Case 1:02-cv-00341-SS Document 1 Filed 05/23/2002 Page 1 of 6

Case 1:02-cv-00341-SS Document 1 Filed 05/23/2002 Page 2 of 6
about or opposing the discrimination, for filing a charge of discrimination, and/or for assisting in the investigation of a discrimination complaint.
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 Section 706(f)(l) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.s.C. § 2000e-5(f)(l) and (3) ("Title VII") and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.c. § 1981a.
2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were and now are being committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division.
PARTIES
3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Sections 706(f)( 1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(l) and (3).
4. At all relevant times, Defendant Cox Communications, ("Cox"), has continuously been a Texas corporation doing business in the State of Texas and the City of Georgetown, and has continuously had at least 15 employees.
5. At all relevant times, Defendant Cox 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).
-2-

Case 1:02-cv-00341-SS Document 1 Filed 05/23/2002 Page 3 of 6
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 6. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Cesar Mejias ("Mejias") filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant Cox. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 7. Since at least June 1999, Defendant Cox has engaged in unlawful employment practices at its Georgetown, Texas, facility and surrounding works sites, in violation of Section 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.c. § 2000e- (a), by subjecting Mejias and other similarly situated Hispanic employees to disparate treatment and to a hostile work environment because of their color and national origin, Hispanic.
Defendant Cox maintained a hostile work environment wherein Mejias and other similarly situated Hispanic employees were frequently subjected to harassment including threats, slurs and derogatory insults based on national origin and color. Defendant Cox never took effective action to stop the harassment despite repeated complaints to Cox supervisors and/or managers. Instead, Defendant Cox retaliated against Mejias and other similarly situated Hispanic employees, in violation of Section 704(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.c. §2000e-3(a), for complaining about and/or opposing the discrimination, for filing a charge of discrimination and/or for assisting in the investigation of a discrimination complaint. Defendant Cox also subjected some similarly situated Hispanic employees to disparate treatment in the terms and conditions of their employment, including being discharged or severely and disproportionately disciplined for alleged work infractions, whereas similarly situated White, Anglo employees, who were actually guilty of comparable or worse misconduct or infractions, were not disciplined at all or not seriously diSCiplined, much less targeted for termination. The hostile work environment, the disparate
-3-

Case 1:02-cv-00341-SS Document 1 Filed 05/23/2002 Page 4 of 6
treatment in the terms and conditions of employment, and the retaliation all had the effect of forcing Mejias and other similarly situated Hispanic employees to resign.
S. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraph seven above has been to deprive Mejias and other similarly situated Hispanic employees of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because of their color, national origin, Latino, and because of retaliation.
9. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph seven above were and are intentional.
10. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph seven above were and are done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Mejias and other similarly situated Hispanic employees.
PRA YER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Cox, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from maintaining a hostile work environment based on national origin, Hispanic, and color; from retaliating against employees who oppose or complain about such practices; and from any other employment practice which discriminates on the bases of color or national origin, Hispanic, or which facilitates, condones, or encourages color or national origin-based harassment andJor retaliation against employees who oppose or complain about such harassment. B. Order Defendant Cox to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities and a non hostile work environment for Hispanic,
-4-

Case 1:02-cv-00341-SS Document 1 Filed 05/23/2002 Page 5 of 6
for people of all colors, and for employees who oppose or complain about discrimination, and which eradicate the effects of Cox's past and present unlawful employment practices.
C. Order Defendant Cox to make whole Mejias, and other similarly situated Hispanic employees, by providing appropriate back pay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices, including but not limited to reinstatement, or front pay in lieu thereof, of Mejias and other similarly situated Hispanic employees.
D. Order Defendant Cox to make whole Mejias, and other similarly situated Hispanic employees, by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses reSUlting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraph seven above, including but not limited to relocation expenses,job search expenses, and medical expenses, in amounts to be determined at trial.
E. Order Defendant Cox to make whole Mejias, and other similarly situated Hispanic employees, by providing compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraph seven above, including but not limited to emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment oflife, embarrassment, emotional distress, anxiety and humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial.
F. Order Defendant Cox to pay Mejias and other similarly situated Hispanic employees punitive damages for its malicious and reckless conduct described in paragraph seven above, in amounts to be determined at trial.
G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest.
H. Award the Commission its costs of this action.
-5-

Case 1:02-cv-00341-SS Document 1 Filed 05/23/2002 Page 6 of 6
JURY TRIAL DEMAND The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint.
Respectfully submitted, GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel
RG. TA/ I upervisory T ;; Attorney / Texas State Bar NO'~19708300
~~
EDWARD JUARE Trial Attorney Texas State Bar No. 24014498 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION San Antonio District Office 5410 Fredericksburg Rd., Ste. 200 San Antonio, Texas 78229-3555 Telephone: (210) 281-7613 Telecopier: (210) 281-7669 ATTORNEYS FORPLAINTllP
-6-

 
 Case 1:02-cv-00341-SS Document 9 Filed 09/11/2002 Page 1 of 9

'RECEIVED
FILED

CLERK. U.S. Olt : i::': .. , 'r

WES1ERN Ollie I fl I."" .

BY -

0 p-u:lY:Jel-i:'-,,,-.; -

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SEP 11 2002

CLERK

AUSTIN DIVISION

WEST iT U.S, DISTRI
BY ~__ DIJ STR~ ICT

~ '
F

COURT TEXAS

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY §

COMMISSION,

§

DEPUTY CLERK

§

Plaintiff,

§

§

v.

§

§

COX COMMUNICATION,

§

§

Cause NO.A02CA 341 SS

Defendant.

§

§

CESAR MEJIAS,

§

§

Intervenor- Plaintiff,

§

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

This is an action for the deprivation ofrights secured by Title VII ofthe Civil Rights

Act of 1964, as amended 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. More specifically, CESAR MEJIAS,

as Intervenor-Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff Mejias"), alleges that Defendant

COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a/k/a COX COMMUNICATIONS (hereinafter referred

to as "Defendant COX"), engaged in discriminatory employment practices against him on

the basis of his national origin and color, and that he was subjected by Defendant COX to

disparate treatment and to ahostile work environment in violation ofthe law, which affected

the conditions and terms of his employment to such a degree that they were intolerable and

he was forced to resign his position with Defendant COX. Further, Defendant COX engaged

Original Complaint in Intervention

Case 1:02-cv-00341-SS Document 9 Filed 09/11/2002 Page 2 of 9
in retaliatory actions against Plaintiff Mejias when he complained of and opposed such discriminatory employment practices, for filing a charge of discrimination, and/or for assisting in the investigation of a discrimination complaint.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction ofthis Court is invoked pursuantto 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1342 and 1345. Jurisdiction is specifically conferred on the Court by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5. Equitable and other relief are also sought under 42 U.S.c. §2000e-5(g).
PARTIES 2. Plaintiff Mejias is ofHispaniclLatin descent, and at all times material to this action was a protected individual under 42 U.S.C. §2000e, et seq. Plaintiff Mejias is a resident of the City of Austin, Travis County, Texas. Accordingly, Plaintiff Mejias is a resident of the Western District of Texas, Austin Division. 3. Defendant COX is a Delaware corporation doing business in the State of Texas, with offices in the Western District of Texas. It employs over 200 persons in interstate commerce for Title VII purposes. Defendant COX has generally appeared in these proceedings. A copy of this Complaint in Intervention will be forwarded to Defendant COX's attorney ofrecord, James M. Gary at Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, L.L.P., via hand delivery.

