, and in the future will be deprived of income in the form of wages and prospective retirement benefits and other benefits due her as an employee, in a sum to be proven at trial.
11. Defendants and each of them violated 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1) by discriminating against Intervenor Newland because of her sex. As a direct and proximate result of such actions, Intervenor Newland has been, is, and in the future will be deprived of income in the form of wages and prospective retirement benefits and other benefits due her as an employee, in a sum to be proven at trial.
12. In addition, as a direct and proximate result of such actions, each Intervenor has suffered and continues to suffer severe emotional distress.
13. Further, Defendants and each of them engaged in the said discriminatory practice or practices with malice or with reckless indifference to Intervenors’ federally protected rights. As a result, each Intervenor is entitled to recover, and should recover, punitive or exemplary damages from the Defendant or Defendants that engaged in the said discriminatory practice or practices with malice or with reckless indifference to her federally protected rights..
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF For a Second Claim for Relief, Intervenors adopt and incorporate by reference herein the allegations contained in Paragraphs Nos. 1 through 13, inclusive, of this Complaint in Intervention, and further state and allege as follows: 14. Defendants Dominion violated 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) by discriminating against Intervenor Barron because she opposed one or more employment practices that she believed in good faith to constitute sex discrimination and/or because she filed a charge of employment discrimination with Plaintiff. 15. Defendant CCA violated 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) by discriminating against Intervenor Manchego because she opposed one or more employment practices that she believed in good faith to constitute sex discrimination and/or because she filed a charge of employment discrimination with Plaintiff.

-4-
16. Defendants and each of them violated 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) by discriminating against Intervenor Newland because she opposed employment practices that she reasonably believed to constitute sex discrimination and/or because she filed a charge of employment discrimination with Plaintiff.
17. As a direct and proximate result of such actions, each Intervenor has been, is, and in the future will be deprived of income in the form of wages and prospective retirement benefits and other benefits due her as an employee, in a sum to be proven at trial.
18. In addition, as a direct and proximate result of such actions, each Intervenor has suffered and continues to suffer severe emotional distress.
19. Further, Defendants and each of them engaged in the said discriminatory practice or practices with malice or with reckless indifference to each Intervenor’s federally protected rights. As a result, each Intervenor is entitled to recover, and should recover, punitive or exemplary damages from the Defendant or Defendants that engaged in the said discriminatory practice or practices with malice or with reckless indifference to her federally protected rights.
WHEREFORE, Intervenors respectfully prays that this Court: A. Issue a declaratory judgment that the acts, policies, practices, and procedures of Defendants and each of them set forth in the Complaint in Intervention herein violated and continue to violate Intervenors’ rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq.; B. Order Defendants Dominion to pay Intervenor Barron back pay, reimbursement for lost pension and other benefits and expenses, and the present value other future lost earnings and future lost pension and other benefits and expenses, in an amount to be shown at trial; C. Order Defendant CCA to make Intervenors Manchego and Newland whole by reinstating her to her former position with it, providing appropriate back pay and reimbursement for lost pension and other benefits and expenses, in an amount to be shown at trial; and, should this Court determine that reinstatement is not a practicable option for either Intervenor Manchego or Newland, to pay such Intervenor back pay, reimbursement for lost pension and other benefits and expenses, and the present value other future lost earnings and future lost pension and other benefits and expenses, in an amount to be shown at trial;

-5-
D. Enter judgment in favor of Intervenors and against Defendants and each of them for compensatory and punitive damages, in an amount to be shown at trial;
E. Grant to each Intervenor any attorney’s fees she may incur, plus her costs, expert witness fees, disbursements, and pre - and post-judgment interest; and
F. Grant such other and additional relief as may to this Court seem proper
Respectfully submitted,
ROSEMAN & KAZMIERSKI, LLC s/Barry D. Roseman BARRY D. ROSEMAN 1120 Lincoln Street, Suite 1607 Denver, Colorado 80203 Telephone: (303) 839-1771 FAX: (303) 861-9214 E-mail: broseman@nela.org Attorneys for Intervenors
INTERVENORS DEMAND TRIAL BY JURY ON ALL ISSUES SO TRIABLE RAISED HEREIN Address of Intervenor Sabinita Barron: 1104 Virginia Drive Rocky Ford, CO 81067 Address of Intervenor Marcia Manchego:
15153 County Road E.25 Ordway, CO 81063 Address of Intervenor Christine Newland:
2505 Verde Drive, Apt. 335 Colorado Springs, CO 80910

-6-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that, on the eighteenth day of January 2007, a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing Amended Complaint in Intervention was sent via CM/ECF electronic filing, addressed to the following parties:

Lynn L. Palma, Esq. Nancy A. Weeks, Esq. EEOC Field Office 303 East 17th Avenue, Suite 510 Denver, CO 80203

Colleen M. Rea, Esq. Peter F. Munger, Esq. John C. Lowrie, Esq. Ford & Harrison, LLP 1675 Broadway, Suite 1250 Denver, CO 80202

s/Jessica E. Floyd Jessica E. Floyd

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 06-cv-01956-EWN-MJW
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
and
SABINITA BARRON, MARCIA MANCHEGO and CHRISTINE NEWLAND,

Plaintiff, Intervenors,

v.

CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA, a Maryland Corporation, d/b/a CROWLEY COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, and

DOMINION CORRECTIONAL SERVICES,

LLC, a Delaware Corporation, d/b/a

CROWLEY COUNTY CORRECTIONAL

FACILITY; DOMINION CORRECTIONAL

PROPERTIES, LLC, d/b/a CROWLEY

COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY;

and DOMINION VENTURE GROUP,

d/b/a CROWLEY COUNTY

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY,

Defendants.

______________________________________________________________________________

AMENDED COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION ______________________________________________________________________________
COME NOW Sabinita Barron, Marcia Manchego and Christine Newland (“Intervenors”),
by and through their attorneys, Roseman & Kazmierski, LLC, and, for an Amended Complaint in
Intervention against Defendants and each of them, state and allege as follows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This Court has jurisdiction over Intervenors’ claims of sex discrimination and retaliation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3) and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1343(a)(4).

2. Venue herein is proper under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3). Intervenors’ claims of sex discrimination and retaliation arose within the District of Colorado.

-2-
3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), is the agency of the United States of America that is charged with the administration, interpretation, and enforcement of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq., 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. Each Intervenor is a female citizen of the United States. At all times pertinent hereto, each Intervenor was employed by one of the Defendants.
5. Each Defendant is an “employer” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b). At all times pertinent hereto, each Defendant engaged in an industry affecting commerce and had fifteen (15) or more employees for each working day in each of twenty (20) or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year.
JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENTS 6. Each Intervenor timely filed one or more charges of sex discrimination that satisfied the requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b) with Plaintiff. Each such charge was filed within three hundred (300) days after the most recent of the unlawful employment actions alleged therein. 7. Plaintiff named Intervenors in its Amended Complaint.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF For a First Claim for Relief against Defendants and each of them, Intervenors adopt and incorporate by reference herein the allegations contained in Paragraphs Nos. 1 through7, inclusive, of this Amended Complaint in Intervention, and further state and allege as follows: 8. Intervenors hereby join in and adopt the Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff in this case, as if recited in its entirety herein. 9. Defendants Dominion Correctional Services, LLC, Dominion Correctional Properties, LLC and Dominion Venture Group (“Dominion”), violated 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1) by discriminating against Intervenor Barron because of her sex. As a direct and proximate result of such actions, Intervenor Barron has been, is, and in the future will be deprived of income in the form of wages and prospective retirement benefits and other benefits due her as an employee, in a sum to be proven at trial.

-3-
10. Defendant Corrections Corporation of America (“CCA”) violated 42 U.S.C. § 2000e2(a)(1) by discriminating against Intervenor Manchego because of her sex. As a direct and proximate result of such actions, Intervenor Manchego has been, is, and in the future will be deprived of income in the form of wages and prospective retirement benefits and other benefits due her as an employee, in a sum to be proven at trial.
11. Defendants and each of them violated 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1) by discriminating against Intervenor Newland because of her sex. As a direct and proximate result of such actions, Intervenor Newland has been, is, and in the future will be deprived of income in the form of wages and prospective retirement benefits and other benefits due her as an employee, in a sum to be proven at trial.
12. In addition, as a direct and proximate result of such actions, each Intervenor has suffered and continues to suffer severe emotional distress.
13. Further, Defendants and each of them engaged in the said discriminatory practice or practices with malice or with reckless indifference to Intervenors’ federally protected rights. As a result, each Intervenor is entitled to recover, and should recover, punitive or exemplary damages from the Defendant or Defendants that engaged in the said discriminatory practice or practices with malice or with reckless indifference to her federally protected rights..
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF For a Second Claim for Relief, Intervenors adopt and incorporate by reference herein the allegations contained in Paragraphs Nos. 1 through 13, inclusive, of this Amended Complaint in Intervention, and further state and allege as follows: 14. Defendants Dominion violated 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) by discriminating against Intervenor Barron because she opposed one or more employment practices that she believed in good faith to constitute sex discrimination and/or because she filed a charge of employment discrimination with Plaintiff. 15. Defendant CCA violated 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) by discriminating against Intervenor Manchego because she opposed one or more employment practices that she believed in good faith to constitute sex discrimination and/or because she filed a charge of employment discrimination with Plaintiff.

-4-
16. Defendants and each of them violated 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) by discriminating against Intervenor Newland because she opposed employment practices that she reasonably believed to constitute sex discrimination and/or because she filed a charge of employment discrimination with Plaintiff.
17. As a direct and proximate result of such actions, each Intervenor has been, is, and in the future will be deprived of income in the form of wages and prospective retirement benefits and other benefits due her as an employee, in a sum to be proven at trial.
18. In addition, as a direct and proximate result of such actions, each Intervenor has suffered and continues to suffer severe emotional distress.
19. Further, Defendants and each of them engaged in the said discriminatory practice or practices with malice or with reckless indifference to each Intervenor’s federally protected rights. As a result, each Intervenor is entitled to recover, and should recover, punitive or exemplary damages from the Defendant or Defendants that engaged in the said discriminatory practice or practices with malice or with reckless indifference to her federally protected rights.
WHEREFORE, Intervenors respectfully prays that this Court: A. Issue a declaratory judgment that the acts, policies, practices, and procedures of Defendants and each of them set forth in the Amended Complaint in Intervention herein violated and continue to violate Intervenors’ rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq.; B. Order Defendants Dominion to pay Intervenor Barron back pay, reimbursement for lost pension and other benefits and expenses, and the present value other future lost earnings and future lost pension and other benefits and expenses, in an amount to be shown at trial; C. Order Defendant CCA to make Intervenors Manchego and Newland whole by reinstating her to her former position with it, providing appropriate back pay and reimbursement for lost pension and other benefits and expenses, in an amount to be shown at trial; and, should this Court determine that reinstatement is not a practicable option for either Intervenor Manchego or Newland, to pay such Intervenor back pay, reimbursement for lost pension and other benefits and expenses, and the present value other future lost earnings and future lost pension and other benefits and expenses, in an amount to be shown at trial;

-5-
D. Enter judgment in favor of Intervenors and against Defendants and each of them for compensatory and punitive damages, in an amount to be shown at trial;
E. Grant to each Intervenor any attorney’s fees she may incur, plus her costs, expert witness fees, disbursements, and pre - and post-judgment interest; and
F. Grant such other and additional relief as may to this Court seem proper
Respectfully submitted,
ROSEMAN & KAZMIERSKI, LLC s/Barry D. Roseman BARRY D. ROSEMAN 1120 Lincoln Street, Suite 1607 Denver, Colorado 80203 Telephone: (303) 839-1771 FAX: (303) 861-9214 E-mail: broseman@nela.org Attorneys for Intervenors
INTERVENORS DEMAND TRIAL BY JURY ON ALL ISSUES SO TRIABLE RAISED HEREIN Address of Intervenor Sabinita Barron: 1104 Virginia Drive Rocky Ford, CO 81067 Address of Intervenor Marcia Manchego:
15153 County Road E.25 Ordway, CO 81063 Address of Intervenor Christine Newland:
2505 Verde Drive, Apt. 335 Colorado Springs, CO 80910

-6-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that, on the tweney-second day of January 2007, a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing Amended Complaint in Intervention was sent via CM/ECF electronic filing, addressed to the following parties:

Lynn L. Palma, Esq. Nancy A. Weeks, Esq. EEOC Field Office 303 East 17th Avenue, Suite 510 Denver, CO 80203

Colleen M. Rea, Esq. Peter F. Munger, Esq. John C. Lowrie, Esq. Ford & Harrison, LLP 1675 Broadway, Suite 1250 Denver, CO 80202

s/Jessica E. Floyd Jessica E. Floyd

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No.: 06-cv-1956-EWN-MJN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff, v. CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA, a Maryland Corporation, d/b/a CROWLEY COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, and DOMINION CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware Corporation, d/b/a CROWLEY COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; DOMINION CORRECTIONAL PROPERTIES, LLC, d/b/a CROWLEY COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; and DOMINION VENTURE GROUP, d/b/a CROWLEY COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY,
Defendants.
AMENDED COMPLAINT and JURY TRIAL DEMAND
NATURE OF THE ACTION This is a public enforcement action to correct (1) the unlawful pattern or practice of maintaining a hostile work environment based on gender in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et. seq. (“Title VII”), and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a, and (2) the unlawful pattern or practice of retaliating against employees for complaining about discrimination, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a. This action seeks to provide appropriate relief to Marcia Manchego,
1

Christine Newland, Sabinitha Baron, and similarly situated individuals adversely affected by such practices. Plaintiff, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), contends Defendants, Correctional Corporation of America, Inc., d/b/a Crowley County Correctional Facility (hereafter, “CCA”) and Dominion Correctional Services, LLC. d/b/a Crowley County Correctional Facility, Dominion Correctional Properties, LLC, d/b/a Crowley County Correctional Facility, and Dominion Venture Group, d/b/a Crowley County Correctional Facility (hereafter collectively referred to as “Dominion”) have discriminated against Charging Parties and similarly situated individuals, because of their gender, female, by subjecting them to sexual harassment and a hostile work environment, by failing to take prompt remedial action intended to eliminate the sexual harassment, and by retaliating against Manchego, Newland and similarly situated individuals for complaining about or opposing the hostile work environment, all in violation of Title VII.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction of this court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Sections 703(a), 704, 706(f)(1), 706(f)(3), of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2(a), 2000e-3, 2000e-5(f)(1), 2000e-5(f)(3), and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §1981a. 2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff EEOC is the agency of the United States of America charged with the
2

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. The female employees who filed the charges of discrimination with the EEOC hereafter will be referred to as “Manchego,” “Newland,” and “Baron” or collectively as “Charging Parties.” 5. The Crowley County Correctional Facility is a prison located at Olney Springs, Colorado, and began operations in approximately 1998. 6. From December 2000 until January 2003, Defendants Dominion operated Crowley County Correctional Facility. 7. In or around January 2003, Defendant Corrections Corporation of America purchased or assumed the assets and liabilities of Dominion, and accordingly is liable for all claims that Plaintiff may have against Dominion. CCA currently operates the facility. 8. At the times relevant to the allegation in this complaint, Crowley County Correctional Facility was operated and controlled by Defendants Dominion or CCA. 9. At the times relevant to the allegations in this complaint, Dominion were corporations, that were licensed to do business within the state of Colorado. 10. At the times relevant to the allegations in this complaint, Dominion employed at least 15 employees 11. At the times relevant to the allegations in this complaint, CCA was a corporation, incorporated in the State of Maryland, licensed to do business within the state of Colorado. 12. At the times relevant to the allegations in this complaint, CCA employed at least 15 employees.
3

13. At all relevant times, Defendant CCA 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). CCA. 14. At all relevant times, Defendants Dominion has or have continuously been an employer or employers 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). CCA. 15. From about January 2003, Defendant CCA was the employer of the employees working at Crowley County Correctional Facility within the meaning of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e. 16. From December 2000 until January 2003, Defendant Dominions was or were the employer(s) of the employees working at Crowley County Correctional Facility within the meaning of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e.
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 17. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Marcia Manchego, Christine Newland, and Sabinitha Baron, employees at Crowley County Correctional Facility during the relevant times, filed charges of discrimination with the EEOC alleging violations of Title VII by Defendants. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.
First Claim: Gender-Based Hostile Work Environment and Sexual Harassment 18. Since at least 2000, Defendants Dominion, and since at least 2003 Defendant CCA, have engaged in unlawful employment practices at Crowley County Correctional Facility, in violation of section 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(a), by allowing its employees, including but not limited to management level officials, to sexually harass Manchego, Newland, Baron, and a class of other similarly situated female employees. This harassment altered the terms and
4

conditions of employment and created a hostile work environment for Manchego, Newland, Baron, and a class of other similarly situated female employees. 19. Male managers and correctional officers participated in harassing conduct toward female employees and fostered a sexual and gender-based hostile work environment in which male managers and co-workers were encouraged to harass and retaliate against female employees. 20. The unlawful sexual harassment and gender-based harassment involved repeated, serious, verbal and physical harassment of the female employees, which included, but was not limited to, the following conduct:
(a) Starting with the interviewing process of new hires, male supervisors made comments about whether or not to hire a prospective female employee based upon her attractiveness, whether she might be “easy to get to bed,” or whether she might be easily manipulated.
(b) Females who resisted sexual activity suffered consequences, including without limitation: hostile and demeaning verbal and physical advances, undesirable and even dangerous shift assignments, and reduced opportunities for advancement.
(c) Female employees were routinely groped, pawed, and physically assaulted by male management and male co-workers.
(d) The retaliatory atmosphere against women who reported sexual harassment or who supported others who complained of rights protected under Title VII contributed to and perpetuated the hostile work environment.
21. The offensive sexual conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive as to alter the terms and conditions of employees subjected to the conduct.
5

22. The sexual harassment in the work place created a hostile work environment based on gender. 23. Defendants were aware of the sexual harassment and aware that some managers participated in the harassment. 24. Defendants engaged in a continuing pattern or practice of tolerating and fostering a sexually hostile work environment. 25. Defendants failed to take reasonable measures to prevent and promptly remedy sexual harassment in the workplace. 26. The effect of the events and conduct described above, including the sexual harassment by managers and Defendants’ failure to promptly and adequately respond to employee complaints of sexual harassment and to correct sexual harassment of which it was aware, has been to deprive Manchego, Newland, Baron, and other similarly situated employees of equal employment opportunities. 27. The unlawful employment practices described above were intentional. 28. The unlawful employment practices described above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Manchego, Newland, Baron, and other similarly situated employees.
Second Claim: Retaliation 29. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint. 30. Since at least calendar year 2000, Defendants Dominion, and since at least calendar year 2003, Defendant CCA, have engaged in unlawful employment practices at Crowley County Correctional Facility, in violation of section 704(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-3, by allowing
6

its male employees, including but not limited to management level officials, to retaliate against Manchego, Newland, and other similarly situated female employees who complained of discrimination or refused to participate in or acquiesce to the hostile work environment. This retaliation altered the terms and conditions of employment for Manchego, Newland, and other similarly situated female employees for complaining about sexual harassment or for supporting rights protected under Title VII. 31. Newland engaged in protected activities in that she opposed the sexual harassment and complained to the highest Dominion and CCA managers at Crowley about the sexual harassing conduct of the Chief of Security and of the pattern or practice of sexual harassment. 32. Manchego engaged in protected activities in that she supported the complaint of a female supervisor about sexual harassment and retaliation. 33. The retaliatory acts directed at Manchego, Newland, and similarly situated female employees included, but were not limited to conduct as set forth below:
(a) subjecting Manchego, Newland, and other similarly situated female employees to increased scrutiny on the job after they voiced complaints of harassment and/or retaliation;
(b) failing to investigate internal claims of harassment and retaliation, and thus contributing to the perpetuation of a pervasive and severe hostile work environment;
(c) making false charges against Manchego, Newland, and other similarly situated female employees in order to justify retaliatory discipline, discharge, or refusal to allow the individual to return to work;
7

(d) publicizing the claims brought by Manchego, Newland, and other similarly situated female employees to other male managers and male co-workers, which resulted in ostracism and hostile actions by their male supervisors and male coworkers;
(e) assigning Newland and similarly situated females to substantial changes in their work assignments, including lack of support with inmates that exposed them to the risk of physical harm;
(f) assigning Newland and similarly situated females to isolated areas to perform work assignments with their alleged harassers, thereby exposing them to actual and threatened physical abuse by their male harassers.
34. Defendants failed to take reasonable measures to prevent retaliation against Manchego, Newland, and similarly situated female employees. 35. Defendants retaliated against Manchego, Newland, and similarly situated female employees for complaining about the sexual harassment or for engaging in other Title VII protected activities, and/or to deter other female employees from exercising rights protected by Title VII. 36. The effect of the continuing pattern or practices complained of in the paragraphs above has been to deprive Manchego, Newland, and similarly situated females of equal employment opportunities based their Title VII protected activities. 37. The continuing unlawful pattern or practices complained of in the paragraphs above were intentional. 38. The continuing unlawful pattern or practices complained of in the paragraphs above were
8

done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Manchego, Newland, and similarly situated female employees.
9

PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants CCA and Dominion, their officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in any employment policy or practice which creates a sexually or retaliatory hostile work environment or otherwise discriminates on the basis of sex or retaliates in response to Title VII protected activities; B. Order Defendants CCA and Dominion to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for women, and which eradicate the effects of its past unlawful employment practices, including retaliation; C. Order Defendants CCA and Dominion to make whole Manchego, Newland, Baron and similarly situated females by providing appropriate back pay with pre-judgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices; D. Order Defendants CCA and Dominion to make whole Manchego, Newland, and similarly situated former employee employees, by reinstating them in their previously held positions or the equivalent thereof or, in the alternative, by providing appropriate front pay in amounts to be determined at trial; E. Order Defendants CCA and Dominion to make whole Manchego, Newland, Baron, and other similarly situated individuals, by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described above;
10

F. Order Defendants CCA and Dominion to make whole Manchego, Newland, Baron, and other similarly situated individuals, by providing compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses, including emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life and humiliation;
G. Order Defendants CCA and Dominion to pay Manchego, Newland, Baron, and other similarly situated individuals punitive damages for its malicious and/or reckless conduct described above, in amounts to be determined at trial;
H. Order Defendants CCA, Dominion, to provide training to its officers, managers and employees regarding discriminatory harassment and retaliation in the workplace;
I. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest; and
J. Award the Commission its costs in this action. JURY TRIAL DEMAND
The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its Complaint. DATED this 11th day of January, 2007
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
11

s/ Nancy A. Weeks NANCY A. WEEKS Supervisory Trial Attorney EEOC Denver Field Office 303 E. 17th Ave., Suite 510 Denver, CO 80203 nancy.weeks@eeoc.gov 303-866-1947 s/ Lynn L. Palma LYNN L. PALMA Senior Trial Attorney lynn.palma@eeoc.gov 303-866-1347
12

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 06-cv-01956-KHV-MJW EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff, and
SABINITA BARRON, MARCIA MANCHEGO, and CHRISTINE NEWLAND,
Intervenors,
v. CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA, a Maryland corporation, d/b/a CROWLEY COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, and DOMINION CORRECTIONAL SERVICES LLC, an Oklahoma corporation, d/b/a CROWLEY COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY,
Defendants.
CONSENT DECREE ______________________________________________________________________________
I. RECITALS 1. The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the Commission or EEOC) filed this action on September 29, 2006, against Corrections Corporation of America (“CCA”) and Dominion Correctional Services LLC (“Dominion”) to enforce Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (Title VII), and the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a. In its complaint, the Commission alleged that defendants (1) engaged

in an unlawful pattern or practice of maintaining a hostile work environment based on gender in violation of Title VII and the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a, and (2) engaged in an unlawful pattern or practice of retaliating against employees for complaining about discrimination or otherwise engaging in protected activity in violation of Title VII and the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a. The Commission seeks appropriate relief for Marcia Manchego, Christine Newland, Sabinita Barron, and a class of similarly situated women who were adversely affected by such practices (hereafter referred to collectively as “class members”). EEOC contends that defendants discriminated against these individuals because of their gender, female, by subjecting them to sexual harassment and a hostile work environment, by failing to take prompt remedial action intended to eliminate sexual harassment, and by retaliating against Manchego, Newland, and a class of similarly situated women for complaining about a hostile work environment, all in violation of Title VII. On November 28, 2006, Sabinita Barron, Marcia Manchego, and Christine Newland moved to intervene in this matter. The court granted the motion to intervene on November 28, 2006.
2. Defendants deny the allegations in this lawsuit and specifically deny all allegations that they unlawfully harassed or retaliated against any class member or intervenor and that they created or tolerated a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII. Defendants agree to the consent decree solely to avoid the cost and uncertainties of trial and to buy their peace. No statement in this agreement constitutes, nor should it be construed to constitute, an admission of wrongdoing. 3. Defendant Dominion is defunct and not engaged in any business.
2

4. The parties agree the court has jurisdiction over this action and waive their rights to a hearing, the entry of findings of fact and conclusions of law, and a trial by jury. This Court shall retain jurisdiction over this action for the duration of the decree, during which the EEOC may petition this court for compliance with this decree. Should the court determine that either defendant has not complied with this decree, appropriate relief may be ordered. 5. The parties agree that this consent decree is fair, reasonable, equitable, and does not violate the law or public policy. 6. In the interest of resolving this action and as a result of comprehensive settlement negotiations, the parties agree that this action should be finally and completely resolved in accordance with the terms of this consent decree.
THEREFORE, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:
II. GENERAL 7. This decree resolves all claims of the EEOC and intervenors against defendants in this lawsuit, including, without limitation, claims for back pay, front pay, compensatory and punitive damages, interest, injunctive and equitable relief, and attorney’s fees and costs. EEOC and intervenors agree that they shall not appeal the summary judgment entered against them and in favor of Dominion Correctional Properties, LLC and Dominion Venture Group on March 12, 2009. 8. Each party shall bear their own costs and attorney’s fees incurred in this action, except as otherwise stated in this decree. 9. The parties agree to entry of this consent decree and judgment subject to final approval by the court.
3

10. This decree may be executed in more than one counterpart, each of which shall be deemed as original, but all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument. In addition, facsimile signatures shall be deemed as valid as original signatures. 11. Defendant Dominion agrees that it will not engage in the business of operating prisons in the State of Colorado for the term of this decree.
III. SCOPE AND DURATION 12. Except as provided in paragraph 11 above, the geographical scope of this decree is limited to the Crowley County Correctional Facility in Olney Springs, Colorado (“CCCF”). 13. This decree takes effect upon the date it is entered by the court and expires of its own accord three years from the date the Court enters this decree or the date on which CCA no longer operates or manages the CCCF, whichever occurs sooner.
IV. MONETARY RELIEF 14. Judgment is entered in favor of the EEOC and intervenors and against the defendants in the amount of one million three hundred thousand dollars ($1,300,000). This amount includes payment for attorneys’ fees incurred in this action. 15. Defendants shall distribute the judgment amount separately to each class member by check and in accordance with the allocation set out in Exhibit A. The total amount due shall not exceed the amount of judgment in paragraph 14. These payments represent settlement of all back pay, compensatory damages, and other monetary claims in this action and shall be distributed as set forth in the allocation provided by the EEOC. Defendants shall make no deductions from the amounts set forth as compensatory damages. Within the time period required by law, defendants shall issue United States Internal Revenue Service 1099 forms for
4

all payments designated as compensatory damages. Defendant CCA will withhold taxes as required by law from amounts on Exhibit A designated as wages with respect to class members it employed. Within the time period required by law, defendant CCA shall issue United States Internal Revenue Service W-2 forms for all payments designated as wage damages with respect to the class members it employed. 16. Defendants shall mail the checks directly to each class member and intervenor at the addresses supplied by the EEOC. 17. Payments required by this section are due within 30 calendar days after the defendants receive the address for each intervenor and class member from the EEOC and the court has entered this decree, whichever is later. 18. Within five business days of issuance of the settlement checks, each defendant shall furnish a copy of each check it issued and any related correspondence to the Regional Attorney, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 3300 N. Central Avenue, Suite 690, Phoenix, Arizona 85012. 19. Defendants will not condition the receipt of monetary relief on any class member’s agreement to: (a) keep the terms of this decree confidential; (b) waive her statutory right to file prospectively a charge with any federal or state anti-discrimination agency; or (c) refrain from applying for employment at defendants’ facilities. Defendant Dominion ceased operating the CCCF on January 17, 2003. Because charges of discrimination must be filed within 300 days of the last alleged discriminatory act, the parties agree that any charges filed after the date of this decree and based on conduct that occurred during any of the class members' employment would be untimely and subject to dismissal.
5

20. Each defendant shall mail its respective letter attached to this decree as Exhibits B or C to each class member the defendant employed, except that neither defendant need send a letter to any class member it employed who did not bring direct claims against it in this action. These letters shall be mailed within 30 days after the defendants receive class member addresses from the EEOC and the court has entered the decree, whichever is later.
V. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 21. CCA and its officers, agents, employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, are enjoined for the duration of the decree from (a) discriminating against any employee by means of a gender-based hostile work environment and/or sexual harassment and (b) retaliating against any employee because he or she (i) opposed discriminatory practices based on a gender-based hostile work environment and/or sexual harassment made unlawful by Title VII, (ii) filed a charge or is assisting or participating in the filing of a charge of sexual harassment, or (iii) assisted or participated in an investigation or proceeding brought under Title VII based on gender-based hostile work environment, sexual harassment or retaliation.
VI. OTHER RELIEF 22. Personnel files – Within 30 days from the date the Court approves this Consent Decree, CCA shall expunge from the personnel files of each class member employed by CCA and all personnel files of class members in its possession, all references, if any, to the charges of discrimination filed against defendants in this action and her participation in this action, all disciplinary actions resulting in suspensions, and all records related to an involuntary termination, if any. CCA may provide any such documents to its legal counsel for retention. The obligation to expunge suspension and involuntary termination documents does not apply to
6

any intervenor or class member whose suspension or involuntary termination occurred after September 29, 2006. 23. Resignation - Class members or intervenors whom CCA discharged from employment on or before September 29, 2006, may, within 30 days of entry of this decree, submit to the Warden at the CCCF a letter of resignation. The letter shall simply state that the class member resigns her employment from CCA effective the date of her discharge. CCA will place any such resignation letter in the class member’s personnel file and remove from the file any documents related to the class member’s discharge. CCA may provide any of the removed documents to its legal counsel for retention. 24. Defendant Dominion agrees that if Dominion Venture Group or any related company is contacted for references regarding any of the class members, they shall state, "Dominion Correctional Services, LLC is not in business and we do not provide references." 25. References – Within 30 days of entry of this decree, CCA will provide class members it employed a letter that states the class member’s dates of employment with CCA, positions held, and salary or wage at the time the class member’s CCA employment ended. In the event CCA receives a class member’s waiver and release from a government employer that permits CCA to disclose the class member’s employment records to the prospective employer, and the government employer requests all employment records (as opposed to just requesting the personnel file) for the class member, CCA may provide the prospective governmental employer, without violating this decree, any document removed from the class member’s file pursuant to paragraph 22. If CCA does provide these documents, it shall provide the removed documents separately with a cover sheet indicating that discipline or termination was reversed.
7

CCA shall also include in its disclosure any class member letter of resignation submitted to CCA in accordance with paragraph 23. 26. Policy - CCA shall maintain policies and practices that help assure a work environment free from sexual harassment of their employees and that allow employees to raise concerns or complaints without retaliation about matters, whether alleged, perceived, or actual, made unlawful by Title VII. CCA shall also maintain its 1-800 number for reporting complaints during the term of this decree. 27. Notice - CCA shall post for the duration of this decree, in a prominent place frequented by its employees at the CCCF, the notice attached as Exhibit D. The notice shall be the same type, style, and size as Exhibit D.
VII. TRAINING 28. CCA shall provide training on sexual harassment and retaliation in accordance with the terms set forth in this Section VII. 29. CCA shall retain and pay for a training consultant who shall provide consultation and training for a period of three years from the date of this decree. This training consultant shall be an attorney specializing in the field of employment discrimination law. CCA agrees to provide the EEOC the name and qualifications of the individual who will conduct the training. CCA will obtain the EEOC’s approval of the trainer, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld. During each of the next three years, the training consultant shall conduct one live training session each year. In addition, the individual responsible for receiving complaints through CCA’s 1-800 number shall attend the training and introduce herself and discuss her role in the complaint process and the purpose and availability of the 1-800 number for reporting
8

complaints. These training sessions will be focused on how to identify, report, and document sexual harassment and retaliation in the workplace. A training session held during the first year shall be videotaped and may be used in subsequent training occurring after three years have passed. All active CCA employees at the CCCF shall attend the live training sessions in each of the three years. CCA may, at its election, use videotaped sessions to accommodate staffing needs. In addition to the three live sessions discussed above, during the term of this decree, a videotape of the training shall be shown to each class of the academy as a condition of graduation from CCA’s new hire training academy. CCA shall be responsible for any additional costs to provide such videotaped sessions. 30. All CCCF human resources and managerial staff (including, but not limited to, lieutenants, sergeants, captains, unit managers, chiefs of security, assistant wardens, wardens, and investigators) will be provided with at least two hours of training on preventing, identifying, reporting, and responding to sexual harassment and retaliation in the workplace. Employees who are assigned to investigate sexual harassment or retaliation allegations or complaints will also be trained on conducting such investigations. 31. The training required by this section during the first year shall be conducted within four months of the entry of this decree. For the second and third years, the training session shall be conducted between ten (10) and thirteen (13) months after the completion of the preceding session. 32. The live training sessions required by this section shall be no less than ninety (90) minutes, plus fifteen (15) to thirty (30) minutes of time set aside for questions and answers. All
9

personnel attending any of the seminars or training shall sign a registry of attendance. CCA

shall retain these registries for the duration of this decree.