Original Complaint in Intervention

2

Case 1:02-cv-00341-SS Document 9 Filed 09/11/2002 Page 3 of 9

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 4. Since at least June of 1999, Defendant COX has engaged in unlawful employment practices at its Georgetown, Texas facility and surrounding work sites, in violation of42 V.S.C. §2000e, et seq., by subjecting PlaintiffMejias to disparate treatment and to a hostile work environment because of his color and national origin. 5. While the Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant COX, Defendant COX maintained a hostile work environment wherein Plaintiff was frequently subjected to harassment from co-workers, including threats, slurs and derogatory insults based on national origin and color. Defendant COX never took effective action to stop the harassment despite repeated complaints to Defendant COX supervisors and/or managers. Instead, Defendant COX retaliated against PlaintiffMejias in violation of42 V.S.c. §2000e, et seq., for complaining about and/or opposing the discrimination, for filing a charge of discrimination and/or for assisting in the investigation of a discrimination complaint. 6. More specifically and without limitation, Plaintiff Mejias was subjected to t~thnic slurs by a non-Hispanic/Latino co-worker, such as referring to him as a "stupid Puerto Rican," a "spick," and a "nigger," and was told by the co-worker something to the effect of '"go back to Puerto Rico or Africa, it's the same, you all are Blacks." Plaintiff Mejias also heard this co-worker subject other Hispanic/Latino workers to similar ethnic slurs. For example, this co-worker said to another Hispanic/Latino employee something to the effect that "you're Mexican; you need to ride in the back of the truck and eat on the floor."

Original Complaint in Intervention

3

Case 1:02-cv-00341-SS Document 9 Filed 09/11/2002 Page 4 of 9
PlaintiffMejias reported to his supervisor(s) and/or manager(s) such, but the discriminatory acts continued.
7. When PlaintiffMejias attempted to report the discriminatory acts to Defendant COX's main office in Atlanta, Georgia, he was threatened by the General Manager of his office with possible termination for such actions. When Plaintiff Mejias did contact Defendant COX's main office, he was made to understand that he should discuss the matter with his General Manager. The General Manager failed to take appropriate corrective measures or actions to end the discrimination and hostile work environment.
8. When individuals from the main office discussed with Plaintiff Mejias the nature and extent ofthe discriminatory conduct found in the workplace, PlaintiffMejias was thereafter subjected to retaliation by the General Manager despite the supposedly confidential nature of these conversations.
9. In fact, the workplace became so hostile and the retaliation so bad that, as a result ofthis illegal and malicious discrimination, PlaintiffMejias suffered severe emotional distress. This stress forced Plaintiff Mejias out of work on unpaid leave from about August 30, 2001 until about September 2001, then onto short-term disability leave from about September 6, 2001 until about September 21, 2001. Then, upon his return, he encountered further harassment and retaliation from the General Manager. As a result of the illegal and malicious discrimination, hostile work environment and retaliation, Plaintiff Mejias was

Original Complaint in Intervention

4

Case 1:02-cv-00341-SS Document 9 Filed 09/11/2002 Page 5 of 9

forced to leave his position with Defendant COX, which amounted to a constructive discharge.
10. As a result of the illegal and malicious discrimination, Plaintiff Mejias was forced to work on a hostile work environment that caused him severe emotional distress. In addition, because ofthis environment, PlaintiffMejias suffered a loss ofwages and benefits, and has incurred medical expenses directly related to the illegal conduct ofDefendant COX. Plaintiff Mejias suffered unlawful retaliation after notifying Defendant COX of his complaint of discrimination. As a result of this illegal and malicious retaliation, Plaintiff Mejias suffered severe emotional distress, and further, loss of wages and benefits and medical expenses. As a result of the illegal and malicious discrimination, hostile work environment and retaliation, Plaintiff Mejias was constructively discharged, which caused him severe emotional distress and loss of wages and benefits, and medical expenses.
11. Plaintiff Mejias timely filed discrimination charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
COUNT I 12. Plaintiff Mejias incorporates in this Count paragraphs 4 through 11, above, as if set forth in this Count at length. 13. Defendant COX's actions are in violation of42 V.S.c. §2000e, et seq., which prohibits discrimination on the basis ofnational origin and color. Defendant COX subjected Plaintiff Mejias to systematic and steady discrimination during his employment and to a

Original Complaint in Intervention

5

Case 1:02-cv-00341-SS Document 9 Filed 09/11/2002 Page 6 of 9

hostile work environment due to his national origin andlor color. Defendant COX's action caused injury to Plaintiff Mejias, as described below. The unlawful employment practices described herein engaged in by Defendant COX were done intentionally, willfully and with malice andlor reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Plaintiff Mejias.
COUNT II
14. Plaintiff Mejias incorporates in this Count paragraphs 4 through 11, above, as if set forth in this Count at length.
15. Defendant COX's actions are in violation of42 U.S.c. §2000e, et seq., which prohibits retaliation after a complaint ofdiscrimination is made. Defendant COX unlawfully retaliated against Plaintiff Mejias after he filed a complaint of discrimination. Defendant COX's action caused injury to Plaintiff Mejias, as described below. The unlawful ,employment practices described herein engaged in by Defendant COX were done intentionally, willfully and with malice and!or reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Plaintiff Mejias.
COUNT III 16. Plaintiff Mejias incorporates in this Count paragraphs 4 through 11, above, as if set forth in this Count at length. 17. Defendant COX's actions are in violation of42 U.S.C. §2000e, et seq., which prohibits discrimination on the basis of national origin and color, and retaliation. Defendant COX constructively discharged Plaintiff Mejias by subjecting him to discrimination, a

Original Complaint in Intervention

6

Case 1:02-cv-00341-SS Document 9 Filed 09/11/2002 Page 7 of 9
hostile work environment and retaliation, such that a reasonable person would not have been able to continue in his employment under the circumstances. Defendant COX's action caused injury to Plaintiff Mejias, as described below. The unlawful employment practices described herein engaged in by Defendant COX were done intentionally, willfully and with malice and/or reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Plaintiff Mejias.
DAMAGES 18. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant COX's wrongful conduct, Plaintiff Mejias has suffered damages and continues to suffer damages in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits ofthis Court. These damages include, but are not limited to, lost wages and employment fringe benefits, and mental anguish and emotional distress. 19. Furthermore, PlaintiffMejias is entitled to punitive damages. Defendant COX willfully and maliciously violated PlaintiffMejias' rights and acted with reckless and wanton disregard for his rights.
ADMINISTRATIVE PREREQUISITES 20. PlaintiffMejias timely filed a Charge ofEmployment Discrimination with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. PlaintiffMejias is not required to obtain a Notice of Right to Sue in this case, as he is an Intervenor-Plaintiff in the cause of action brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and entitled to intervene in this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(t)(l).