33. The training shall cover what constitutes sexual harassment and retaliation; that sexual

harassment and retaliation in the hiring, firing, compensation, assignment, or other terms,

conditions, or privileges of employment violates Title VII; how to prevent sexual harassment

and retaliation; how to provide a work environment free from sexual harassment and retaliation;

and to whom and by what means employees may complain if they feel they have been subjected

to sexual harassment or retaliation in the workplace. The session shall also review and explain

CCA’s policies prohibiting sexual harassment and retaliation in the workplace.

34. During the live training sessions required by this Section, the warden shall speak to the

employees about the discipline that will be taken against supervisors, managers, and employees

who commit acts of sexual harassment or retaliation or allow sexual harassment or retaliation to

occur in the workplace, the importance of maintaining an environment free of sexual

harassment and retaliation, and CCA’s policy in regard to sexual harassment and retaliation.

VIII. POLICIES

35. CCA shall maintain a written policy concerning sexual harassment and retaliation that

conforms to the law. The policy CCA maintains during the duration of this decree shall

contain at a minimum:

A. A clear commitment to a workplace free of sexual harassment and

unlawf

ul retaliation;

B. Definitions of sexual harassment, both quid pro quo and environmental, and

retaliation,

with relevant examples;

C. Encouragement of persons who believe they have been harassed or

10

subjec

ted to retaliation to come forward;

D. A description of the consequences, up to and including termination,

that may be imposed upon violators of the policy;

E. A promise of confidentiality to the extent feasible for persons who report that

they have been harassed or retaliated against;

F. An assurance of non-retaliation for witnesses of sexual harassment and persons

who report they have been sexually harassed;

G. That sexual harassment by all persons, including management officials,

superviso

rs, vendors, suppliers, third parties, and customers is prohibited and will

not

be tolerated;

H. The identification of specific employee positions, with telephone numbers, to

whom employees who have observed sexual harassment or have been sexually

harassed or retaliated against can report the sexual harassment, including a written

statement that the employee may report the harassment to designated persons

outside their chain of management;

I. That employees who discuss sexual conduct or tell sexual jokes while at work

may be in violation of CCA’s policy and subject to discipline;

J. Employees who view pornography in the workplace other than for job-related

purposes may be in violation of CCA’s policy and subject to discipline;

K. That physical contact of a sexual nature between employees is prohibited on

CCA’s

premises;

L. Assurances that CCA will investigate sexual harassment and retaliation

allegations promptly by appropriate investigators and that CCA will remedy any

violations of its policy the investigation reveals;

M. CCA’s sexual harassment and retaliation policy shall be distributed to each

current employee within sixty (60) days of the entry of the decree. These policies

shall be distributed to all new employees when hired and reissued to each

employee once a year for the term of this decree. These policies

also shall be posted in a prominent place frequented by the employees.

11

36. CCA shall inform employees with supervisory authority that failure to enforce the sexual harassment and anti-retaliation policy may result in disciplinary action. CCA shall institute a procedure which evaluates all employees with supervisory roles on their performance in responding to complaints of sexual harassment and retaliation. Each of these employees shall be advised that the failure of such an employee to enforce the sexual harassment and antiretaliation policy may result in disciplinary action.
IX. INVESTIGATIONS 37. CCA shall promptly and appropriately respond to all complaints of sexual harassment and retaliation. The response must include a finding of whether sexual harassment or retaliation occurred or whether it was unsubstantiated; a credibility assessment, if necessary; interviews of all alleged victims and witnesses identified; and a detailed report of the investigation. In the event CCA concludes that its sexual harassment or retaliation policy was violated, it shall take prompt and appropriate corrective and remedial action.
38. CCA shall not retain documents related to any sexual harassment or retaliation investigation in the personnel file of any employee who complains of harassment or retaliation. All disciplinary actions taken against employees for violation of CCA’s sexual harassment or anti-retaliation policy will be retained in that employee’s personnel file where a violation is found and discipline is imposed.
12

39. During the duration of this decree, the CCCF warden shall report to CCA’s ethics compliance office all complaints of a serious violation of CCA’s sexual harassment or retaliation policy. A “complaint of a serious violation” means:
A. A complaint that includes allegations of physical conduct of a sexual nature in the workplace; B. a complaint that includes allegations of quid pro quo sexual harassment; C. a complaint that includes allegations of repeated sexual advances, requests for
sexual favors, and other verbal conduct of a sexual nature if the complaint is the second complaint against the same person. 40. CCA’s ethics compliance office shall assign an experienced investigator to investigate all such serious complaints. The investigator must not be employed by CCA at the CCCF, but may be a CCA employee employed at CCA’s headquarters or other facility. CCA may also engage the services of an outside investigator. 41. The investigation shall be conducted in accordance with paragraph 37.

VII. REPORTS TO EEOC 42. CCA shall report in writing to the Regional Attorney of the Commission’s Phoenix District Office at 3300 North Central Avenue, Suit 690, Phoenix, Arizona 85012, beginning six (6) months from the date of the entry of this decree, and thereafter every twelve months for the duration of the decree, the following information:

A. Any changes, modifications, revocations, or revisions to its policies

and procedures that concern or affect the subject of sexual

harassm

ent and retaliation;

13

B. A copy of the videotaped training, which may be a copy of the training without an audience;
C. The name, address, position, and telephone number of any CCA employee employed at the CCCF who has brought allegations of sexual harassment or retaliation against any CCA personnel at the facility, formal or informal (including complaints to the 1-800 number) as defmed in paragraph 39, along with a description of the general nature of the allegations, the investigation date(s), and a description of any corrective action taken.
D. The registry of persons attending the training required Section VII. E. Confirmation that the notice required in paragraph 27 was posted and the
locations where it was posted, and that the expungement from the class members' personnel files required in paragraph 22 took place, the date of the expungement, and identification of the specific documents expunged.

SO ORDERED.

s/ Kathryn H. Vratil United States District Court Judge October 1, 2009 Date

APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY C By:

Date:

14

CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA

By: Steven Groom
Deputy General Counsel

Date:

DOMINION CORRECTIONAL SERVICES LLC

By: James Hunter
Former Vice President

Date:

Peter F. Munger Ford & Harrison LLP
1675 Broadway, Suite 2150 Denver, CO 80202 Attorneys for Corrections Corporation of America
Daniel R. Satriana, Jr., Esq. Clisham, Satriana & Biscan, L.L.C. 1512 Larimer Street, Suite 400 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: 303-468-5402 Counsel for Dominion Correctional S~ . ~. I
an, f-sq. McNamar~Rosema'n, Martinez & Kazmierski, LLP 1640 East 18th Avenue Denver, CO 80218 Counsel for Plaintiff Intervenors

Date: Date:
Date:~~W

}~~ ~

15

Exhibit A - Class Member Allocations

CLASS MEMBER 1. Darlene Alvord
2. Nanette Aragon

Wages 0
10,000

Compensatory 15,000
10,000

3. Amanda Armstrong Marquez

0

50,000

4. Sabinita Barron 5. Carolyn Baylor

0

130,000

0

5,000

6. Emma Cordova

30,000

70,000

7. Venisha Lopez

10,000

10,000

8. Genevieve Luna

0

100,000

9. Lisamarie Maize

0

40,000

10. Marcia Manchego 11. Janelle Marquez

15,000 0

50,000 40,000

12. Sunni O’Malley

0

50,000

13. Christine Newland 14. Pam Pearce

25,000 7,500

130,000 7,500

15. Shirley Richardson

0

40,000

16. Kathleen Robinson

7,500

7,500

17. Dolores Salazar

0

100,000

18. Debbie Salas

0

15,000

19. Valori Segura

0

60,000

20. Balbina Tavarez

0

40,000

16

21. Catheryn Watkins
22. McNamara, Roseman, Martinez &Kazmierski, LLP

10,000

75,000 140,000

17

Exhibit B – Letter from Corrections Corporation of America
Dear ___________: CCA regrets that you feel that you were treated inappropriately during your employment.
Please rest assured CCA remains committed to providing all of its employees with a workplace free of unlawful discrimination.
Sincerely,
18

Exhibit C – Letter from Dominion Correctional Services, LLC
Dear ___________: Dominion Correctional Services, LLC regrets that you feel that you were treated
inappropriately during your employment. Sincerely
19

Exhibit D - Notice

NOTICE TO ALL EMPLOYEES AT CROWLEY COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY

Pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, it is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an employee on the basis of sex, including sexual harassment, in the recruitment, hiring, firing, compensation, assignment, or other terms, conditions or privileges of employment. Sexual harassment includes unwelcome or offensive sexual advances or touching, requests for sexual favors, or other verbal or physical conduct directed at a person because of her/his sex.

Further, it is unlawful for any employer to retaliate against an employee because he or she has opposed discriminatory employment practices or because he or she has filed a charge of discrimination with any equal employment opportunity agency, or because he or she has participated in an investigation of a charge of discrimination.

CCA’s policies continue to require compliance with these laws and CCA will not tolerate discrimination against any employee on the basis of sex, including sexual harassment, or retaliate against any employee for complaining about sexual harassment.

If you believe you have been discriminated against due to your sex, including sexually harassed, or retaliated against we urge to report your complaint immediately to the warden, the facility human resources manager, or the corporate human resources department at 1-866-7574448.

You also have a right to seek assistance from:

Denver, Website

EEOC 303 East 17th Avenue, Suite 410
CO 80203 Denver Direct Dial: (303) 866-1359
(national): www.eeoc.gov

Or

Colorado 200

Civil Rights Division W. "B" Street #234 Pueblo, CO 81003 (719) 542-1298 (800) 262-4845

20

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn Civil Action No. 06-cv-01956-REB-MJW EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff, and SABINITA BARRON, MARCIA MANCHEGO, and CHRISTINE NEWLAND,
Intervenors, v. CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA, a Maryland corporation, d/b/a CROWLEY COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, and DOMINION CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC, an Oklahoma corporation, d/b/a CROWLEY COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY,
Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DOMINION DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Blackburn, J. This matter is before me on the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of
Defendants Dominion Correctional Services, LLC, Dominion Correctional Properties, LLC and Dominion Venture Group and Brief in Support Thereof [#184]1
1 “[#184]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a specific paper by the court’s electronic case filing and management system (CM/ECF). I use this convention throughout this order.

filed March 21, 2008. I grant the motion in part, and I deny it in part.2 I. JURISDICTION
I have subject matter jurisdiction over this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question).
II. SUMMARY JUDGMENT - STANDARD OF REVIEW & ANALYSIS Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. FED.R.CIV.P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2552, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). A dispute is “genuine” if the issue could be resolved in favor of either party. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 1356, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986); Farthing v. City of Shawnee, 39 F.3d 1131, 1135 (10th Cir. 1994). A fact is “material” if it might reasonably affect the outcome of the case. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Farthing, 39 F.3d at 1134. A party who does not have the burden of proof at trial must show the absence of a genuine fact issue. Concrete Works, Inc. v. City & County of Denver, 36 F.3d 1513, 1517 (10th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 1315 (1995). Once the motion has been properly supported, the burden shifts to the nonmovant to show, by tendering depositions, affidavits, and other competent evidence, that summary judgment is not proper. Concrete Works, 36 F.3d at 1518. All the evidence must be viewed in the light
2 The issues raised by and inherent to the motion for summary judgment are fully briefed, obviating the necessity for evidentiary hearing or oral argument. Thus, the motion stands submitted on the briefs. Cf. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c) and (d). Geear v. Boulder Cmty. Hosp., 844 F.2d 764, 766 (10th Cir.1988) (holding that hearing requirement for summary judgment motions is satisfied by court's review of documents submitted by parties).
2

most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Simms v. Oklahoma ex rel Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services, 165 F.3d 1321, 1326 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 120 S.Ct. 53 (1999). However, conclusory statements and testimony based merely on conjecture or subjective belief are not competent summary judgment evidence. Rice v. United States, 166 F.3d 1088, 1092 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 120 S.Ct. 334 (1999); Nutting v. RAM Southwest, Inc., 106 F.Supp.2d 1121, 1123 (D. Colo. 2000).
III. PROPER DEFENDANT EMPLOYERS In this case under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e 2000e (Title VII), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) asserts claims on behalf of certain named individuals and similarly situated individuals. In addition, three intervenor plaintiffs also assert Title VII claims against the defendants. I will refer to the EEOC and the individual plaintiffs collectively as the plaintiffs. In their motion for summary judgment, defendants Dominion Correctional Services, LLC (DCS), Dominion Correctional Properties, LLC (DCP), and Dominion Venture Group (DVG) (the Dominion defendants) argue that DCP and DVG are entitled to summary judgment because there is no evidence that either of them was an employer of any of the plaintiffs. I agree. The protections of Title VII apply only to discrimination against an employee by that person’s employer. See, e.g., Williams v. Meese, 926 F.2d 994, 997 (10th Cir. 1991). It is undisputed that DCS, DCP, and DVG are limited liability companies with independent legal identities. The Dominion defendants argue that the plaintiffs were employed by DCS, but were not employed by DCP or by DVG. DCP and DVG are not proper defendants in this Title VII case if they did not have an employment relationship
3

with the plaintiffs. The Dominion defendants have presented evidence that indicates that, at least on the surface, the plaintiffs were employed by DCS, and not by DCP and DVG.
In response to this argument, the plaintiffs note that for purposes of Title VII, two or more entities may constitute a single employer, if the nominally separate entities should be treated as an integrated enterprise. Bristol v. Board of County Com'rs of County of Clear Creek, 312 F.3d 1213, 1217 - 1218 (10th Cir. 2002). The plaintiffs argue that under the single employer test articulated in Bristol, DCS, DCP, and DVG should be treated as an integrated enterprise and that DCP and DVG are viewed properly as employers of the plaintiffs. Bristol is an en banc opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in which the court addressed in detail the application of the so-called joint employer test and single employer test for the purpose of determining the proper employer-defendant in an employment discrimination case.3
As the Bristol court noted, courts applying the single-employer test generally weigh four factors: (1) interrelations of operation; (2) common management; (3) centralized control of labor relations; and (4) common ownership and financial control. The third factor, centralized control of labor relations, is the most important factor. Id. at 1220. The Bristol court noted the Fifth Circuit’s observation that, in applying the single employer test, “courts have focused almost exclusively on one question: which entity made the final decisions regarding employment matters relating to the person claiming discrimination?” Id. (quoting Skidmore v. Precision Printing & Packaging, Inc., 188
3 Bristol addressed a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12102 - 12213 (ADA), but applied the term “employer” as that term is defined in Title VII. Bristol, 312 F.3d at 1217.
4

F.3d 606, 617 (5th Cir. 1999)). Ultimately, the Bristol court held that a if a named defendant lacks the “power to control the hiring, termination, or supervision of” a plaintiff-employee “or otherwise [to] control the terms and conditions of their employment,” then that defendant is not an employer for the purpose of an employment discrimination claim. Bristol, 312 F.3d at 1215, 1221.
In the present case, the plaintiffs do not argue that DCS, the record employer of the plaintiffs, was a subsidiary of or under the control of either DCP or DVG. Rather, the plaintiffs argue that DCS, DCP, and DVG constitute an integrated enterprise because a fourth entity, Dominion Asset Services, LLC (DAS), exercised substantial control over DCS, DCP, and DVG, including providing human resources, payroll, purchasing, accounting, and other services to DCS, DCP, and DVG. Response, p. 10. Relevantly, DAS is not named as a defendant.
Viewing the facts in the record in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, as I must, I conclude that DCP and DVG are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the plaintiffs’ Title VII claims. The plaintiffs’ evidence shows that DCS, DCP, and DVG are related entities and that, arguably, they are related based on their relationship with a fourth entity, DAS. However, none of the evidence cited by the plaintiffs would permit a reasonable fact finder to conclude that either DCP or DVG had the“power to control the hiring, termination, or supervision of” the plaintiffs’ employment, or otherwise to control the terms and conditions of their employment.” For similar reasons, I reject also the plaintiffs’ brief arguments that DCP and DVG are proper defendants in this case because they were joint employers with DCS, or because they were agents, alter egos, or instrumentalities of DCS. The plaintiffs have not come forward with sufficient evidence to support these theories. Absent such evidence, DCP and DVG cannot
5

properly be viewed as employers of the plaintiffs. If DCP and DVG were not employers of the plaintiffs, then DCP and DVG are not subject to the strictures of Title VII and are not proper defendants in this Title VII case. Bristol, 312 F.3d at 1215, 1220 - 1221. I grant the Dominion defendants motion for summary judgment as to DCP and DVG.
IV. PATTERN AND PRACTICE CLAIMS The Dominion defendants argue also that they are entitled to summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ claims that the defendants engaged in a pattern or practice of a hostile work environment based on gender and retaliation. As discussed above, I have concluded that defendants DCP and DVG are entitled to summary judgment on other grounds. As to defendant DCS, I have reviewed the parties’ briefs related to the Dominion defendants’ argument concerning the pattern and practice claims. I find that there are genuine issues of material fact relating to the plaintiffs’ pattern and practice claims against DCS. Assuming arguendo that DCS may be entitled to judgment on certain claims, it is not mandatory that I grant partial summary judgment. See Powell v. Radkins, 506 F.2d 763, 765 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 873 (1975) (even when there are no material disputed issues of fact as to some issues or claims, a trial court may deny summary judgment as to portions of the case that are ripe for summary judgment). The plaintiffs’ claims are similar to each other, the theories of liability are intertwined, and the claims present concatenated issues of fact and law. The piecemeal resolution of the issues raised by the parties will not simplify significantly or extenuate the evidence at trial. I deny the Dominion defendants’ motion for summary judgment concerning the pattern and practice claims.
6

V. ORDERS THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED as follows: 1. That the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Defendants Dominion Correctional Services, LLC, Dominion Correctional Properties, LLC and Dominion Venture Group and Brief in Support Thereof [#184] filed March 21, 2008, is GRANTED as to defendants Dominion Correctional Properties, LLC (DCP), and Dominion Venture Group (DVG); 2. That the plaintiffs’ claims against defendants, Dominion Correctional Properties, LLC (DCP), and Dominion Venture Group (DVG), are DISMISSED with prejudice; 3. That defendants Dominion Correctional Properties, LLC (DCP), and Dominion Venture Group (DVG) are DROPPED from this action, and the caption of this case shall be AMENDED accordingly; 4. That the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Defendants Dominion Correctional Services, LLC, Dominion Correctional Properties, LLC and Dominion Venture Group and Brief in Support Thereof [#184] filed March 21, 2008, is DENIED otherwise. Dated March 12, 2009, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
7

 
 Case: 1:06-cv-01956-KHV-MJW As of: 10/30/2016 06:42 PM MDT 1 of 25
NDISPO,TERMED
U.S. District Court District of Colorado (Denver) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:06−cv−01956−KHV−MJW

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Corrections Corporation of America et al Assigned to: Judge Kathryn H. Vratil Referred to: Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 09/29/2006 Date Terminated: 10/01/2009 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Lynn L. Palma U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission−Denver 303 East 17th Avenue Suite 410 Denver, CO 80203−9634 303−866−1374 Fax: 303−866−1375 Email: lynn.palma@eeoc.gov TERMINATED: 06/21/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY

Nancy A. Weeks U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission−Denver 303 East 17th Avenue Suite 410 Denver, CO 80203−9634 303−866−1075 Fax: 303−866−1375 Email: nancy.weeks@eeoc.gov TERMINATED: 06/21/2007 LEAD ATTORNEY

Rita Byrnes Kittle U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission−Denver 303 East 17th Avenue Suite 410 Denver, CO 80203−9634 303−866−1347 Fax: 303−866−1375 Email: rita.kittle@eeoc.gov TERMINATED: 06/21/2007

Sally C. Shanley U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission−Phoenix 3300 North Central Avenue Suite 690 Phoenix, AZ 85102 602−640−5032 Fax: 602−640−5009 Email: sally.shanley@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stephanie Struble U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission−Denver 303 East 17th Avenue Suite 410

Case: 1:06-cv-01956-KHV-MJW As of: 10/30/2016 06:42 PM MDT 2 of 25
Denver, CO 80203−9634 303−866−1381 Fax: 303−866−1375 Email: stephanie.struble@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Tin−Tin Diana Chen U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission−Phoenix 3300 North Central Avenue Suite 690 Phoenix, AZ 85102 602−640−5033 Fax: 602−640−5009 Email: diana.chen@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William Earl Moench U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission−Denver 303 East 17th Avenue Suite 410 Denver, CO 80203−9634 303−866−1378 Fax: 303−866−1375 Email: william.moench@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Intervenor Plaintiff Sabinita Barron
Intervenor Plaintiff Marcia Manchego
Intervenor Plaintiff Christine Newland

represented by Barry Douglas Roseman McNamara Roseman &Shechter, LLP 1640 East 18th Avenue Denver, CO 80218 303−333−8700 Fax: 303−331−6967 Email: bdr@18thavelaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Barry Douglas Roseman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Barry Douglas Roseman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Corrections Corporation of America a Maryland Corporation doing business as Crowley County Correctional Facility

represented by Colleen Meyers Rea Colleen M. Rea, Attorney at Law 1005 Aspen Place Evergreen, CO 80439 303−674−0354

Case: 1:06-cv-01956-KHV-MJW As of: 10/30/2016 06:42 PM MDT 3 of 25

Fax: 303−674−9303 Email: colleen.rea@jacksonlewis.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John C. Lowrie U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission−Denver 303 East 17th Avenue Suite 410 Denver, CO 80203−9634 303−619−0117 Email: john.lowrie@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Melissa Jane Rye Ford &Harrison, LLP−Denver 1675 Broadway #2150 Denver, CO 80202−4679 303−592−8860 Fax: 303−592−8861 TERMINATED: 06/16/2008

Peter Francis Munger Jackson Lewis, P.C.−Denver 950 17th Street Suite 2600 Denver, CO 80202 303−892−0404 Fax: 303−892−5575 Email: peter.munger@jacksonlewis.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Dominion Correctional Services LLC a Delaware Corporation doing business as Crowley County Correctional Facility

represented by April L. Jones Jones Law Firm, PC 5655 South Yosemite Street Suite 350 Greenwood Village, CO 80111 303−995−0303 Email: apriljonesesq@gmail.com (Inactive) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel R. Satriana , Jr. Satriana &Biscan, LLC 720 South Colorado Boulevard Suite 452−S Denver, CO 80246 303−468−5402 Fax: 303−942−7290 Email: satriana@sbattys.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Dominion Correctional Properties, LLC TERMINATED: 03/12/2009 doing business as Crowley County Correctional Facility TERMINATED: 03/12/2009

represented by April L. Jones (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel R. Satriana , Jr. (See above for address)

Case: 1:06-cv-01956-KHV-MJW As of: 10/30/2016 06:42 PM MDT 4 of 25

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Dominion Venture Group TERMINATED: 03/12/2009 doing business as Crowley County Correctional Facility TERMINATED: 03/12/2009

represented by April L. Jones (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel R. Satriana , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 09/29/2006
10/03/2006 10/24/2006 10/30/2006 10/30/2006 10/30/2006 10/30/2006 11/07/2006 11/28/2006 11/28/2006
11/28/2006 12/05/2006 12/06/2006

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT and Jury Trial Demand against Corrections Corporation of America, Dominion Correctional Services LLC. Summons not issued, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(llr, ) (Entered: 10/02/2006)
2 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe by Judge Nottingham. Dispositive Motions due by 5/29/2007. (ewnsec, ) (Entered: 10/03/2006)
3 ORDER Scheduling Conference set for 12/19/2006 08:30 AM in Courtroom A 502 before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 10/23/06. (pap, ) (Entered: 10/24/2006)
4 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Peter F. Munger on behalf of Corrections Corporation of America (Munger, Peter) (Entered: 10/30/2006)
5 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Defendant Corrections Corporation of America. (Munger, Peter) (Entered: 10/30/2006)
6 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Colleen Meyers Rea on behalf of Corrections Corporation of America (Rea, Colleen) (Entered: 10/30/2006)
7 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by John C. Lowrie on behalf of Corrections Corporation of America (Lowrie, John) (Entered: 10/30/2006)
8 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Corrections Corporation of America waiver sent on 10/23/2006, answer due 12/22/2006. (Palma, Lynn) (Entered: 11/07/2006)
9 MOTION to Intervene by Interested Parties Sabinita Barron, Marcia Manchego, Christine Newland. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Document Complaint in Intervention)(Roseman, Barry) (Entered: 11/28/2006)
10 MINUTE ORDER granting 9 Motion to Intervene by Interested Parties Sabinita Barron, Marcia Manchego, Christine Newland. Entered by Judge Edward W. Nottingham on 11/28/06. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)(ewnsec, ) (Entered: 11/28/2006)
11 INTERVENOR COMPLAINT against Corrections Corporation of America and Dominion Correctional Services, LLC, filed by Sabinita Barron, Marcia Manchego, Christine Newland.(pap, ) (Entered: 11/28/2006)
12 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 11 Intervenor Complaint by Defendant Corrections Corporation of America. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Munger, Peter) (Entered: 12/05/2006)
13 MEMORANDUM regarding 12 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 11 Intervenor Complaint filed by Corrections Corporation of America. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe. Entered by Judge Edward W. Nottingham on 12/6/06. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached) (ewnsec, ) (Entered: 12/06/2006)

Case: 1:06-cv-01956-KHV-MJW As of: 10/30/2016 06:42 PM MDT 5 of 25

12/11/2006 12/11/2006 12/12/2006
12/12/2006 12/15/2006 12/19/2006
12/20/2006 12/20/2006 01/09/2007 01/10/2007 01/11/2007 01/15/2007 01/16/2007 01/16/2007 01/16/2007 01/17/2007

14 Joint MOTION to Vacate and Reschedule Scheduling Conference by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Palma, Lynn) (Entered: 12/11/2006)
15 ORDER Granting 12 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 11 Intervenor Complaint, Corrections Corporation of America answer due 12/22/2006. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 12/11/06.(pap, ) (Entered: 12/11/2006)
16 MEMORANDUM regarding 14 Joint MOTION to Vacate and Reschedule Scheduling Conference filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe. Entered by Judge Edward W. Nottingham on 12/12/06. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)(ewnsec, ) (Entered: 12/12/2006)
17 MINUTE ORDER Denying 14 Joint MOTION to Vacate and Reschedule Scheduling Conference. Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 12/12/06.(pap, ) (Entered: 12/12/2006)
18 Proposed Scheduling Order by Defendant CCA, by Intervenors, and by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Palma, Lynn) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
19 Minute Entry/Minute Order for proceedings held before Judge Michael J. Watanabe : Scheduling Conference held on 12/19/2006. Discovery due by 5/29/2007, Proposed Pretrial Order due by 4/2/2007, Preliminary Pretrial Conference set for 4/5/2007 08:30 AM in Courtroom A 502 before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe, Status Conference set for 1/29/2007 09:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe. (Court Reporter FTR − Shelley Moore.) (pap, ) (Entered: 12/19/2006)
20 ANSWER to Intervenor Complaint by Corrections Corporation of America.(Munger, Peter) (Entered: 12/20/2006)
21 ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand by Corrections Corporation of America.(Munger, Peter) (Entered: 12/20/2006)
22 Proposed Scheduling Order by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Intervenor Plaintiffs Sabinita Barron, Marcia Manchego, Christine Newland, Defendants Corrections Corporation of America, Dominion Correctional Services LLC. (Palma, Lynn) (Entered: 01/09/2007)
23 SCHEDULING ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 1/10/07. (pap, ) (Entered: 01/10/2007)
24 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Dominion Correctional Services LLC, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(Palma, Lynn) Modified on 1/16/2007 to STRIKE pursuant to 26 Order to Strike)(pap2, ). (Entered: 01/11/2007)
25 Defendant CCA's ANSWER to Amended Complaint by Corrections Corporation of America.(Munger, Peter) (Entered: 01/15/2007)
26 ORDER Striking 24 Amended Complaint filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Signed by Judge Edward W. Nottingham on 1/16/07. (pap, ) (Entered: 01/16/2007)
27 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to file Amended Complaint by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Palma, Lynn) ( Modified on 1/17/2007 to attach the Proposed Amended Complaint ) (pap2, ). (Entered: 01/16/2007)
28 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to Amend Complaint − Attachment Proposed Amended Complaint by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Palma, Lynn) (Entered: 01/16/2007)
29 Docket Annotation The "Motion" 28 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to Amend the Complaint, is TERMINATED as the pdf attached was actually the Proposed Amended Complaint. The Proposed Amended Complaint has been attached to 27 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to file Amended Complaint. Text only entry − no

Case: 1:06-cv-01956-KHV-MJW As of: 10/30/2016 06:42 PM MDT 6 of 25

01/18/2007 01/18/2007 01/19/2007 01/19/2007 01/19/2007
01/22/2007 01/22/2007 01/22/2007
01/23/2007 01/23/2007 01/26/2007 01/26/2007 01/26/2007
01/26/2007

document attached. (pap, ) (Entered: 01/17/2007)
30 Unopposed MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 11 Intervenor Complaint in Intervention by Intervenor Plaintiffs Sabinita Barron, Marcia Manchego, Christine Newland. (Roseman, Barry) (Entered: 01/18/2007)
31 AMENDED COMPLAINT in Intervention against Corrections Corporation of America, Dominion Correctional Services LLC, filed by Sabinita Barron, Marcia Manchego, Christine Newland.(Roseman, Barry) (Modified on 1/19/2007 to STRIKE pursuant to 32 Order)(pap, ). (Entered: 01/18/2007)
32 ORDER Striking 30 Motion to Amend the Intervenor Complaint and 31 Amended Intervenor Complaint. Signed by Judge Edward W. Nottingham on 1/18/07.(pap, ) (Entered: 01/19/2007)
33 Renewed MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 11 Intervenor Complaint in Intervention by Intervenor Plaintiffs Sabinita Barron, Marcia Manchego, Christine Newland. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Document Proposed Amended Complaint in Intervention)(Roseman, Barry) (Entered: 01/19/2007)
34 MEMORANDUM regarding 33 Renewed MOTION to Amend 11 Intervenor Complaint in Intervention filed by Sabinita Barron, Marcia Manchego, Christine Newland. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe. Entered by Judge Edward W. Nottingham on 1/19/07. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)(ewnsec, ) (Entered: 01/19/2007)
35 MINUTE ORDER Granting 33 Intervenor Plaintiffs' Renewed MOTION to Amend 11 Intervenor Complaint in Intervention. Intervenors shall re−file their Amended Complaint in Intervention within 5 days. Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 1/19/07.(pap, ) (Entered: 01/22/2007)
36 AMENDED COMPLAINT in Intervention against Dominion Correctional Properties, LLC, Dominion Venture Group, Corrections Corporation of America, Dominion Correctional Services LLC, filed by Sabinita Barron, Marcia Manchego, Christine Newland.(Roseman, Barry) (Entered: 01/22/2007)
37 MEMORANDUM regarding 27 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to file Amended Complaint filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe. Entered by Judge Edward W. Nottingham on 1/22/07. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)(ewnsec, ) (Entered: 01/22/2007)
38 MINUTE ORDER Granting 27 Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint.Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 1/23/07.(pap, ) (Entered: 01/23/2007)
39 AMENDED COMPLAINT and Jury Trial Demand against Dominion Correctional Properties, LLC, Dominion Venture Group, Corrections Corporation of America, Dominion Correctional Services LLC, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.(pap, ) (Entered: 01/23/2007)
40 Unopposed MOTION to Vacate 23 Scheduling Order Order for Status Conference on 1/29/07 by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Palma, Lynn) (Entered: 01/26/2007)
41 MOTION to Bifurcate Trial and Pre−Trial Issues re: Pattern or Practice by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Unpublished Case attach A# 2 Exhibit Unpublished Case Attach B)(Palma, Lynn) (Entered: 01/26/2007)
42 MEMORANDUM regarding 40 Unopposed MOTION to Vacate 23 Scheduling Order Order for Status Conference on 1/29/07 filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe. Entered by Judge Edward W. Nottingham on 1/26/07. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)(ewnsec, ) (Entered: 01/26/2007)
43 MINUTE ORDER Granting 40 Parties' Joint Motion to Vacate and Reschedule Status Conference. The Status Conference set on January 29, 2007, at 9:00 a.m., is

Case: 1:06-cv-01956-KHV-MJW As of: 10/30/2016 06:42 PM MDT 7 of 25

01/26/2007 01/29/2007 01/29/2007 01/29/2007 02/09/2007 02/12/2007 02/13/2007 02/13/2007
02/13/2007 02/13/2007 02/14/2007
02/14/2007 02/15/2007 02/15/2007 02/15/2007