Original Complaint in Intervention

7

Case 1:02-cv-00341-SS Document 9 Filed 09/11/2002 Page 8 of 9

ATTORNEYS' FEES 21. In order to prosecute these claims, it was necessary for Plaintiff Mejias to retain the services ofRaul Steven Pastrana, an attorney licensed to practice law in this Court. Therefore, he seeks attorneys' fees to the extent that he is a prevailing party.
JURY DEMAND
22. Plaintiff Mejias hereby demands trial by jury on any and all contested issues of fact.
PRAYER WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, PlaintiffCESAR MEJIAS prays that Defendant COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC. a/kIa COX COMMUNICATIONS be cited to answer and appear herein and that upon final hearing he obtain judgment against Defendant COX for: a. Compensatory damages for any and all back pay and fringe benefits; b. Compensatory damages for front pay and fringe benefits, as reinstatement is
impractical and/or unworkable; c. Compensatory damages for mental anguish and emotional distress; d. Medical expenses, in the past and future; e. Punitive damages; f. Prejudgment and post-judgment interest; g. Attorneys' fees; h. Costs of court; and

Original Complaint in Intervention

8

Case 1:02-cv-00341-SS Document 9 Filed 09/11/2002 Page 9 of 9

i. Any and all further relief to which he may prove herself to be justly entitled. Respectfully submitted,

aul Ste n Pastrana exas State Bar No. 15560845 PASTRANA LAW FIRM 812 San Antonio St., Suite G-20 Austin, Texas 78701 (512) 474-4487 (512) 322-9885 [facsimile]
Attorney for Intervenor-Plaintiff

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on thisJ,fs.hlay of A()H~ ,2002, a true and correct
copy ofthe foregoing document, with attachments, ifa y, was eIther hand delIvered or sent via first-class U.S. mail to:

James M. Gray Akin, Gump et al 300 West 6th Street, Suite 2100 Austin, Texas 78701
Attorney for Defendant

Robert B. Harwin Judith G. Taylor Edward Juarez
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 5410 Fredericksburg Rd., Suite 200 San Antonio, Texas 78229-3555

Original Complaint in Intervention

9

 
 -. Case 1:02-cv-00341-SS Document 25 Filed 01/08/2003 Page 1 of 3

FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ~. If C, '7 1('I ,., I'J IC;! () N

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AUSTIN DIVISION

2003 JA -8 PH 4: 25

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
-vs-
COX COMMUNICATIONS, Defendant.

Case No. A-02-CA-341-SS

ORDER
BE IT REMEMBERED on the 6th day of January 2003 the Court called the above-styled cause for hearing, and the parties appeared through counsel of record. The Court confinns its oral announcements at the hearing with the following written orders.
The plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") moves to quash the Defendant Cox Communications, Inc.'s ("Cox") 30(b)(6) deposition notice. On November 18, 2002, Cox served its 30(b)(6) deposition notice on the EEOC. Cox designated matters for testimony at the deposition including the allegations and assertions ofdiscrimination in the EEOC's complaint; the training the EEOC required or suggested employers provide to their employees regarding discrimination from January 1, 1998 to the present; the EEOC's policies during this time period regarding processing and investigating charges of discrimination and the standards for bringing lawsuits and class-based actions against certain employers; and the intake, processing and investigation of the charges filed by plaintiff-intervenor Cesar Mejias and other individuals. See Motion to Quash, Ex. 1.

-
Case 1:02-cv-00341-SS Document 25 Filed 01/08/2003 Page 2 of 3
The EEOC objects to the notice because (1) it seeks information privileged under the deliberative process privilege~ attorney-client privilege and attorney work product privilege; (2) the information it seeks would be unreasonably cumulative and duplicative; and (3) the EEOC's manner of investigation is not a relevant issue in this case. According to the EEOC, the only individuals with knowledge of the matters in the notice are the EEOC investigator assigned to the case and EEOC attorneys and support staff. These parties' evaluations of Cox employees' charges of discrimination in deciding whether to file suit are privileged. While the facts providing the basis for the EEOC's complaint are discoverable, the EEOC has produced its investigative file (aside from the privileged documents, which it will submit to this Court for in camera review) containing the witness statements giving rise to this cause of action. The investigator's deposition testimony as to the facts contained in those witness statements would be not only duplicative and cumulative, but hearsay. The proper method for inquiring as to the factual basis of the EEOC's claims is through interrogatories and requests for production, not a 30(b)(6) deposition of an investigator who has no personal knowledge ofthe alleged discrimination at issue.! Ifthe EEOC refuses to provide Cox with the factual materials it requests, Cox can file a motion to compel.
Cox's deposition notice also raises topics that are irrelevant to any ultimate issue in this discrimination case. The issues of whether the EEOC satisfied statutory or regulatory procedural requirements and followed its own investigative policies will not be included in the jury instructions on Cox's substantive liability for discrimination. If Cox believes something improper occurred in
I Cox's counsel indicated at the hearing he wanted to depose the EEOC investigator to clear up any confusion he had in reading the investigative file. IfCox has specific questions about the file, it could seek clarification from the EEOC. Such clarification, however, should not be in the form of a 30(b)(6) deposition of the investigator or any other EEOC representative.
-2-

Case 1:02-cv-00341-SS Document 25 Filed 01/08/2003 Page 3 of 3 the EEOC's investigation, it may bring its concerns to the Court. A 30(b)(6) deposition is not the proper place for Cox to conduct an inquiry of any such suspicions.
In accordance with the foregoing: IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiffs Motion to Quash Defendant's 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice [#17] is GRANTED; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiffs Unopposed Motion to Supplement Plaintiff EEOC's Motion to Quash [#18] is GRANTED; IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the Plaintiff SHALL FILE with the Court for in camera review by January 21, 2003 the portions ofthe EEOC investigative file it withheld from production to the Defendant as privileged, along with an explanation ofhow the privilege protected the specific documents withheld.
SIGNED this the 1':t:!&: day of January 2003.
-3-

 
 x.ct\~t\) Case 1:02-cv-00341-SS Document 31 Filed 02/13/2003

~ 'l\)\)~ ~~~ \ (D~.\~.~;'c.)''.Of\>\,~'\j N THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

.~~~'t-,~SO\S\~~'\ c\.\;.r-'t-. FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

~~<;;W

\)'t.~0\

AUSTIN DIVISION

6"

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY §

COMMISSION,

§

§

Plaintiff,

Page 1 of 9
FIL[

and

CESAR MEJIAS,

Civil Action No. A-02-CA-341-SS

Plaintiff-Intervenor, JURY TRIAL DEMAND
v.

COX COMMUNICATIONS,

Defendant.