VACATED and a SCHEDULING CONFERENCE is set on February 20, 2007, at 9:30 a.m., in Courtroom A502. Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 1/26/07.(pap, ) (Entered: 01/26/2007)
44 Utility Setting Hearing: Pursuant to 43 Minute, Scheduling Conference set for 2/20/2007 09:30 AM in Courtroom A 502 before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe. Text only entry − no document attached.(pap, ) (Entered: 01/26/2007)
45 Defendant CCA's ANSWER to Amended Complaint in Intervention by Corrections Corporation of America.(Munger, Peter) (Entered: 01/29/2007)
46 Defendant CCA's ANSWER to Amended Complaint by Corrections Corporation of America.(Munger, Peter) (Entered: 01/29/2007)
47 RESPONSE to Motion re 41 MOTION to Bifurcate Trial and Pre−Trial Issues re: Pattern or Practice filed by Intervenor Plaintiffs Sabinita Barron, Marcia Manchego, Christine Newland. (Roseman, Barry) (Entered: 01/29/2007)
48 Unopposed MOTION for Protective Order by Defendant Corrections Corporation of America. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only) Consent Protective Order)(Munger, Peter) (Entered: 02/09/2007)
49 MEMORANDUM regarding 48 Unopposed MOTION for Protective Order filed by Corrections Corporation of America. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe by Judge Edward W. Nottingham on 2/12/07. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)(pap2, ) (Entered: 02/12/2007)
50 Unopposed MOTION For Extension of Time to Rrespond to Defendant CCA's First Discovery Requests by Intervenor Plaintiffs Sabinita Barron, Marcia Manchego, Christine Newland. (Roseman, Barry) (Entered: 02/13/2007)
51 MEMORANDUM regarding 50 Unopposed MOTION For Extension of Time to Rrespond to Defendant CCA's First Discovery Requests filed by Sabinita Barron, Marcia Manchego, Christine Newland. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe by Judge Edward W. Nottingham on 2/13/07. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)(pap2, ) (Entered: 02/13/2007)
52 Unopposed MOTION For Extension of Time to File Scheduling Order by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only) Proposed Order)(Weeks, Nancy) (Entered: 02/13/2007)
53 Unopposed MOTION to Vacate Expert Disclosure Deadlines by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only) Proposed Order)(Weeks, Nancy) (Entered: 02/13/2007)
54 MEMORANDUM regarding 53 Unopposed MOTION to Vacate Expert Disclosure Deadlines filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 52 Unopposed MOTION For Extension of Time to File Scheduling Order filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe. Entered by Judge Edward W. Nottingham on 2/14/07. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)(ewnsec, ) (Entered: 02/14/2007)
55 MINUTE ORDER Granting 53 Plaintiff's Unopposed MOTION to Vacate Expert Disclosure Deadlines. Expert disclosure deadlines are extended to and including 2/20/07. Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 2/14/07.(pap, ) (Entered: 02/14/2007)
56 Proposed Scheduling Order by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Weeks, Nancy) (Entered: 02/15/2007)
57 ORDER Granting 52 Plaintiff's Unopposed MOTION For Extension of Time to File Scheduling Order. Parties are granted until 2/15/07. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 2/15/07.(pap, ) (Entered: 02/15/2007)
58 RESPONSE to Motion re 41 MOTION to Bifurcate Trial and Pre−Trial Issues re: Pattern or Practice filed by Defendant Corrections Corporation of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Part 1# 2 Exhibit A Part 2)(Munger, Peter) (Entered: 02/15/2007)

Case: 1:06-cv-01956-KHV-MJW As of: 10/30/2016 06:42 PM MDT 8 of 25

02/16/2007 02/16/2007 02/20/2007
02/20/2007
02/20/2007 02/20/2007 02/22/2007 02/22/2007 02/27/2007 02/27/2007 03/01/2007

59 Unopposed MOTION For Extension of Time to Respond to Defendant CCA's First Discovery by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only) Proposed Order)(Weeks, Nancy) (Entered: 02/16/2007)
60 MEMORANDUM regarding 59 Unopposed MOTION For Extension of Time to Respond to Defendant CCA's First Discovery filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe. Entered by Judge Edward W. Nottingham on 2/16/07. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)(ewnsec, ) (Entered: 02/16/2007)
61 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: returnable by Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be dismissed pursuant to FRCP 4(m) with regard to defendants DominionCorrectional Service, LLC, Dominion Correctional Properties, LLC, and DominionVenture Group. Show Cause Hearing set for 4/5/2007 08:30 AM in Courtroom A 502 before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe.Preliminary Pretrial Conference set for 4/5/2007 08:30 PM in Courtroom A 502 before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe,Status Conference set for 4/5/2007 08:30 AM in Courtroom A 502 before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 2/20/07. (pap, ) (Entered: 02/20/2007)
62 Minute Entry/Minute Order for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe : granting 50 Motion for Extension of Time; granting 59 Motion for Extension of Time; Scheduling Conference held on 2/20/2007. Discovery due by 5/29/2007. Dispositive Motions due by 5/29/2007. Proposed Preliminary Pretrial Order due by 4/2/2007. Preliminary Pretrial Conference set for 4/5/2007 08:30 AM in Courtroom A 502 before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe. Parties are directed to www.cod.uscourts.gov and shall fully comply with the procedures of the judicial officer assigned to try this case on the merits. Counsel shall make the changes of record and resubmit the scheduling order, dated nunc pro tunc February 20, 2007, on or before February 27, 2007. A Show Cause Hearing/ Status Conference is set on April 5, 2007, at 8:30 a.m. Plaintiff shall show cause as to why Defendants Dominion Correctional Services LLC, Dominion Correctional Properties LLC, and Dominion Venture Group, should not be dismissed for lack of service. Unopposed Motion For Extension of Time to Respond to Defendant CCA's First Discovery (DN 59) is GRANTED up to and including February 26, 2007. The Unopposed Motion For Extension of Time to Respond to Defendant CCA's First Discovery Requests (DN 50) is GRANTED up to and including February 26, 2007.(Court Reporter FTR − S. Moore.) (mjwcd, ) (Entered: 02/20/2007)
63 ORDER Granting 52 Unopposed MOTION For Extension of Time to File Scheduling Order. Parties are granted until 2/15/07 to file Proposed Scheduling Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 2/20/07. (pap, ) (Entered: 02/20/2007)
64 ORDER Granting 59 EEOC's Unopposed MOTION For Extension of Time to Respond to Defendant CCA's First Discovery. EEOC is granted until 2/26/07 to respond to Defendant CCA's First Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 2/20/07. (pap, ) (Entered: 02/20/2007)
65 MINUTE ORDER Granting 48 Defendant CCA's Unopposed Motion for Protective Order. Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 2/22/07.(pap, ) (Entered: 02/22/2007)
66 CONSENT PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 2/20/07. (pap, ) (Entered: 02/22/2007)
67 Joint MOTION For Extension of Time to File Dispositive Motions by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only) Proposed Order)(Weeks, Nancy) (Entered: 02/27/2007)
68 SCHEDULING ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 2/27/07. (pap, ) (Entered: 02/27/2007)
69 REPLY to Response to Motion re 41 MOTION to Bifurcate Trial and Pre−Trial Issues re: Pattern or Practice filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Weeks, Nancy) (Entered: 03/01/2007)

Case: 1:06-cv-01956-KHV-MJW As of: 10/30/2016 06:42 PM MDT 9 of 25

03/07/2007
03/08/2007 03/08/2007 03/16/2007 03/16/2007
03/19/2007 04/02/2007 04/04/2007
04/04/2007 04/05/2007
04/06/2007 04/06/2007 04/11/2007 04/11/2007 04/18/2007

70 MEMORANDUM regarding 67 Joint MOTION For Extension of Time to File Dispositive Motions filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe for a decision on the discovery issue and for recommendation on the dispositive motions deadline. Entered by Judge Edward W. Nottingham on 3/7/07. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached) (ewnsec, ) (Entered: 03/07/2007)
71 MINUTE ORDER Granting 67 Joint Motion for Extension of Time to File Dispositive Motions. Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 3/8/07.(pap, ) (Entered: 03/08/2007)
72 Utility Resetting Deadlines: Pursuant to 71 Minute Order, Discovery due by 8/6/2007 and Dispositive Motions due by 9/4/2007. Text only entry − no document attached. (pap, ) (Entered: 03/08/2007)
73 Unopposed MOTION For Extension of Time to Designate Experts by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only) Proposed Order)(Weeks, Nancy) (Entered: 03/16/2007)
74 MEMORANDUM regarding 73 Unopposed MOTION For Extension of Time to Designate Experts filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe. Entered by Judge Edward W. Nottingham on 3/16/07. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached) (ewnsec, ) (Entered: 03/16/2007)
75 ORDER Granting 73 Unopposed MOTION For Extension of Time to Designate Experts.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 3/16/07.(pap, ) (Entered: 03/19/2007)
76 Proposed Pretrial Order Preliminary by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Weeks, Nancy) (Entered: 04/02/2007)
77 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Sabinita Barron, Marcia Manchego, Christine Newland. Dominion Correctional Properties, LLC served on 3/9/2007, answer due 3/29/2007; Dominion Venture Group served on 3/7/2007, answer due 3/27/2007; Dominion Correctional Services LLC served on 3/19/2007, answer due 4/9/2007. (Roseman, Barry) (Entered: 04/04/2007)
78 RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE re 61 by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Weeks, Nancy) (Entered: 04/04/2007)
79 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael J. Watanabe : Preliminary Pretrial Conference/Show Cause Hearing held on 4/5/2007. 61 Order to Show Cause is VACATED. Settlement Conference set for 7/31/2007 01:30 PM in Courtroom A 502 before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe. Granting Defendant's Oral Motion to File Answers: Dominion Venture Group answer due 4/11/2007; Dominion Correctional Properties, LLC answer due 4/11/2007.(Court Reporter FTR − Bernique Abiakam.) (pap, ) (Entered: 04/06/2007)
80 PRELIMINARY PRETRIAL ORDER Remaining discovery, Pending motion, Estimated 15 day Jury Trial. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 4/5/07. (pap, ) (Entered: 04/06/2007)
81 NOTICE Entry of Appearance by Defendants Dominion Correctional Properties, LLC, Dominion Venture Group, Dominion Correctional Services LLC (Satriana, Daniel) (Entered: 04/06/2007)
82 ANSWER to Amended Complaint, ANSWER to Amended Complaint by Dominion Correctional Properties, LLC, Dominion Venture Group, Dominion Correctional Services LLC.(Satriana, Daniel) (Entered: 04/11/2007)
83 ANSWER to Amended Complaint, ANSWER to Amended Complaint in Intervention by Dominion Correctional Properties, LLC, Dominion Venture Group, Dominion Correctional Services LLC.(Satriana, Daniel) (Entered: 04/11/2007)
84 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Rita Byrnes Kittle on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Kittle, Rita) (Entered: 04/18/2007)

Case: 1:06-cv-01956-KHV-MJW As of: 10/30/2016 06:42 PM MDT 10 of 25

04/24/2007 04/24/2007
04/25/2007 05/11/2007 05/11/2007
05/15/2007 06/05/2007 06/05/2007
06/06/2007 06/07/2007 06/07/2007 06/12/2007 06/19/2007
06/20/2007 06/20/2007

85 Unopposed MOTION For Extension of Time to Respond to EEOC's Second Discovery Requests by Defendant Corrections Corporation of America. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Munger, Peter) (Entered: 04/24/2007)
86 MEMORANDUM regarding 85 Unopposed MOTION For Extension of Time to Respond to EEOC's Second Discovery Requests filed by Corrections Corporation of America. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe. Entered by Judge Edward W. Nottingham on 4/24/07. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)(ewnsec, ) (Entered: 04/24/2007)
87 ORDER Granting 85 Defendant CCA's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to EEOC's Second Discovery Requests. Granted until on or before 5/15/07. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 4/25/07.(pap, ) (Entered: 04/25/2007)
88 Unopposed MOTION For Extension of Time to Respond To EEOC's Second Discovery Requests by Defendant Corrections Corporation of America. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Munger, Peter) (Entered: 05/11/2007)
89 MEMORANDUM regarding 88 Unopposed MOTION For Extension of Time to Respond To EEOC's Second Discovery Requests filed by Corrections Corporation of America. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe, by Judge Edward W. Nottingham on 5/11/07. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached) (mrs, ) (Entered: 05/11/2007)
90 ORDER Granting 88 Defendant CCA'S Unopposed MOTION For Extension of Time to Respond To EEOC's Second Discovery Requests. Defendant is granted up to and including 5/18/07. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 5/15/07.(pap, ) (Entered: 05/15/2007)
91 Unopposed MOTION For Extension of Time to Submit Expert Report by Intervenor Plaintiffs Sabinita Barron, Marcia Manchego, Christine Newland. (Roseman, Barry) (Entered: 06/05/2007)
92 MEMORANDUM regarding 91 Unopposed MOTION For Extension of Time to Submit Expert Report filed by Sabinita Barron, Marcia Manchego, Christine Newland. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe. Entered by Judge Edward W. Nottingham on 6/5/07. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)(ewnsec, ) (Entered: 06/05/2007)
93 MINUTE ORDER Granting 91 Intervenors' Unopposed MOTION For Extension of Time to Submit Expert Report. Intervenors are granted up to and including 6/8/07. Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 6/6/07.(pap, ) (Entered: 06/06/2007)
94 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Tin−Tin Diana Chen on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Chen, Tin−Tin) (Entered: 06/07/2007)
95 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Sally C. Shanley on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Shanley, Sally) (Entered: 06/07/2007)
96 Unopposed MOTION to Vacate Scheduling Order to Extend Deadlines by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Chen, Tin−Tin) (Entered: 06/12/2007)
97 MEMORANDUM regarding 96 Unopposed MOTION to Vacate Scheduling Order to Extend Deadlines filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe. Entered by Judge Edward W. Nottingham on 6/19/07. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)(ewnsec, ) (Entered: 06/19/2007)
98 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Weeks, Nancy) (Entered: 06/20/2007)
99 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Kittle, Rita) (Entered: 06/20/2007)

Case: 1:06-cv-01956-KHV-MJW As of: 10/30/2016 06:42 PM MDT 11 of 25

06/20/2007 06/20/2007
06/21/2007
06/21/2007 06/21/2007 07/02/2007 07/03/2007 07/05/2007 07/06/2007 07/23/2007 07/23/2007 07/24/2007
07/25/2007

100 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Palma, Lynn) (Entered: 06/20/2007)
101 MEMORANDUM regarding 100 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 98 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 99 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe by Chief Judge Edward W. Nottingham on 6/20/07. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)(pap2, ) (Entered: 06/20/2007)
102 MINUTE ORDER Granting 98 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Nancy A. Weeks terminated; Granting 99 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Rita Byrnnes Kittle terminated; Granting 100 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Lynn L. Palma terminated. Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 6/21/07.(pap, ) (Modified on 7/2/2007 to correct entry)(pap2, ). (Entered: 06/21/2007)
103 ORDER Granting 96 Motion to Amend 68 Scheduling Order to Extend Deadlines. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 6/21/07.(pap, ) (Entered: 06/21/2007)
104 Utility Resetting Deadlines: Pursuant to 103 Order, Discovery due by 12/3/2007. Dispositive Motions due by 1/18/2008. Text only entry − no document attached. (pap, ) (Entered: 06/21/2007)
105 Docket Annotation re: 102 Order on Motions to Withdraw as Attorney, Entry modified to correctly show all attorneys withdrawn. Text only entry − no document attached. (pap2, ) (Entered: 07/02/2007)
106 Unopposed MOTION For Extension of Time to Disclose Rebuttal Experts by Defendant Corrections Corporation of America. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Rea, Colleen) (Entered: 07/03/2007)
107 MEMORANDUM regarding 106 Unopposed MOTION For Extension of Time to Disclose Rebuttal Experts filed by Corrections Corporation of America. Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe by Chief Judge Edward W. Nottingham on 7/5/06. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)(pap2, ) (Entered: 07/05/2007)
108 ORDER Granting 106 Unopposed MOTION For Extension of Time to Disclose Rebuttal Experts. Deadline is extended to 7/20/07. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 7/5/07.(pap, ) (Entered: 07/06/2007)
109 MINUTE ORDER: A Status Conference is set for 8/10/2007 at 3:30 PM in Courtroom A201 before Chief Judge Edward W. Nottingham. Entered by Chief Judge Edward W. Nottingham on 7/23/07. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)(ewnsec, ) (Entered: 07/23/2007)
110 Joint MOTION to Amend Scheduling Order to Vacate and Reset Settlement Conference by Intervenor Defendants , Defendants , Plaintiff and Intervenor Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Shanley, Sally) (Modified on 7/24/2007 to clarify entry) (pap2, ). (Entered: 07/23/2007)
111 MEMORANDUM regarding 110 Joint MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify Scheduling Order to Vacate Settlement Conference filed by Dominion Correctional Services LLC, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Corrections Corporation of America, Sabinita Barron, Dominion Correctional Properties, LLC, Dominion Venture Group, Marcia Manchego, Christine Newland. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe. Entered by Chief Judge Edward W. Nottingham on 7/24/07. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)(ewnsec, ) (Entered: 07/24/2007)
112 MINUTE ORDER granting 110 Joint MOTION to Amend Scheduling Order to Vacate and Reset Settlement Conference. Settlement Conference is VACATED and RESET to 9/13/2007 10:30 AM in Courtroom A 502 before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe. Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 7/25/07.(pap, ) (Modified on 7/26/2007 to reset Settlement not Scheduling

Case: 1:06-cv-01956-KHV-MJW As of: 10/30/2016 06:42 PM MDT 12 of 25

07/25/2007 07/26/2007 08/10/2007 09/02/2007 09/07/2007
09/07/2007
09/10/2007 09/13/2007 11/07/2007 11/07/2007
11/07/2007 11/09/2007 11/11/2007 11/13/2007

Conference)(pap2, ). (Entered: 07/25/2007)
113 Utility Resetting Hearing: Pursuant to 112 Minute Order (7/25/07), Settlement Conference is VACATED and RESET to 9/13/2007 10:30 AM in Courtroom A 502 before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe. Text only entry − no document attached. (pap2, ) (Entered: 07/26/2007)
114 Docket Annotation re: 112 Order on Motion to Reset, entry modified to reflect that Settlement Conference NOT Scheduling Conference is vacated and reset to 9/13/07. Text only entry − no document attached. (pap2, ) (Entered: 07/26/2007)
115 Minute Entry for Status Conference held on 8/10/2007 before Chief Judge Edward W. Nottingham. Plaintiff EEOC withdraws 41 Motion to Bifurcate. (Court Reporter Therese Lindblom) (ewncd) (Entered: 08/10/2007)
116 NOTICE of Change of Address by Barry Douglas Roseman (Roseman, Barry) (Entered: 09/02/2007)
117 Emergency MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 68 Scheduling Order To Extend The Length of Intervenor Christine Newland's Deposition by Defendant Corrections Corporation of America. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only) # 2 Exhibit A# 3 Exhibit B# 4 Exhibit C# 5 Exhibit D# 6 Exhibit E)(Rea, Colleen) (Entered: 09/07/2007)
118 MEMORANDUM regarding 117 Emergency MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 68 Scheduling Order To Extend The Length of Intervenor Christine Newland's Deposition filed by Corrections Corporation of America. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe. Entered by Chief Judge Edward W. Nottingham on 9/7/07. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)(ewnsec, ) (Entered: 09/07/2007)
119 ORDER; granting Defendants Expedited 117 Motion to Amend Scheduling Order to Extend the Length of Intervenor Christine Newland's Deposition for up to three hours. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 9/10/07.(ecmsl, ) (Entered: 09/10/2007)
120 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Michael J. Watanabe : Settlement Conference held on 9/13/2007. Settlement not reached, no record made. (gms, ) (Entered: 09/13/2007)
121 Emergency MOTION For Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by Fourteen Days by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Shanley, Sally) (Entered: 11/07/2007)
122 MEMORANDUM regarding 121 Emergency MOTION For Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by Fourteen Days filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe. Entered by Chief Judge Edward W. Nottingham on 11/7/07. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)(ewnsec, ) (Entered: 11/07/2007)
123 Minute ORDER granting Emergency 121 Motion to Amend Scheduling Order to Extend Discovery Deadline by Fourteen Days to 12/17/07 for the limited purpose of completing depositions, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 11/7/07.(sss, ) Modified to clarify entry on 11/9/2007 (sss, ). (Entered: 11/07/2007)
124 Docket Annotation regarding Minute 123 Order on Motion to Amend Scheduling Order. Corrected entry to read "limited purposes of completing depositions" Text only entry − no document attached (sss, ) (Entered: 11/09/2007)
125 MOTION for Protective Order Re 30(b)(6) Deposition of the EEOC by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−6, # 2 Exhibit 7 − 10)(Shanley, Sally) (Entered: 11/11/2007)
126 MEMORANDUM regarding 125 MOTION for Protective Order Re 30(b)(6) Deposition of the EEOC filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe. Entered by Chief Judge Edward W. Nottingham on 11/13/07. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)(ewnsec, ) (Entered: 11/13/2007)

Case: 1:06-cv-01956-KHV-MJW As of: 10/30/2016 06:42 PM MDT 13 of 25

11/13/2007 11/13/2007
11/16/2007 11/19/2007 11/19/2007 12/03/2007 12/03/2007 12/03/2007 12/04/2007 12/07/2007 12/07/2007 12/10/2007 12/13/2007

127 Unopposed MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 68 Scheduling Order to Extend Dispositive Motion Deadline by Defendant Corrections Corporation of America. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Rea, Colleen) (Entered: 11/13/2007)
128 MEMORANDUM regarding 127 Unopposed MOTION to Amend/Correct/Modify 68 Scheduling Order to Extend Dispositive Motion Deadline filed by Corrections Corporation of America. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe for recommendation only. Entered by Chief Judge Edward W. Nottingham on 11/13/07. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)(ewnsec, ) (Entered: 11/13/2007)
129 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Melissa Jane Rye on behalf of Corrections Corporation of America (Rye, Melissa) (Entered: 11/16/2007)
130 ORDER granting Unopposed 127 Motion to Amend Scheduling Order to Extend Dispositive Motion Deadline. The scheduling order is amended. The 1/18/08 dispositive motion deadline is vacated and reset to 2/4/08. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 11/19/07.(sss, ) (Entered: 11/19/2007)
131 Utility Setting/Resetting Deadlines/Hearings: The 1/18/08 dispositive motion deadline is vacated and reset to 2/4/08 pursuant to order of 11/19/07. Text only entry − no document attached. (sss, ) (Entered: 11/19/2007)
132 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Plaintiff's First Discovery by Defendant Dominion Correctional Services LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only) re Defendant Dominion's Motion for Ext of Time to Respond to Plaintiff's First Discovery)(Satriana, Daniel) (Entered: 12/03/2007)
133 MEMORANDUM regarding 132 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Plaintiff's First Discovery filed by Dominion Correctional Services LLC. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe. Entered by Chief Judge Edward W. Nottingham on 12/3/07. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)(ewnsec, ) (Entered: 12/03/2007)
134 RESPONSE to Motion re 125 MOTION for Protective Order Re 30(b)(6) Deposition of the EEOC filed by Defendant Corrections Corporation of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Index of Unpublished Cases, # 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)(Rea, Colleen) (Entered: 12/03/2007)
135 ORDER granting Defendant Dominion Correctional Services LLC's Unopposed 132 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff's First Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents up to 12/14/07. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 12/4/07.(sss, ) (Entered: 12/04/2007)
136 Unopposed MOTION For Extension of Time to Complete Deposition of Julian Vigil by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Shanley, Sally) (Entered: 12/07/2007)
137 MEMORANDUM regarding 136 Unopposed MOTION For Extension of Time to Complete Deposition of Julian Vigil filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe. Entered by Chief Judge Edward W. Nottingham on 12/7/07. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)(ewnsec, ) (Entered: 12/07/2007)
138 ORDER granting Unopposed 136 Motion Re Deposition of Julian Vigil. Discovery deadline of 12/17/07 is continued until 1/14/08 for the sole purpose of taking deposition of Julian Vigil, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 12/10/07.(sss, ) (Entered: 12/10/2007)
139 ORDER denying Plaintiff EEOC's 125 Motion for Protective Order Re: 30(b)(6)Deposition of the EEOC. Parties shall set the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Plaintiff EEOC. Discovery cut off date is extended for the limited purpose to12/31/2007 to take the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Plaintiff EEOC. Each party shall pay their own attorney fees and costs for this motion. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 12/13/07.(sss, ) (Entered: 12/13/2007)

Case: 1:06-cv-01956-KHV-MJW As of: 10/30/2016 06:42 PM MDT 14 of 25

12/14/2007 12/14/2007
12/17/2007 12/19/2007
12/19/2007 12/19/2007 12/20/2007 12/20/2007 12/20/2007 12/20/2007 12/21/2007 12/28/2007

140 Second MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Plaintiff's First Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents by Defendant Dominion Correctional Services LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Satriana, Daniel) (Entered: 12/14/2007)
141 MEMORANDUM regarding 140 Second MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Plaintiff's First Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents filed by Dominion Correctional Services LLC. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe. Entered by Chief Judge Edward W. Nottingham on 12/14/07. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)(ewnsec, ) (Entered: 12/14/2007)
142 MINUTE ORDER granting Unopposed Second 140 Motion for Extension of Time of Defendant Dominion Correctional Services, LLC's to Respond to Plaintiff's First Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents up to and including 12/28/07, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 12/17/07.(sss, ) (Entered: 12/17/2007)
143 APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION 139 to District Court Pursuant to Rule 72(a) by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Notice of deposition, # 2 Exhibit 2 − EEOC v. American International, # 3 Exhibit 3 FTC v. US Grant Resources, # 4 Exhibit 4 − SEC v. Rosenfeld, # 5 Exhibit 5 − US v. District Council of NYC, # 6 Exhibit 6 − CCA 1st Discovery Requests, # 7 Exhibit 7 − CCA's 2nd Discovery Requests, # 8 Exhibit 8 − Declaration of Sally Shanley, # 9 Exhibit 9 − QAre Charge Files, # 10 Exhibit 10 − Grynberg v Total SA)(Shanley, Sally) Modified on 12/20/2007 to create linkage (sss, ). (Entered: 12/19/2007)
144 Unopposed MOTION to Stay re 139 Order on Motion for Protective Order, by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Shanley, Sally) (Entered: 12/19/2007)
145 MEMORANDUM regarding 144 Unopposed MOTION to Stay regarding 139 Order on Motion for Protective Order, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe. Entered by Chief Judge Edward W. Nottingham on 12/19/07. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)(ewnsec, ) (Entered: 12/19/2007)
146 MINUTE ORDER granting Plaintiff EEOC's 144 Unopposed Motion to Amend Scheduling Order to Extend Deadlines. The 12/31/07 deadline for conducting Plaintiff EEOC's deposition is stayed pending decision on Plaintiff EEOC's 143 Rule 72(a) objections, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 12/20/07.(sss, ) (Entered: 12/20/2007)
147 Docket Annotation re: 143 APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court Pursuant to Rule 72(a) by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity. Docket entry modified to create linkage. Text only entry − no document attached (sss, ). (Entered: 12/20/2007)
148 MOTION to Compel Discovery From Intervenors and for Sanctions by Defendant Corrections Corporation of America. (Munger, Peter) (Entered: 12/20/2007)
149 BRIEF in Support re 148 MOTION to Compel Discovery From Intervenors and for Sanctions filed by Defendant Corrections Corporation of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Munger, Peter) (Entered: 12/20/2007)
150 MEMORANDUM regarding 148 MOTION to Compel Discovery From Intervenors and for Sanctions filed by Corrections Corporation of America. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe. Entered by Chief Judge Edward W. Nottingham on 12/21/07. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)(ewnsec, ) (Entered: 12/21/2007)
151 Third MOTION For Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff's First Interrogatories and Requests fro Production of Documents by Defendant Dominion Correctional Services LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Satriana, Daniel) (Entered: 12/28/2007)

Case: 1:06-cv-01956-KHV-MJW As of: 10/30/2016 06:42 PM MDT 15 of 25

01/02/2008
01/03/2008 01/07/2008 01/09/2008 01/14/2008 01/15/2008 01/15/2008
01/15/2008 01/16/2008
01/17/2008 01/17/2008 01/24/2008 01/24/2008

152 MEMORANDUM regarding 151 Third MOTION For Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff's First Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents filed by Dominion Correctional Services LLC. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe. Entered by Chief Judge Edward W. Nottingham on 1/2/08. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)(ewnsec, ) (Entered: 01/02/2008)
153 MINUTE ORDER granting 151 Third Motion for Extension of Time of Defendant Dominion Correctional Services, LLC's to Respond to Plaintiff's First Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents up to and including 1/7/08, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 1/3/08.(sss, ) (Entered: 01/03/2008)
154 OBJECTION to 143 Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision Response by Defendant Corrections Corporation of America. (Rea, Colleen) (Entered: 01/07/2008)
155 Unopposed MOTION For Extension of Time to Amend the Scheduling Order to Extend Dispositive Motion Deadline by Defendant Corrections Corporation of America. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Munger, Peter) (Entered: 01/09/2008)
156 Unopposed MOTION For Extension of Time to File Response to Defendant CCA's 148 Motion to Compel Discovery from Intervenors or for Sanctions by Intervenor Plaintiffs Sabinita Barron, Marcia Manchego, Christine Newland. (Roseman, Barry) Modified on 1/15/2008 to create document linkage (sss, ). (Entered: 01/14/2008)
157 Docket Annotation re: 156 Unopposed MOTION For Extension of Time to File Response to Defendant CCA's Motion to Compel Discovery from Intervenors or for Sanctions. Docket entry modified to create document linkage. Text only entry − no document attached (sss, ) (Entered: 01/15/2008)
158 MEMORANDUM regarding 156 Unopposed MOTION For Extension of Time to File Response to Defendant CCA's Motion to Compel Discovery from Intervenors or for Sanctions filed by Sabinita Barron, Marcia Manchego, Christine Newland. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe. Entered by Chief Judge Edward W. Nottingham on 1/15/08. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)(ewnsec, ) (Entered: 01/15/2008)
159 MINUTE ORDER granting Intervenors' Unopposed 156 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Defendant CCA's Motion to Compel Discovery from Intervenors and for Sanctions up to and including 1/22/08, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 1/15/08.(sss, ) (Entered: 01/15/2008)
160 MEMORANDUM regarding 155 Unopposed MOTION For Extension of Time to Amend the Scheduling Order to Extend Dispositive Motion Deadline filed by Corrections Corporation of America. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe for a decision on the scheduling order issue and for recommendation on the dispositive motions deadline.Entered by Chief Judge Edward W. Nottingham on 1/16/08. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)(ewnsec, ) (Entered: 01/16/2008)
161 ORDER granting Defendant Corrections Corporation of America's Second Unopposed 155 Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order to Extend the Dispositive Motion Deadline. Scheduling order is amended, dispositive motions are due by 3/4/08. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 1/17/08.(sss, ) (Entered: 01/17/2008)
162 Utility Setting/Resetting Deadlines/Hearings: Pursuant to order of 1/17/08, Dispositive Motions due by 3/4/2008. Text only entry − no document attached. (sss, ) (Entered: 01/17/2008)
163 RESPONSE to Motion re 148 MOTION to Compel Discovery From Intervenors and for Sanctions filed by Intervenor Plaintiffs Sabinita Barron, Marcia Manchego, Christine Newland. (Roseman, Barry) (Entered: 01/24/2008)
164 Second MOTION For Extension of Time to File Response to Defendant CCA's Motion to Compel or for Sanctions by Intervenor Plaintiffs Sabinita Barron, Marcia

Case: 1:06-cv-01956-KHV-MJW As of: 10/30/2016 06:42 PM MDT 16 of 25

01/25/2008
01/28/2008 02/04/2008 02/14/2008 02/14/2008 02/14/2008 02/27/2008
02/27/2008
02/28/2008 02/28/2008 03/04/2008 03/04/2008

Manchego, Christine Newland. (Roseman, Barry) (Entered: 01/24/2008)
165 MEMORANDUM regarding 164 Second MOTION For Extension of Time to File Response to Defendant CCA's Motion to Compel or for Sanctions filed by Sabinita Barron, Marcia Manchego, Christine Newland. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe. Entered by Chief Judge Edward W. Nottingham on 1/25/08. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)(ewnsec, ) (Entered: 01/25/2008)
166 MINUTE ORDER granting Intervenors' 164 Unopposed Second Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Defendant CCA's Motion to Compel Discovery from Intervenors and for Sanctions. Intervenor's Response 163 is considered timely filed, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 1/28/08.(sss, ) (Entered: 01/28/2008)
167 MINUTE ORDER: Defendant CCA's 148 Motion to Compel Discovery from Intervenors and for Sanction is MOOT and therefore DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Each party shall pay their own attorney fees and costs for this motion, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 2/4/08.(sss, ) (Entered: 02/04/2008)
168 MOTION to Compel Discovery From EEOC and Intervenor Newland and For Sanctions by Defendant Corrections Corporation of America. (Munger, Peter) (Entered: 02/14/2008)
169 BRIEF in Support re 168 MOTION to Compel Discovery From EEOC and Intervenor Newland and For Sanctions filed by Defendant Corrections Corporation of America. (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)(Munger, Peter) (Entered: 02/14/2008)
170 MEMORANDUM regarding 168 MOTION to Compel Discovery From EEOC and Intervenor Newland and For Sanctions filed by Corrections Corporation of America. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe. Entered by Chief Judge Edward W. Nottingham on 2/14/08. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)(ewnsec, ) (Entered: 02/14/2008)
171 Unopposed MOTION For Extension of Time to File Dispositive Motions by Intervenor Defendants Dominion Correctional Properties, LLC, Dominion Venture Group, Defendants Dominion Correctional Properties, LLC, Dominion Venture Group, Corrections Corporation of America, Dominion Correctional Services LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Satriana, Daniel) (Entered: 02/27/2008)
172 MEMORANDUM regarding 171 Unopposed MOTION For Extension of Time to File Dispositive Motions filed by Dominion Correctional Properties, LLC, Dominion Correctional Services LLC, Dominion Venture Group, Corrections Corporation of America. Motion 171 is referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe for informal recommendation on the dispositive motions deadline. Entered by Chief Judge Edward W. Nottingham on 2/27/08. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)(ewnsec, ) (Entered: 02/27/2008)
173 ORDER granting Defendants' 171 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Dispositive Motions up to and including 3/21/08. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 2/28/08.(sss, ) (Entered: 02/29/2008)
174 Utility Setting/Resetting Deadlines/Hearings: Pursuant to order of 2/28/08, Dispositive Motions due by 3/21/2008. Text only entry − no document attached. (sss, ) (Entered: 02/29/2008)
175 Unopposed MOTION For Extension of Time to Respond to 168 Motion to Compel by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Intervenor Plaintiffs Sabinita Barron, Marcia Manchego, Christine Newland. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Shanley, Sally) Modified on 3/5/2008 to add linkage to motion to compel (sss, ). (Entered: 03/04/2008)
176 MEMORANDUM regarding 175 Unopposed MOTION For Extension of Time to Respond to Motion to Compel filed by Sabinita Barron, Marcia Manchego,