CESAR MEJIAS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
This is an action for the deprivation of rights secured by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended 42 U.S.c. § 2000e, et seq. More specifically, CESAR MEJIAS, as IntervenorPlaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff Mejias"), alleges that Defendants COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC., WILLIAMSON COUNTY CABLE COMPANY and COX CLASSIC CABLE, INC. (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Defendant COX"), acted in concert and as one entity and engaged in discriminatory employment practices against him on the basis of his national origin and color, and that he was subjected by Defendant COX to disparate treatment and to a hostile work environment in violation of the law, which affected the conditions and terms of his employment to such a degree that they were intolerable and he was forced to resign his position with

First Amended Complaint in Intervention

3/

Case 1:02-cv-00341-SS Document 31 Filed 02/13/2003 Page 2 of 9

Defendant COX. Further, Defendant COX engaged in retaliatory actions against Plaintiff Mejias when he complained ofand opposed such discriminatory employment practices, for filing a charge of discrimination, and/or for assisting in the investigation of a discrimination complaint.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction ofthis Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1342 and 1345. Jurisdiction is specifically conferred on the Court by 42 U.s.c. § 2000e-5. Equitable and other relief are also sought under 42 U.S.c. §2000e-5(g).
PARTIES 2. PlaintiffMejias is ofHispaniclLatin descent, and at all times material to this action was a protected individual under 42 U.S.C. §2000e, et seq. Plaintiff Mejias is a resident ofthe City ofAustin, Travis County, Texas. Accordingly, PlaintiffMejias is a resident ofthe Western District of Texas, Austin Division. 3. COX COMMUNICATION, INC. is a Delaware corporation doing business in the State of Texas, with offices in the Western District of Texas. It employs over 200 persons in interstate commerce for Title VII purposes. COX COMMUNICATION, INC. has generally appeared in these proceedings. WILLIAMSON COUNTY CABLEVISION COMPANY is a Texas corporation, and may be served by serving its registered agent, CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY+, at its registered office, 800 Brazos, Austin, Texas 78701. COX CLASSIC CABLE, INC. is a Delaware corporation and may be served by serving its registered agent at its registered office or president or other authorized officer at its principal office. A copy of this Complaint in Intervention will be forwarded to Defendant COX's attorney of record, James M. Gary at Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, L.L.P., via hand delivery.

First Amended Complaint in Intervention

2

Case 1:02-cv-00341-SS Document 31 Filed 02/13/2003 Page 3 of 9
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 4. Since at least June of 1999, Defendant COX has engaged in unlawful employment practices at its Georgetown, Texas facility and surrounding work sites, in violation of 42 U.S.c. §2000e, et seq., by subjecting Plaintiff Mejias to disparate treatment and to a hostile work environment because of his color and national origin. 5. While the Plaintiffwas an employee ofDefendant COX, Defendant COX maintained a hostile work environment wherein Plaintiff was frequently subjected to harassment from coworkers, including threats, slurs and derogatory insults based on national origin and color. Defendant COX never took effective action to stop the harassment despite repeated complaints to Defendant COX supervisors and/or managers. Instead, Defendant COX retaliated against Plaintiff Mejias in violation of 42 U.s.C. §2000e, et seq., for complaining about and/or opposing the discrimination, for filing a charge of discrimination and/or for assisting in the investigation of a discrimination complaint. 6. More specifically and without limitation, Plaintiff Mejias was subjected to ethnic slurs by a non-Hispanic/Latino co-worker, such as referring to him as a "stupid Puerto Rican," a "spick," and a "nigger," and was told by the co-worker something to the effect of"go back to Puerto Rico or Africa, it's the same, you all are Blacks." Plaintiff Mejias also heard this co-worker subject other Hispanic/Latino workers to similar ethnic slurs. For example, this co-worker said to another Hispanic/Latino employee something to the effect that "you're Mexican; you need to ride in the back of the truck and eat on the floor." Plaintiff Mejias reported to his supervisor(s) and/or manager(s) such, but the discriminatory acts continued.

First Amended Complaint in Intervention

3

Case 1:02-cv-00341-SS Document 31 Filed 02/13/2003 Page 4 of 9

7. When Plaintiff Mejias attempted to report the discriminatory acts to Defendant COX's human resources department, he was threatened by the General Manager of his office with possible termination for such actions. When Plaintiff Mejias did contact Defendant COX's human resources department, he was made to understand that he should discuss the matter with his General Manager. The General Manager failed to take appropriate corrective measures or actions to end the discrimination and hostile work environment.
8. When individuals from the main office discussed with PlaintiffMejias the nature and extent of the discriminatory conduct found in the workplace, Plaintiff Mejias was thereafter subjected to retaliation by the General Manager despite the supposedly confidential nature of these conversations.
9. In fact, the workplace became so hostile and the retaliation so bad that, as a result of this illegal and malicious discrimination, Plaintiff Mejias suffered severe emotional distress. This stress forced Plaintiff Mejias out of work on unpaid leave from about August 30, 2001 until about September 2001, then onto short-term disability leave from about September 6, 2001 until about September 21, 2001. Then, upon his return, he encountered further harassment and retaliation from the General Manager. As a result of the illegal and malicious discrimination, hostile work environment and retaliation, Plaintiff Mejias was forced to leave his position with Defendant COX, which amounted to a constructive discharge.
10. As a result of the illegal and malicious discrimination, Plaintiff Mejias was forced to work on a hostile work environment that caused him severe emotional distress. In addition, because ofthis environment, PlaintiffMejias suffered a loss ofwages and benefits, and has incurred medical expenses directly related to the illegal conduct ofDefendant COX. PlaintiffMejias suffered

First Amended Complaint in Intervention

4

Case 1:02-cv-00341-SS Document 31 Filed 02/13/2003 Page 5 of 9
unlawful retaliation after notifying Defendant COX of his complaint of discrimination. As a result of this illegal and malicious retaliation, Plaintiff Mejias suffered severe emotional distress, and further, loss of wages and benefits and medical expenses. As a result of the illegal and malicious discrimination, hostile work environment and retaliation, Plaintiff Mejias was constructively discharged, which caused him severe emotional distress and loss ofwages and benefits, and medical expenses.
11. Plaintiff Mejias timely filed discrimination charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
COUNT I 12. Plaintiff Mej ias incorporates in this Count paragraphs 4 through 11, above, as if set forth in this Count at length. 13. Defendant COX's actions are in violation of 42 U.S.c. §2000e, et seq., which prohibits discrimination on the basis of national origin and color. COX COMMUNICAnONS, INC., WILLIAMSON COUNTY CABLEVISION COMPANY and COX CLASSIC CABLE acted in concert and as a single entity (and, hence, referred to in this Complaint collectively as "Defendant COX") to violate 42 U.S.C. §2000e, et seq. Defendant COX subjected PlaintiffMejias to systematic and steady discrimination during his employment and to a hostile work environment due to his national origin and/or color. Defendant COX's action caused injury to Plaintiff Mejias, as described below. The unlawful employment practices described herein engaged in by Defendant COX were done intentionally, willfully and with malice and/or reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Plaintiff Mejias.

First Amended Complaint in Intervention

5

Case 1:02-cv-00341-SS Document 31 Filed 02/13/2003 Page 6 of 9
COUNT II 14. Plaintiff Mejias incorporates in this Count paragraphs 4 through 11, above, as ifset forth in this Count at length. 15. Defendant COX's actions are in violation of 42 U.S.C. §2000e, et seq., which prohibits retaliation after a complaint of discrimination is made. Defendant COX unlawfully retaliated against Plaintiff Mejias after he filed a complaint of discrimination. Defendant COX's action caused injury to Plaintiff Mejias, as described below. The unlawful employment practices described herein engaged in by Defendant COX were done intentionally, willfully and with malice and/or reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Plaintiff Mejias.
COUNT III 16. PlaintiffMej ias incorporates in this Count paragraphs 4 through 11, above, as if set forth in this Count at length. 17. Defendant COX's actions are in violation of 42 U.S.c. §2000e, et seq., which prohibits discrimination on the basis of national origin and color, and retaliation. Defendant COX constructively discharged Plaintiff Mejias by subjecting him to discrimination, a hostile work environment and retaliation, such that a reasonable person would not have been able to continue in his employment under the circumstances. Defendant COX's action caused injury to Plaintiff Mejias, as described below. The unlawful employment practices described herein engaged in by Defendant COX were done intentionally, willfully and with malice and/or reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Plaintiff Mejias.

First Amended Complaint in Intervention

6

Case 1:02-cv-00341-SS Document 31 Filed 02/13/2003 Page 7 of 9
DAMAGES 18. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant COX's wrongful conduct, Plaintiff Mejias has suffered damages and continues to suffer damages in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Court. These damages include, but are not limited to, lost wages and employment fringe benefits, and mental anguish and emotional distress. 19. Furthermore, Plaintiff Mejias is entitled to punitive damages. Defendant COX willfully and maliciously violated Plaintiff Mejias' rights and acted with reckless and wanton disregard for his rights.
ADMINISTRATIVE PREREQUISITES 20. PlaintiffMejias timely filed aCharge ofEmployment Discrimination with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Plaintiff Mejias is not required to obtain a Notice ofRight to Sue in this case, as he is an Intervenor-Plaintiff in the cause of action brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and entitled to intervene in this action pursuant to 42 U.S.c. §2000e-5(f)(1).
ATTORNEYS' FEES 21. In order to prosecute these claims, it was necessary for Plaintiff Mejias to retain the services of Raul Steven Pastrana, an attorney licensed to practice law in this Court. Therefore, he seeks attorneys' fees to the extent that he is a prevailing party.
JURY DEMAND
22. PlaintiffMejias hereby demands trial by jury on any and all contested issues of fact.

First Amended Complaint in Intervention

7

Case 1:02-cv-00341-SS Document 31 Filed 02/13/2003 Page 8 of 9

PRAYER WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff CESAR MEJIAS prays that Defendant COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC., WILLIAMSON COUNTY CABLEVISION COMPANY and COX CLASSIC CABLE, INC. cited to answer and appear herein and that upon final hearing he obtain judgment against all Defendants for: a. Compensatory damages for any and all back pay and fringe benefits; b. Compensatory damages for front pay and fringe benefits, as reinstatement is
impractical and/or unworkable; c. Compensatory damages for mental anguish and emotional distress; d. Medical expenses, in the past and future; e. Punitive damages; f. Prejudgment and post-judgment interest; g. Attorneys' fees; h. Costs of court; and 1. Any and all further relief to which he may prove herself to be justly entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
R ul Steven astrana Texas State Bar No. 15560845 PASTRANA LAW FIRM 812 San Antonio St., Suite 0-20 Austin, Texas 78701 (512) 474-4487 (512) 322-9885 [facsimile] Attorney for Intervenor-Plaintiff

First Amended Complaint in Intervention

8

Case 1:02-cv-00341-SS Document 31 Filed 02/13/2003 Page 9 of 9

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

8 . I hereby certify that on this

day of \ T4~I/AfLY ,2002, a true and correct copy

ofthe foregoing document, with attachments, ifany, was either hand delivered or sent via first-class

U.S. mail to:

James M. Gray Akin, Gump et al 300 West 6th Street, Suite 2100 Austin, Texas 78701 Attorney for Defendant

Robert B. Harwin Judith G. Taylor Edward Juarez Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 5410 Fredericksburg Rd., Suite 200 San Antonio, Texas 78229-3555

First Amended Complaint in Intervention

9

 
 Case 1:02-cv-00341-SS Document 32 Filed 02/13/2003 Page 1 of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FI[ED'

AUSTIN DIVISION

FEB 1 3 2003

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY §

COMMISSION,

§

§

Plaintiff,

§

CLERK Us 0

W1iSH:F?N" ISTRICT COURT

01

IS,TRcIC-T> OF TEXAS

DEPUTY CLERK.

§

and

§

§

CESAR MEJIAS,

§ Civil Action No. A-02-CA-341-SS

§

Plaintiff-Intervenor,

§

§ JURY TRIAL DEMAND

v.

§

§

COX COMMUNICATIONS,

§

§

Defendant.

§

PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of national origin, Hispanic, color, and retaliation, and to provide appropriate relief to Charging Party, Cesar Mejias, and other similarly situated Hispanic employees who were adversely affected by such practices. The Commission alleges that Defendant Cox Communications, Inc. and/or Cox Communications d/b/a Williamson County Cablevision Company engaged in discriminatory employment practices by subjecting Cesar Mejias and other similarly situated Hispanic employees to disparate treatment and to a hostile work environment because of their national origin and color. As a result of the discriminatory employment practices, the conditions and terms of employment for
-1-

Case 1:02-cv-00341-SS Document 32 Filed 02/13/2003 Page 2 of 7
Cesar Mejias and other similarly situated Hispanic employees were made so intolerable that they were forced to resign their positions, and some similarly situated Hispanic employees were disparately discharged based on their national origin and/or color. The Commission also alleges that Defendant Cox Communications, Inc. and/or Cox Communications d/b/a Williamson County Cablevision Company retaliated against Cesar Mejias and similarly situated Hispanic employees, in violation of Section 704(a) of Title VII, 42 § U.S.c. 2000 e-3(a), for complaining about or opposing the discrimination, for filing a charge of discrimination, and/or for assisting in the investigation of a discrimination complaint.
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 Section 706(f)(l) and (3) of Title VIT of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(l) and (3) ("Title VIT") and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U.S.C. § 1981a. 2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful wer~ and now are being committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VIT, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Sections 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VIT, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(l) and (3). 4. At all relevant times, Defendant Cox Communications, Inc. and/or Cox
-2-

Case 1:02-cv-00341-SS Document 32 Filed 02/13/2003 Page 3 of 7
Communications d/b/a Williamson County Cablevision Company ("Cox"), has continuously been a Texas corporation doing business in the State of Texas and the City of Georgetown, and has continuously had at least 15 employees.
5. At all relevant times, Defendant Cox has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701 (b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 6. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Cesar Mejias ("Mejias") filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant Cox. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 7. Since at least June 1999, Defendant Cox has engaged in unlawful employment practices at its Georgetown, Texas, facility and surrounding works sites, in violation of Section 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e- (a), by subjecting Mejias and other similarly situated Hispanic employees to disparate treatment and to a hostile work environment because of their color and national origin, Hispanic.
Defendant Cox maintained a hostile work environment wherein Mejias and other similarly situated Hispanic employees were frequently subjected to harassment including threats, slurs and derogatory insults based on national origin and color. Defendant Cox never took effective action to stop the harassment despite repeated complaints to Cox supervisors and/or managers. Instead, Defendant Cox retaliated against Mejias and other similarly situated Hispanic employees, in violation of Section 704(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.c. §2000e-3(a), for complaining about and/or opposing the discrimination, for filing a charge of discrimination and/or for assisting in the
-3-