Case: 1:06-cv-01956-KHV-MJW As of: 10/30/2016 06:42 PM MDT 17 of 25

03/05/2008 03/05/2008 03/21/2008 03/21/2008
03/21/2008 03/21/2008 03/21/2008
03/21/2008
03/24/2008 04/03/2008

Christine Newland, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe. Entered by Chief Judge Edward W. Nottingham on 3/4/08. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)(ewnsec, ) (Entered: 03/04/2008)
177 Docket Annotation re: 175 Unopposed MOTION For Extension of Time to Respond to Motion to Compel. Docket entry modified to add linkage to motion to compel. Text only entry − no document attached (sss, ) (Entered: 03/05/2008)
178 MINUTE ORDER granting Plaintiff's 175 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Defendant CCA's Motion to Compel Discovery from Intervenors and for Sanctions up to and including 3/24/08, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 3/5/08.(sss, ) (Entered: 03/05/2008)
179 Second MOTION For Extension of Time to File Response to Defendant CCA's Motion to Compel Discovery from Intervenors and for Sanctions (Dkt.# 168 ) by Intervenor Plaintiffs Sabinita Barron, Marcia Manchego, Christine Newland. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only) Proposed Order)(Roseman, Barry) Modified on 3/24/2008 to add linkage to Doc. 168 (sss, ). (Entered: 03/21/2008)
180 MEMORANDUM regarding 179 Second MOTION For Extension of Time to File Response to Defendant CCA's Motion to Compel Discovery from Intervenors and for Sanctions (Dkt.# 168) filed by Sabinita Barron, Marcia Manchego, Christine Newland. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe. Entered by Chief Judge Edward W. Nottingham on 3/21/08. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)(ewnsec, ) Modified on 3/24/2008 to remove system−generated duplicate text (sss, ). (Entered: 03/21/2008)
181 MINUTE ORDER granting Plaintiff's and Intervenor's 179 Second Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Defendant CCAs Motion to Compel Discovery from Intervenors and for Sanctions up to and including 4/3/2008, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 3/21/08.(sss, ) (Entered: 03/21/2008)
182 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Defendant Corrections Corporation of America. (Munger, Peter) (Entered: 03/21/2008)
183 BRIEF in Support re 182 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Corrections Corporation of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit List, # 2 Exhibit A−1, # 3 Exhibit A−2, # 4 Exhibit A−3, # 5 Exhibit A−4, # 6 Exhibit A−5, # 7 Exhibit A−6, # 8 Exhibit A−7, # 9 Exhibit A−8, # 10 Exhibit A−9, # 11 Exhibit A−10, # 12 Exhibit A−11, # 13 Exhibit A−12, # 14 Exhibit A−13, # 15 Exhibit A−14, # 16 Exhibit A−15, # 17 Exhibit A−16, # 18 Exhibit A−17, # 19 Exhibit A−18, # 20 Exhibit A−19, # 21 Exhibit A−20, # 22 Exhibit A−21, # 23 Exhibit A−22, # 24 Exhibit A−23, # 25 Exhibit A−24, # 26 Exhibit A−25, # 27 Exhibit A−26, # 28 Exhibit A−27, # 29 Exhibit A−28, # 30 Exhibit A−29, # 31 Exhibit A−30, # 32 Exhibit A−31, # 33 Exhibit A−32, # 34 Exhibit A−33, # 35 Exhibit A−34, # 36 Exhibit A−35, # 37 Exhibit A−36, # 38 Exhibit A−37)(Munger, Peter) (Entered: 03/21/2008)
184 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment and Brief in Support Thereof by Intervenor Defendants Dominion Correctional Properties, LLC, Dominion Venture Group, Defendants Dominion Correctional Properties, LLC, Dominion Venture Group, Dominion Correctional Services LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit, # 14 Exhibit, # 15 Exhibit, # 16 Exhibit, # 17 Exhibit, # 18 Exhibit, # 19 Exhibit, # 20 Exhibit, # 21 Exhibit, # 22 Exhibit)(Satriana, Daniel) (Entered: 03/21/2008)
185 Docket Annotation re: 179 Second MOTION For Extension of Time. Docket entry modified to create linkage to Doc. 168. Text only entry − no document attached (sss, ) (Entered: 03/24/2008)
186 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 168 MOTION to Compel Discovery From EEOC and Intervenor Newland and For Sanctions by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Intervenor Plaintiffs Sabinita Barron, Marcia Manchego, Christine Newland. (Attachments: # 1

Case: 1:06-cv-01956-KHV-MJW As of: 10/30/2016 06:42 PM MDT 18 of 25

04/03/2008
04/04/2008 04/04/2008 04/09/2008 04/09/2008 04/10/2008 04/11/2008 04/11/2008 04/14/2008 06/12/2008 06/13/2008

Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Shanley, Sally) (Entered: 04/03/2008)
187 MEMORANDUM regarding 186 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 168 MOTION to Compel Discovery From EEOC and Intervenor Newland and For Sanctions filed by Sabinita Barron, Marcia Manchego, Christine Newland, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe. Entered by Chief Judge Edward W. Nottingham on 4/3/08. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)(ewnsec, ) Modified on 4/4/2008 to remove system−generated duplicate text (sss, ). (Entered: 04/03/2008)
188 Docket Annotation re: 187 Memorandum. Docket entry modified to remove system−generated duplicate text. Text only entry − no document attached (sss, ) (Entered: 04/04/2008)
189 MINUTE ORDER granting Plaintiffs' 186 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Defendant CCA's 168 Motion to Compel Discovery from Intervenors and for Sanctions. The response shall be filed on or before 4/11/2008, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 4/4/08.(sss, ) (Entered: 04/04/2008)
190 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Defendant CCA and Dominion Defendants' 182 and 184 Motions for Partial Summary Judgment by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Shanley, Sally) Modified on 4/10/2008 to add linkage to Docs. 182 and 184 motions (sss, ). (Entered: 04/09/2008)
191 MINUTE ORDER granting 190 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response regarding 182 MOTION for Summary Judgment, 184 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment and Brief in Support Thereof. Plaintiff's/Intervenors' responses are due no later than 6/13/2008. Entered by Chief Judge Edward W. Nottingham on 4/9/08. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)(ewnsec, ) (Entered: 04/09/2008)
192 Docket Annotation re: 190 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Defendant CCA and Dominion Defendants' Motions for Partial Summary Judgment. Docket entry modified to add linkage to Docs. 182 and 184 motions. Text only entry − no document attached (sss, ) (Entered: 04/10/2008)
193 Joint MOTION for Order to Order Discovery by Defendant Corrections Corporation of America. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only) Consent Discovery Order)(Munger, Peter) (Entered: 04/11/2008)
194 MEMORANDUM regarding 193 Joint MOTION for Order to Order Discovery filed by Corrections Corporation of America. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe. Entered by Chief Judge Edward W. Nottingham on 4/11/08. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)(ewnsec, ) (Entered: 04/11/2008)
195 CONSENT DISCOVERY ORDER: Within 60 days of this order, EEOC and Intervenor Newland shall produce to CCA all documents requested as discussed in attached order. Defendant CCA's 168 Motion to Compel Discovery from EEOC and Intervenor Newland and for Sanctions is dismissed without prejudice. Each party shall bear its or her own costs and attorney's fees in this matter. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 4/14/08.(sss, ) (Entered: 04/14/2008)
196 Emergency MOTION For Extension of Time to File Responses to Defendant CCA's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. # 182 ) and Dominion Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. # 184 ) by Intervenor Plaintiffs Sabinita Barron, Marcia Manchego, Christine Newland. (Roseman, Barry) Modified on 6/16/2008 to add linkage to Docs. 182 and 184 (sss, ). (Entered: 06/12/2008)
197 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE with D.C.COLO.LCivR 6.1E re 196 Emergency MOTION For Extension of Time to File Responses to Defendant CCA's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. # 182) and Dominion Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. # 184) by Intervenor Plaintiffs Sabinita Barron, Marcia Manchego, Christine Newland. (Roseman, Barry) Modified on 6/16/2008 to remove system−generated duplicate text (sss, ).

Case: 1:06-cv-01956-KHV-MJW As of: 10/30/2016 06:42 PM MDT 19 of 25

06/16/2008 06/16/2008
06/16/2008 06/16/2008 06/16/2008 06/16/2008 06/19/2008 06/20/2008 06/20/2008
06/20/2008 06/20/2008 07/01/2008

(Entered: 06/13/2008)
198 Docket Annotation re: 197 Certificate of Compliance. The NEF for this document to Melissa Rye was returned as undeliverable. The firm advises she is no longer employed by them. They will file a motion to withdraw. Text only entry − no document attached (gms, ) (Entered: 06/16/2008)
199 Docket Annotation re: 196 Emergency MOTION For Extension of Time to File Responses to Defendant CCA's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. # 182) and Dominion Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. # 184). Docket entry modified to add linkage to Docs. 182 and 184. 197 Certificate of Compliance. Docket entry modified to remove system−generated duplicate text. Text only entry − no document attached. (sss, ) (Entered: 06/16/2008)
200 ORDER granting Plaintiff's and Intervenors' 196 Emergency Unopposed Second Motion for Extension of Time to File Responses to Defendant CCA's 182 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Dominion Defendants' 184 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment up to and including 6/20/2008. Signed by Chief Judge Edward W. Nottingham on 6/16/2008.(sss, ) (Entered: 06/16/2008)
201 MOTION to Withdraw Melissa J. Rye by Defendant Corrections Corporation of America. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Munger, Peter) (Entered: 06/16/2008)
202 MEMORANDUM regarding 201 MOTION to Withdraw Melissa J. Rye filed by Corrections Corporation of America. Motion referred to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe. Entered by Chief Judge Edward W. Nottingham on 6/16/08. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)(ewnsec) (Entered: 06/16/2008)
203 MINUTE ORDER granting 201 Motion to Withdraw. Melissa J. Rye is withdrawn as counsel of record for Defendant Corrections Corporation of America, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 6/16/2008.(sss, ) (Entered: 06/16/2008)
204 RESPONSE to Motion re 182 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit)(Shanley, Sally) (Entered: 06/19/2008)
205 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Documents under Seal by Intervenor Plaintiffs Sabinita Barron, Marcia Manchego, Christine Newland. (Roseman, Barry) (Entered: 06/20/2008)
206 BRIEF in Opposition re 184 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment and Brief in Support Thereof filed by Intervenor Plaintiffs Sabinita Barron, Marcia Manchego, Christine Newland. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit B, # 2 Exhibit C, # 3 Exhibit D, # 4 Exhibit E, # 5 Exhibit G, # 6 Exhibit H, # 7 Exhibit I, # 8 Exhibit J, # 9 Exhibit K, # 10 Exhibit L, # 11 Exhibit M, # 12 Exhibit O, # 13 Exhibit P, # 14 Exhibit Q, # 15 Exhibit R, # 16 Exhibit S, # 17 Exhibit T, # 18 Exhibit U, # 19 Exhibit V, # 20 Exhibit W, # 21 Exhibit N)(Roseman, Barry) (Entered: 06/20/2008)
207 SEALED DOCUMENT by Intervenor Plaintiffs Sabinita Barron, Marcia Manchego, Christine Newland. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit F, Part 1, # 3 Exhibit F, Part 2, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit F, Part 3, # 5 Exhibit F, Part 4)(Roseman, Barry) (Entered: 06/20/2008)
208 Redacted Material and Exhibits A and F in Support of 206 Brief in Opposition to Motion by Intervenor Plaintiffs Sabinita Barron, Marcia Manchego, Christine Newland. (Public entry for 207 SEALED DOCUMENT. Text only entry − no document attached.) (ssssl, ) (Entered: 06/23/2008)
209 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 182 Motion for Summary Judgment and 184 Partial Motion for Summary Judgment for Summary Judgment by Defendant Corrections Corporation of America. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Munger, Peter) Modified on 7/2/2008 to add linkage to Docs. 182 and 184 and to remove linkage to Doc. 204(sss, ). (Entered: 07/01/2008)

Case: 1:06-cv-01956-KHV-MJW As of: 10/30/2016 06:42 PM MDT 20 of 25

07/02/2008 07/18/2008 07/18/2008 08/18/2008 08/18/2008 08/18/2008 08/21/2008 08/21/2008 08/21/2008 08/22/2008
08/26/2008 08/28/2008 08/28/2008

210 Docket Annotation re: 209 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time. Docket entry modified to add linkage to Docs. 182 and 184 and to remove linkage to Doc. 204. Text only entry − no document attached. (sss, ) (Entered: 07/02/2008)
211 MINUTE ORDER granting 205 Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal. Entered by Chief Judge Edward W. Nottingham on 7/18/08. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)(ewnsec, ) (Entered: 07/18/2008)
212 MINUTE ORDER granting 209 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 182 and Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 184 . Defendants' shall file their reply briefs no later than 8/29/2008. Entered by Chief Judge Edward W. Nottingham on 7/18/08. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)(ewnsec, ) (Entered: 07/18/2008)
213 Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 204 Response to Motion, for Partial Summary Judgment by Defendant Corrections Corporation of America. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Rea, Colleen) (Entered: 08/18/2008)
214 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Amended Response to CCA Motion for Summary Judgment by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Intervenor Plaintiffs Sabinita Barron, Marcia Manchego, Christine Newland. (Shanley, Sally) (Entered: 08/18/2008)
215 NOTICE re 214 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Amended Response to CCA Motion for Summary Judgment by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Document Amended Response to CCA Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, # 2 Exhibit List)(Shanley, Sally) (Entered: 08/18/2008)
216 MiNUTE ORDER granting 214 Motion for Leave to File Amended Response to CCA Motion for Summary Judgment. Entered by Chief Judge Edward W. Nottingham on 8/21/08. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)(ewnsec, ) (Entered: 08/21/2008)
217 MINUTE ORDER granting 213 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 204 Response to Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Defendant shall file its reply brief no later than 9/10/2008. Entered by Chief Judge Edward W. Nottingham on 8/21/08. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)(ewnsec, ) (Entered: 08/21/2008)
219 RESPONSE to CCA's 182 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List)(sss, ) (Entered: 08/25/2008)
218 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Amended Brief by Intervenor Plaintiffs Sabinita Barron, Marcia Manchego, Christine Newland. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Document Plaintiffs and Intervenors Amended Brief in Opposition to Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Defendants Dominion Correctional Services, LLC, Dominion Correctional Properties, LLC and Dominion Venture Group, # 2 Proposed Document Plaintiff's and Intervenors' List of Exhibits)(Roseman, Barry) (Entered: 08/22/2008)
220 MINUTE ORDER granting 218 Motion for Leave to File Amended Brief. Intervenor Plaintiffs'shall file their amended brief. Entered by Chief Judge Edward W. Nottingham on 8/26/08. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)(ewnsec, ) (Entered: 08/26/2008)
221 Second MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply by Defendants Dominion Correctional Properties, LLC, Dominion Venture Group, Dominion Correctional Services LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Satriana, Daniel) (Entered: 08/28/2008)
222 Amended MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to 184 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by Defendants Dominion Correctional Properties, LLC, Dominion Venture Group, Dominion Correctional Services LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Satriana, Daniel) Modified on 8/29/2008 to add linkage to Doc. 184 motion (sss, ). (Entered: 08/28/2008)

Case: 1:06-cv-01956-KHV-MJW As of: 10/30/2016 06:42 PM MDT 21 of 25

08/29/2008 08/29/2008 08/29/2008
08/29/2008 09/05/2008 09/10/2008
09/12/2008 09/15/2008
09/15/2008 09/15/2008