Case 1:02-cv-00341-SS Document 32 Filed 02/13/2003 Page 4 of 7
investigation of a discrimination complaint. Defendant Cox also subjected some similarly situated Hispanic employees to disparate treatment in the terms and conditions of their employment, including being discharged or severely and disproportionately disciplined for alleged work infractions, whereas similarly situated White, Anglo employees, who were actually gUilty of comparable or worse misconduct or infractions, were not disciplined at all or not seriously disciplined, much less targeted for termination. The hostile work environment, the disparate treatment in the terms and conditions of employment, and the retaliation all had the effect of forcing Mejias and other similarly situated Hispanic employees to resign.
S. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraph seven above has been to deprive Mejias and other similarly situated Hispanic employees of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because of their color, national origin, Latino, and because of retaliation.
9. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph seven above were and are intentional.
10. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph seven above were and are done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Mejias and other similarly situated Hispanic employees.
PRA YER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Cox, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from maintaining a hostile work environment based on national origin, Hispanic, and color; from retaliating against employees who
-4-

Case 1:02-cv-00341-SS Document 32 Filed 02/13/2003 Page 5 of 7
oppose or complain about such practices; and from any other employment practice which discriminates on the bases of color or national origin, Hispanic, or which facilitates, condones, or encourages color or national origin-based harassment and/or retaliation against employees who oppose or complain about such harassment.
B. Order Defendant Cox to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities and a non hostile work environment for Hispanics, for people of all colors, and for employees who oppose or complain about discrimination, and which eradicate the effects of Cox's past and present unlawful employment practices.
C. Order Defendant Cox to make whole Mejias, and other similarly situated Hispanic employees, by providing appropriate back pay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices, including but not limited to reinstatement, or front pay in lieu thereof, of Mejias and other similarly situated Hispanic employees.
D. Order Defendant Cox to make whole Mejias, and other similarly situated Hispanic employees, by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraph seven above, including but not limited to relocation expenses,job search expenses, and medical expenses, in amounts to be determined at trial.
E. Order Defendant Cox to make whole Mejias, and other similarly situated Hispanic employees, by providing compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraph seven above, including but not limited to emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment oflife, embarrassment, emotional distress, anxiety and humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial.
-5-

Case 1:02-cv-00341-SS Document 32 Filed 02/13/2003 Page 6 of 7

F. Order Defendant Cox to pay Mejias and other similarly situated Hispanic employees punitive damages for its malicious and reckless conduct described in paragraph seven above, in amounts to be determined at trial.
G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest.
H. Award the Commission its costs of this action. JURY TRIAL DEMAND
The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint. Respectfully submitted, GWENDOL YN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel

ROBERT B. HARWIN Regi0:ll Attorney D.C. tate Bar N70760873

~

~

;I

!

pervisory Trial Attorney xas State Bar No. 19708300
~z~ Trial Attorney Texas State Bar No. 24014498

-6-

Case 1:02-cv-00341-SS Document 32 Filed 02/13/2003 Page 7 of 7 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION San Antonio District Office 5410 Fredericksburg Rd., Ste. 200 San Antonio, Texas 78229-3555 Telephone: (210) 281-76l3 Telecopier: (210) 281-7669 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
-7-

 
 R'E eEl V. r'~-
~ -;'~

Case 1:02-cv-00341-SS
E j

U

JUN 1 t\ .~..

Document 66

Filed 06/17/2003

CLERK. U. S. Df ~~ If~ I. WESTERN DIs I ....11, j ' ,
BY. _ _ _-:::"'":':.
D[Pul,' CL;

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION

Page 1 of 7
20D3 IN I 7 Pj·~ 2: 51

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff,
and,
CESAR MEJIAS, Plaintiff-Intervenor,
v.
WILLIAMSON COUNTY CABLEVISION COMPANY,
Defendant.

§ § § §
§ § § § § Civil Action No. A02CA341 SS § § § § §

CONSENT DECREE

The parties to this Consent Decree are the Plaintiff United States Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), Plaintiff-Intervenor Cesar Mejias, and Defendant

Williamson County Cablevision Company ("WCCC"). This Consent Decree resolves all issues,

controversies, claims and/or causes of action asserted by and/or on behalf of the Plaintiff and

Cesar Mejias in the above-referenced Civil Action No. The EEOC initiated this lawsuit under

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e, et seq. ("Title VII"),

and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §1981 a. The EEOC's Complaint was filed

to correct alleged unlawful employment practices on the basis of national origin and color and to

provide appropriate relief to Cesar Mejias and similarly situated employees who were allegedly

adversely affected by such practices. After, Cesar Mejias was granted leave to intervene, both

the EEOC and Intervenor, Cesar Mejias, were allowed to file their respective Amended

Complaints (hereafter collectively referred to as the "Complaints"). The Complaints alleged, in

part, that WCCC engaged in discriminatory employment practices by subjecting Cesar Mejias

I i bL",

- -- Case 1:02-cv-00341-SS Document 66 Filed 06/17/2003 Page 2 of 7
and similarly situated employees to a hostile work environment because of their national origin and color, and that as a result of the discriminatory employment practices and/or retaliation directed toward Cesar Mejias, his working conditions were made so intolerable that he was forced to resign.
The EEOC, Cesar Mejias, and WCCC wish to settle this action without the necessity of further litigation, pursuant to the terms delineated in this Consent Decree. By entering into this Consent Decree, WCCC expressly denies the validity of any claim and/or cause of action asserted in the Complaints, and WCCC enters into this Consent Decree for the sole purpose of avoiding the expenses associated with this litigation. WCCC further asserts that by entering into this Consent Decree it makes no admission of liability or wrongdoing and makes no admission that its alleged conduct was improper, discriminatory or illegal in any respect.
IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED as follows: 1. This Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of the action and the parties, and venue is proper. The Complaints state claims on behalf of Cesar Mejias, which, if proved, would authorize this Court to grant relief to Cesar Mejias pursuant to Title VII. 2. This Consent Decree resolves all issues and/or causes of action asserted by andlor on behalf of Cesar Mejias, as alleged in the EEOC's Amended Complaint and in Cesar Mejias' Amended Complaint in Intervention. The EEOC and Cesar Mejias waive further litigation of these issues, causes of action and/or claims as alleged in this Civil Action, and those claims raised in Cesar Mejias' charge of discrimination, Charge Number 360 Al 0629. The EEOC expressly reserves its right, however, to process and litigate any other charges which may now be pending or may in the future be filed against WCCC.
2
600318.0000 AUSTIN 313963 v3

-. Case 1:02-cv-00341-SS Document 66 Filed 06/17/2003 Page 3 of 7
3. The duration of this Consent Decree shall be one (l) year from the date of its filing with the Court. This Court shall retain jurisdiction of this action during the period of this Consent Decree and may enter such other and further relief as it deems appropriate to ensure implementation and enforcement of its provisions. Any established and substantive violation of the Consent Decree by WCCC, or its agents or assigns shall toll the running of this one-year period as of the date of the violation. If the Court subsequently determines this Consent Decree was violated, the one-year period shall recommence and continue from the date of entry of an Order setting out such a violation or until such time as ordered by the Court. Should the Court find this Consent Decree was not violated, the one-year period shall recommence, retroactive to the date of the filing of the pleading alleging that a violation had occurred.
4. If the EEOC believes that WCCC has violated any provision of this Consent Decree during the term hereof, it shall notify WCCC's legal counsel in writing of the alleged violation (the "Violation Notification"). The Violation Notification must be delivered to WCCC's legal counsel, James M. Gary, Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, 300 West 6th Street, Suite 2100, Austin, Texas 78701, within 30 days after the EEOC becomes aware of a potential violation of the Consent Decree. The Violation Notification shall state the paragraph(s) and provision(s) of this Consent Decree alleged to have been violated and a statement of the facts and
circumstances relied upon as the basis for the EEOC's claim of violation. weee will have 60
days from receipt of the Violation Notification to respond to the EEOC in writing regarding the alleged violation. If the parties cannot reach an agreement regarding the alleged violation, the EEOC may apply to the Court for enforcement of the provision(s) of this Consent Decree alleged to have been violated by WCCC and seek appropriate relief pursuant to Title VII.
3
600318.0000 AUSTIN 313963 v3

,- Case 1:02-cv-00341-SS Document 66 Filed 06/17/2003 Page 4 of 7
5. Within seven (7) days of the latter of (a) the date of entry of this Decree, (b) the date of entry of an order by the United States Bankruptcy Court in the proceeding styled In Re Cesar Mejias, Case No. 02-12479-FRM, approving the settlement of this matter or (c) assuming no revocation, the date Cesar Mejias executes an agreement releasing and settling claims as to WCCC, WCCC, in settlement of this dispute, shall pay the sum of $99,000.00 (NINETY-NINE THOUSAND DOLLARS AND 00/100 DOLLARS) to Cesar Mejias and Pastrana Law Firm. Said settlement amount shall be delivered to counsel for Cesar Mejias at 812 San Antonio St., Suite G-20, Austin, Texas 78701. A copy of the settlement check and any accompanying transmittal documents shall be forwarded to the EEOC to the attention of Judith G. Taylor, Supervisory Trial Attorney, 5410 Fredericksburg Road, Suite 200, San Antonio, Texas 78229.
6. WCCC, its agents, officers, employees, and servants, in furnishing oral or written references concerning Cesar Mejias, to prospective employers, shall make no mention of the filing of the Complaints or the Charge of Discrimination filed by Cesar Mejias. This provision shall survive the expiration of the Decree. The provisions of this paragraph 6 shall only apply in the event WCCC is contacted by any person or entity for an employment reference regarding Cesar Mejias and such request for an employment reference is directed to: Director of Human Resources, Williamson County Cablevision Company, 3015 Loop 323 SE, Tyler, Texas 75701.
7. WCCC shall remove from the personnel file of Cesar Mejias all negative information contained therein concerning or pertaining to his employment with WCCC, including all reprimands, disciplinary recommendations and/or actions, and maintain these records in a separate and sealed file. Said information shall not, without court order, be made available or provided to any person or entity not directly affiliated with WCCC. This provision shall survive the expiration of the Decree.
4
600318.0000 AUSTIN 313963 v3

- - Case 1:02-cv-00341-SS Document 66 Filed 06/17/2003 Page 5 of 7
8. WCCC, its agents, officers, employees, servants, successors, and assigns, are enjoined, during the term of this Consent Decree, from discriminating against any employee on the basis of national origin and/or color, including but not limited to fostering and/or creating a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII. WCCC is also enjoined from engaging in retaliation in any manner against any past, present or future employees for opposing any employment practice made unlawful by Title VII, or for filing a discrimination charge, giving testimony or assistance, or participating in any manner in any investigation, proceeding, hearing or action involving a Title VII employment complaint.
9. WCCC, its agents, officers, employees, servants, successors, and assigns, shall provide its employees with a place of employment free of discrimination on the basis of national origin and/or color, and/or retaliation in violation of Title VII.
10. WCCC, its agents, officers, employees, servants, successors, and assigns, shall retain its practice of maintaining EEOC poster at WCCC's Georgetown, Texas, facility in an area where employees are likely to congregate. The poster shall remain posted for the duration of this Consent Decree.
11. The EEOC and WCCC shall have the right to ensure compliance with the terms of this Consent Decree.
12. The terms of this Consent Decree shall be binding upon the EEOC, Cesar Mejias, and WCCC and their agents, officers, employees, servants, successors, and assigns, as to the issues resolved herein.
13. The parties to this Consent Decree shall bear their own costs and attorney's fees incurred in this action. The parties agree that, pursuant to Section 706(k) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. section 2000e-5(k), there is no "prevailing party" in this action or proceeding.
5
600318.0000 AUSTIN 313963 v3

Case 1:02-cv-00341-SS Document 66 Filed 06/17/2003 Page 6 of 7

The Clerk shall furnish a copy hereof to each attorney of record.

SO ORDERED.

SIGNED this

/

-t:c
7 day

of_-r~'-I-_ -~

_

_

_ '

2003.

{I

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6
600318.0000 AUSTIN 313963 v3

- - Case 1:02-cv-00341-SS Document 66 Filed 06/17/2003 Page 7 of 7

Respectfully submitted,
GWENDOL YN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel

Attorney at L Texas State Bar No. 24006722 AKIN, GUMP, STRAUSS, HAUER
& FELD, L.L.P. 300 West 6th Street, Suite 2100 Austin, Texas 78701 Telephone: (512) 499-6297 Telecopier: (512) 499-6290
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT FOR WCCC

ROBERT B. HARWIN Regional Attorney D.C. State Bar No. 076083
~o. [AA~ ~~'Supervisory Trial Attorney Texas State Bar No. 19708300
~~ EDWARDJUA~Z
Trial Attorney Texas State BarNo. 24014498 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION San Antonio District Office 5410 Fredericksburg Road, Suite 200 San Antonio, Texas 78229-3555 Telephone: (210) 281-7613 Telecopier: (210) 281-7669 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

PASTRANA LAW FIRM 812 San Antonio St., Suite G-20 Austin, Texas 78701 Telephone: (512) 474-4487 Telecopier: (512) 322·9885
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR
7
600318.0000 AUSTIN 313963 v3

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

https://ecf.txwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?107014422264354-L_3...

U.S. District Court [LIVE] Western District of Texas (Austin) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:02-cv-00341-SS

CLOSED

EEOC v. Williamson Cable Assigned to: Honorable Sam Sparks Demand: $0 Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

Date Filed: 05/23/2002 Date Terminated: 06/17/2003 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Edward Juarez U.S. EEOC San Antonio District Office 5410 Fredericksburg Road Suite 200 San Antonio, TX 78229-3555 (210) 281-7613 Fax: (210) 281-7669 Email: eduardo.juarez@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Judith G. Taylor U.S. EEOC San Antonio District Office 5410 Fredricksburg Rd. Suite 200 San Antonio, TX 78229-3555 (210) 281-7637 Fax: 210/281-7669 Email: judith.taylor@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Robert B. Harwin Equal Employment Opportunity Commission San Antonio District Office 5410 Fredericksburg Road Suite 200 San Antonio, TX 78229-3555 (210) 281-7643 Fax: (210) 281-7669 Email: robert.harwin@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

1 of 9

6/15/2007 3:14 PM

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

https://ecf.txwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?107014422264354-L_3...