223 MINUTE ORDER granting 222 Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Dominion Defendants' shall file their reply in support of their motion for partial summary judgment no later than 9/5/2008. Entered by Chief Judge Edward W. Nottingham on 8/29/08. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)(ewnsec, ) (Entered: 08/29/2008)
224 Docket Annotation re: 221 Second MOTION for Extension of Time has been refiled by counsel at Doc. 222. Text only entry − no document attached. (sss, ) (Entered: 08/29/2008)
225 RESPONSE to Motion re 184 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment and Brief in Support Thereof (Amended Brief in Opposition) filed by Intervenor Plaintiffs Sabinita Barron, Marcia Manchego, Christine Newland. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit G, # 7 Exhibit H, # 8 Exhibit I, # 9 Exhibit J, # 10 Exhibit K, # 11 Exhibit L, # 12 Exhibit M, # 13 Exhibit N, # 14 Exhibit O, # 15 Exhibit P, # 16 Exhibit Q, # 17 Exhibit R, # 18 Exhibit, # 19 Exhibit T, # 20 Exhibit V, # 21 Exhibit W)(Roseman, Barry) (Entered: 08/29/2008)
226 Docket Annotation re: Docket entry for 222 Amended MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply modified to add linkage to Doc. 184 motion. Text only entry − no document attached. (sss, ) (Entered: 08/29/2008)
227 NOTICE RE FILING DATE RE REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT by Defendants Dominion Correctional Properties, LLC, Dominion Venture Group, Dominion Correctional Services LLC (Satriana, Daniel) (Entered: 09/05/2008)
228 REPLY to Response to Motion re 182 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Corrections Corporation of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List, # 2 Exhibit Supplement to Exhibit A−38, # 3 Exhibit Supplement to Exhibit A−39, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit A−40, # 5 Exhibit A−41, # 6 Exhibit Supplement to Exhibit A−8, # 7 Exhibit Supplement to Exhibit A−10, # 8 Exhibit Supplement to Exhibit A−26, # 9 Exhibit Supplement to Exhibit A−31, # 10 Exhibit Supplement to Exhibit A−34, # 11 Exhibit Supplement to Exhibit B−8, # 12 Exhibit Supplement to Exhibit B−9, # 13 Exhibit Supplement to Exhibit B−12, # 14 Exhibit Supplement to Exhibit B−13, # 15 Exhibit Supplement to Exhibit B−19, # 16 Exhibit Supplement to Exhibit B−48, # 17 Exhibit Supplement to Exhibit B−51, # 18 Exhibit Supplement to Exhibit B−56, # 19 Exhibit Supplement to Exhibit B−59)(Munger, Peter) Modified on 9/12/2008 to add linkage to Doc. 182 motion for summary judgment and remove linkage to Doc. 214 motion for leave to file amended response (sss, ). (Entered: 09/10/2008)
229 Docket Annotation re: Docket entry for 228 Reply modified to add linkage to Doc. 182 motion for summary judgment and remove linkage to Doc. 214 motion for leave to file amended response. Text only entry − no document attached. (sss, ) (Entered: 09/12/2008)
230 REPLY to Response to Motion re 184 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment and Brief in Support Thereof filed by Defendants Dominion Correctional Properties, LLC, Dominion Venture Group, Dominion Correctional Services LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit V, # 2 Exhibit W, # 3 Exhibit X, # 4 Exhibit Y, # 5 Exhibit AA, # 6 Exhibit BB, # 7 Exhibit CC, # 8 Exhibit DD, # 9 Exhibit EE, # 10 Exhibit FF, # 11 Exhibit GG, # 12 Exhibit HH, # 13 Exhibit II, # 14 Exhibit JJ, # 15 Exhibit KK, # 16 Exhibit LL, # 17 Exhibit MM, # 18 Exhibit NN, # 19 Exhibit OO)(Satriana, Daniel) (Entered: 09/15/2008)
231 Unopposed MOTION to Seal Reply Concerning Undisputed Facts and Response Concerning Additional Disputed Facts and Argument by Defendants Dominion Correctional Properties, LLC, Dominion Venture Group, Dominion Correctional Services LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Satriana, Daniel) (Entered: 09/15/2008)
232 SEALED DOCUMENT by Defendants Dominion Correctional Properties, LLC, Dominion Venture Group, Dominion Correctional Services LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Z)(Satriana, Daniel) (Entered: 09/15/2008)

Case: 1:06-cv-01956-KHV-MJW As of: 10/30/2016 06:42 PM MDT 22 of 25

09/15/2008 09/16/2008 09/16/2008 09/16/2008
09/16/2008
09/24/2008
10/31/2008
11/04/2008 11/04/2008 11/05/2008 11/06/2008 11/18/2008
03/12/2009 03/12/2009

233 Redacted Material and Exhibit Z in Support of 230 Reply by Defendants Dominion Correctional Properties, LLC, Dominion Venture Group, Dominion Correctional Services LLC. (Public Entry for 232 SEALED DOCUMENT. Text only entry − no document attached.)(ssssl, ) (Entered: 09/16/2008)
234 Docket Annotation re: 230 Reply, 232 Sealed Document, 231 Unopposed MOTION to Seal. Counsel directed to refile an unredacted version of the reply brief using "sealed document" event and a new motion to seal. Text only entry − no document attached. (ssssl, ) (Entered: 09/16/2008)
235 Unopposed MOTION to Seal Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by Defendants Dominion Correctional Properties, LLC, Dominion Venture Group, Dominion Correctional Services LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only))(Satriana, Daniel) (Entered: 09/16/2008)
236 SEALED DOCUMENT by Defendants Dominion Correctional Properties, LLC, Dominion Venture Group, Dominion Correctional Services LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit AA, # 2 Exhibit BB, # 3 Exhibit CC, # 4 Exhibit DD, # 5 Exhibit EE, # 6 Exhibit FF, # 7 Exhibit GG, # 8 Exhibit HH, # 9 Exhibit II, # 10 Exhibit JJ, # 11 Exhibit KK, # 12 Exhibit LL, # 13 Exhibit MM, # 14 Exhibit NN, # 15 Exhibit OO, # 16 Exhibit V, # 17 Exhibit W, # 18 Exhibit X, # 19 Exhibit Y, # 20 Exhibit Z)(Satriana, Daniel) (Entered: 09/16/2008)
237 REPLY and Exhibits AA to Z in Support of 184 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Dominion Correctional Properties, LLC, Dominion Venture Group, Dominion Correctional Services LLC. (Public Entry for 236 SEALED DOCUMENT. Text only entry − no document attached.) (ssssl, ) (Entered: 09/17/2008)
238 MINUTE ORDER granting 231 Motion to Seal Reply Concerning Undisputed Facts and Response Concerning Additional Disputed Facts and Argument; granting 235 Motion to Seal Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Entered by Chief Judge Edward W. Nottingham on 9/24/08. (Text Only Entry − No Document Attached)(ewnsec, ) (Entered: 09/24/2008)
239 REASSIGNING JUDGE. Upon the resignation of Judge Edward W. Nottingham, this case has been reassigned to Judge Marcia S. Krieger, effective this date. Instead of EWN, all future pleadings should now reference the initials of the judge to whom the case was reassigned. (Text only entry − no document attached) (gmssl, ) (Entered: 10/31/2008)
240 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Stephanie Struble on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Struble, Stephanie) (Entered: 11/04/2008)
241 ORDER of Recusal directing reassignment to another judge. Signed by Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 11/04/2008. (sah, ) (Entered: 11/04/2008)
242 LETTER REASSIGNING CASE. Case reassigned to Judge Robert E. Blackburn for all further proceedings. Judge Marcia S. Krieger no longer assigned to the case. (gmssl, ) (Entered: 11/05/2008)
243 MINUTE ORDER, A TELEPHONIC Setting Conference is set for 11/18/2008 10:00 AM Counsel for the plaintiff shall arrange, initiate, and coordinate the conference call necessary to facilitate the setting conference by Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 11/06/2008. (sah, ) (Entered: 11/06/2008)
244 TRIAL PREPARATION CONFERENCE ORDER: Sixteen (16) Day Jury Trial set for 9/28/2009 08:30 AM in Courtroom A 701 before Judge Robert E. Blackburn. Trial Preparation Conference set for 9/11/2009 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom A 701 before Judge Robert E. Blackburn. Signed by Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 11/18/2008. (sah, ) (Entered: 11/18/2008)
245 ORDER denying 182 Defendant CCAs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 03/12/2009.(sah, ) (Entered: 03/12/2009)
246 ORDER. The Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Defendants Dominion Correctional Services, LLC, Dominion Correctional Properties, LLC and Dominion Venture Group and Brief in Support Thereof 184 filed 03/21/2008, is

Case: 1:06-cv-01956-KHV-MJW As of: 10/30/2016 06:42 PM MDT 23 of 25

03/12/2009 04/02/2009 04/03/2009 08/13/2009 08/17/2009
08/17/2009 08/26/2009 08/26/2009 08/27/2009 08/27/2009
09/01/2009
09/01/2009

GRANTED as to defendants Dominion Correctional Properties, LLC (DCP), and Dominion Venture Group. The plaintiffs claims against defendants, Dominion Correctional Properties, LLC (DCP), and Dominion Venture Group (DVG), are DISMISSED with prejudice. Defendants Dominion Correctional Properties, LLC (DCP), and Dominion Venture Group (DVG) are DROPPED from this action, and the caption of this case shall be AMENDED accordingly. the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Defendants Dominion Correctional Services, LLC, Dominion Correctional Properties, LLC and Dominion Venture Group and Brief in Support Thereof 184 filed 03/21/2008, is DENIED otherwise by Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 03/12/2009.(sah, ) (Entered: 03/12/2009)
247 ORDER. The objections stated in Plaintiff EEOCs Rule 72(a) Objections to Magistrate Watanabes Ruling Denying the Commissions Motion for Protective Order (Dkt. # 139) 143 filed 12/19/2007 are OVERRULED AND DENIED by Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 03/12/2009.(sah, ) (Entered: 03/12/2009)
248 MINUTE ORDER. A Telephonic Setting Conference is scheduled for 4/8/2009 10:00 AM. The court requests that counsel for the plaintiff shall arrange, initiate, and coordinate the conference call necessary to facilitate the setting conference by Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 04/02/2009. (sah, ) (Entered: 04/02/2009)
249 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by William Earl Moench on behalf of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Moench, William) (Entered: 04/03/2009)
250 SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER OF REFERENCE TO U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE re: 2 Order Referring Case to Magistrate Judge, by Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 8/13/09. (gms, ) (Entered: 08/14/2009)
251 MINUTE ORDER. A Final Pretrial Conference is set on 09/03/2009, at 3:00 p.m., in Courtroom A−502. The parties shall submit their Final Pretrial Order on or before 08/27/2009. By Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 08/17/2009. (sah, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/17/2009: # 1 Corrected Main Document) (lam, ). (Entered: 08/17/2009)
252 Docket Annotation re: 251 Minute Order. This entry was modified to add the correct pdf reflecting Civil Action No. as 06−cv−01956−REB−MJW. Text only entry − no document attached (lam, ) (Entered: 08/17/2009)
253 TRANSFER ORDER. Case reassigned to Judge Timothy D. Leonard for all further proceedings. Judge Robert E. Blackburn no longer assigned to case. By Chief Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on 08/26/2009. (sah, ) (Entered: 08/26/2009)
254 MOTION to Bifurcate by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3)(Struble, Stephanie) (Entered: 08/26/2009)
255 MINUTE ORDER Settlement Conference set for 9/17/2009 08:00 AM in Courtroom A 502 before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 08/27/2009. (mjwcd ) (Entered: 08/27/2009)
256 Proposed Pretrial Order by Defendants Dominion Correctional Properties, LLC, Dominion Venture Group, Corrections Corporation of America, Dominion Correctional Services LLC, Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Intervenor Plaintiffs Sabinita Barron, Marcia Manchego, Christine Newland. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G)(Struble, Stephanie) (Entered: 08/27/2009)
257 MOTION to Reset Deadline for Jury Instructions by Defendants Dominion Correctional Properties, LLC, Dominion Venture Group, Corrections Corporation of America, Dominion Correctional Services LLC, Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Intervenor Plaintiffs Sabinita Barron, Marcia Manchego, Christine Newland. (Moench, William) (Entered: 09/01/2009)
258 TRANSFER ORDER. Case reassigned to Judge Kathryn H. Vratil for all further proceedings. Judge Timothy D. Leonard no longer assigned to case. By Chief Judge Wiley Y. Daniel on 09/01/2009. (sah, ) (Entered: 09/01/2009)

Case: 1:06-cv-01956-KHV-MJW As of: 10/30/2016 06:42 PM MDT 24 of 25

09/02/2009 09/03/2009 09/03/2009
09/03/2009
09/10/2009 09/11/2009
09/16/2009 09/16/2009 09/16/2009 09/17/2009 09/18/2009 09/21/2009
09/22/2009 09/23/2009

259 OBJECTIONS to Plaintiff's Deposition Designations by Defendant Corrections Corporation of America. (Rea, Colleen) (Entered: 09/02/2009)
260 OBJECTIONS to Defendant CCA's Deposition Designations by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Intervenor Plaintiffs Sabinita Barron, Marcia Manchego, Christine Newland. (Struble, Stephanie) (Entered: 09/03/2009)
261 COURTROOM MINUTES/MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe: Final Pretrial Conference held on 9/3/2009; final Pretrial Order entered; Settlement Conference set for 9/17/2009 08:00 AM in Courtroom A 502 before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe. (Court Reporter FTR − Ellen E. Miller) (mjwcd ) (Entered: 09/04/2009)
262 FINAL PRETRIAL ORDER Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 09/03/2009. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − EEOC Witness List IF bifurcated, # 2 Exhibit B − EEOC Witness List if NO Bifurcation, # 3 Exhibit C − Dominion Witness List, # 4 Exhibit D − CCA Witness List, # 5 Exhibit E − Plaintiff/Intervenors Joint Exhibit List, # 6 Exhibit F − Dominion Exhibit List, # 7 Exhibit G − CCA Exhibit List)(mjwcd ) (Entered: 09/04/2009)
263 ORDER. The Trial Preparation Conference scheduled for 09/11/2009 is VACATED. By Judge Kathryn H. Vratil on 09/10/2009. TEXT ONLY ENTRY − NO DOCUMENT ATTACHED(sah, ) (Entered: 09/10/2009)
264 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Rule 26(a)(3)Objections to Exhibits by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Intervenor Plaintiffs Sabinita Barron, Marcia Manchego, Christine Newland, Defendants Corrections Corporation of America, Dominion Correctional Services LLC. (Struble, Stephanie) (Entered: 09/11/2009)
265 RESPONSE to 254 MOTION to Bifurcate Trial Proceedings filed by Defendant Corrections Corporation of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Munger, Peter) (Entered: 09/16/2009)
266 MOTION in Limine TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE CONCERNING THE EEOC INVESTIGATION by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Struble, Stephanie) (Entered: 09/16/2009)
267 RESPONSE to 254 MOTION to Bifurcate filed by Defendant Dominion Correctional Services LLC. (Satriana, Daniel) (Entered: 09/16/2009)
268 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe: Settlement Conference held on 9/17/2009. No record was made. (sah, ) (Entered: 09/18/2009)
269 MINUTE ORDER. A Telephonic Settlement Conference and Status Conference is set for 09/21/2009 at 1:30 PM. By Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 09/18/2009. (sah, ) (Entered: 09/18/2009)
270 COURTROOM MINUTES/MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe: Telephonic Status / Settlement Conference held on 9/21/2009; The record of this Status/Settlement conference is sealed and shall remain sealed until further order of the Court. Telephonic Status / Settlement Conference set for 9/23/2009 09:00 AM in Courtroom A 502 before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe. (Court Reporter FTR − Ellen E. Miller) (mjwcd) (Entered: 09/21/2009)
271 ORDER granting 264 Motion for Extension of Time. The deadline for filing objections to the parties' exhibits list is extended to 09/24/2009. By Judge Kathryn H. Vratil on 09/22/2009.TEXT ONLY ENTRY − NO DOCUMENT ATTACHED (sah, ) (Entered: 09/22/2009)
272 COURTROOM MINUTES/MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe: Settlement/Status Conference held on 9/23/2009; settlement on record. Dismissal Paper due by 9/30/2009. Record of this conference is sealed and shall remain sealed until further order of the Court. (Court Reporter FTR − Ellen E. Miller) (mjwcd ) (Entered: 09/23/2009)

Case: 1:06-cv-01956-KHV-MJW As of: 10/30/2016 06:42 PM MDT 25 of 25

09/30/2009
10/01/2009 10/01/2009

273 Joint MOTION to Dismiss Subject to Entry of Consent Decree by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Intervenor Plaintiffs Sabinita Barron, Marcia Manchego, Christine Newland, Defendants Corrections Corporation of America, Dominion Correctional Services LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order (PDF Only) Consent Decree, # 2 Proposed Order (PDF Only) Dismissal Order)(Struble, Stephanie) (Entered: 09/30/2009)
274 CONSENT DECREE. By Judge Kathryn H. Vratil on 10/01/2009. (sah, ) (Entered: 10/02/2009)
275 ORDER OF DISMISSAL. This case is dismissed with prejudice, subject to the courts continuing jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement filed with the parties motion, each party to bear its own costs and attorneys fees. By Judge Kathryn H. Vratil on 10/01/2009. (sah, ) (Entered: 10/02/2009)