V. Defendant Cox Communications TERMINATED: 06/17/2003
Intervenor Plaintiff Cesar Mejias
2 of 9

represented by James Matthew Gary Kutak Rock LLP 124 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2000 LIttle Rock, AR 72201 (501)975-3000 Fax: (501)975-3000 TERMINATED: 06/17/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY
Joseph M. Freeman Cox Communications, Inc. Legal Dept. 1400 Lake Hearn Dr. Atlanta, GA 30319 (404) 843-5000 Fax: 404/843-5845 TERMINATED: 06/17/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ryan T. Shelton Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, LLP 300 West 6th Street Suite 2100 Austin, TX 78701-2916 (512) 499-6200 Fax: (512) 499-6290 Email: rshelton@akingump.com TERMINATED: 06/17/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY
Wilson Joseph Miguez, III. Littler Mendelson PC 2001 Ross Avenue - Suite 1500 Dallas, TX 75201-2931 (214) 880-8100 Fax: 214/880-0181 Email: jmiguez@littler.com TERMINATED: 06/17/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Raul S. Pastrana Pastrana Law Firm 812 San Antonio Street Suite G-20
6/15/2007 3:14 PM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:txwd - Docket Report
V. Intervenor Defendant Williamson County Cablevision Company
Intervenor Defendant Cox Classic Cable, Inc. TERMINATED: 06/17/2003
3 of 9

https://ecf.txwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?107014422264354-L_3...
Austin, TX 78701 (512)474-4487 Fax: 512/322-9885 Email: steven@pastranalaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by James Matthew Gary (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Joseph M. Freeman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ryan T. Shelton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Wilson Joseph Miguez, III. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by James Matthew Gary (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/17/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY
Joseph M. Freeman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/17/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY
Ryan T. Shelton (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/17/2003 LEAD ATTORNEY
Wilson Joseph Miguez, III. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/17/2003
6/15/2007 3:14 PM

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

https://ecf.txwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?107014422264354-L_3...

LEAD ATTORNEY

Date Filed 05/23/2002 05/23/2002 05/24/2002 06/26/2002
07/22/2002 07/23/2002 08/21/2002 08/21/2002 09/06/2002
09/11/2002
09/11/2002 09/11/2002 09/13/2002 09/20/2002 09/26/2002 10/04/2002

#

Docket Text

Case assigned to Honorable Sam Sparks (fe) (Entered: 05/24/2002)
1 Complaint filed. Filing Fee: waived (Pages: 6) (mc2) (Entered: 05/24/2002)
Court file prepared and forwarded to Judge Sparks. (mc2) (Entered: 05/24/2002)
2 Waiver of Service by Cox Communications; Notice and Request Mailed on 6/5/02; Answer due on 8/5/02 for Cox Communications (mc2) (Entered: 06/27/2002)
3 Answer by Cox Communications (mc2) (Entered: 07/22/2002)
4 Order that the parties confer and submit a proposed scheduling order by 9/20/02... (Noticed 7/24/02.) (mc2) (Entered: 07/24/2002)
5 Motion by Cesar Mejias for leave to file complaint in intervention (mc2) (Entered: 08/21/2002)
Received, Complaint in intervention by Cesar Mejias. (mc2) (Entered: 08/21/2002)
6 Joint motion by EEOC, Cox Communications to extend time - deadlines pursuant to FRCP 6(b) (deadlines that have not lapsed in 7/23/02 order be abated until 45 days after ruling on movant's motion to file intervenor complaint) (mc2) (Entered: 09/06/2002)
7 Order denying joint motion to extend time - deadlines pursuant to FRCP 6(b) (deadlines that have not lapsed in 7/23/02 order be abated until 45 days after ruling on movant's motion to file intervenor complaint) [6-1]. (Noticed 9/12/02.) (mc2) (Entered: 09/12/2002)
8 Order granting motion for leave to file complaint in intervention [5-1]. (Noticed 9/12/02.) (mc2) (Entered: 09/12/2002)
9 Intervenor's complaint (Pages: 9) by Cesar Mejias. (mc2) (Entered: 09/12/2002)
10 Joint report of meeting and joint discovery/case management plan under Rule 26(f) FRCP. (mc2) (Entered: 09/13/2002)
11 Joint Recommendations for scheduling order by EEOC, Cox Communications, Cesar Mejias (mc2) (Entered: 09/23/2002)
12 Answer by Cox Communications to intervenor complaint [9-1] (mc2) (Entered: 09/27/2002)
13 Scheduling order setting Joining of parties, amending of pleadings on 1/15/03 Deadline for filing of all motions 7/10/03 Discovery cutoff 6/9/03 ; Docket Call set for 11:00 8/29/03 ; Alternate Dispute Resolution Report due by 11/4/02. (Noticed 10/4/02.) (mc2) (Entered: 10/04/2002)

4 of 9

6/15/2007 3:14 PM

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

https://ecf.txwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?107014422264354-L_3...

11/04/2002 11/18/2002 11/22/2002 11/27/2002 12/13/2002 12/20/2002 12/23/2002 12/23/2002 12/27/2002 01/02/2003 01/06/2003 01/06/2003 01/06/2003
01/08/2003
01/13/2003

14 Alternate Dispute Resolution Report filed by EEOC, Cox Communications, Cesar Mejias, Partys do not agree to Alternate Dispute Resolution at this time (fe) (Entered: 11/05/2002)
15 Motion by Cox Communications for Joseph M. Freeman to appear pro hac vice as co-counsel (mc2) (Entered: 11/18/2002)
16 Order granting motion for Joseph M. Freeman to appear pro hac vice as co-counsel [15-1]. (Noticed 11/25/02.) (mc2) (Entered: 11/25/2002)
Pro hac vice fee paid byJoseph M. Freeman with Amount: $ 25.00, Receipt # 340571. (mc2) (Entered: 12/03/2002)
17 Motion by EEOC to quash defendants 30(B)(6) deposition notice , and for protective order (mc2) (Entered: 12/13/2002)
18 Unopposed Motion by EEOC to supplement plaintiff EEOC's motion to quash defendant's 30(B)(6) deposition notice and for a protective order (mc2) (Entered: 12/20/2002)
19 Motion by Cox Communications for leave to enlarge page limitation for its response to P's Mtn. to Quash Deposition notice and for protective order (fe) (Entered: 12/24/2002)
20 Response by Cox Communications to Plaintiff's motion to quash defendants 30(B)(6) deposition notice [17-1] (fe) (Entered: 12/24/2002)
21 Order set status conference for 3:00 1/6/03 (fe) (Entered: 12/27/2002)
22 Reply by EEOC to response to motion to quash defendants 30(B)(6) deposition notice [17-1], motion for protective order [17-2] (td) (Entered: 01/03/2003)
23 Order granting motion for leave to enlarge page limitation for its response to P's Mtn. to Quash Deposition notice and for protective order [19-1] signed by Honorable Sam Sparks. (Noticed 1/6/03.) (mc2) (Entered: 01/06/2003)
24 Minutes of proceedings for motion hearing conducted on 1/6/03 by Judge Sparks. Court Reporter: Lily Reznik. (mc2) (Entered: 01/07/2003)
Status conference held re motions to quash, for protective order, and unopposed motion to supplement. Plaintiff to file in camera certain documents withheld from defendants as privileged with reasons for doing so; motions granted; written order to follow. (mc2) (Entered: 01/07/2003)
25 Order granting motion to supplement plaintiff EEOC's motion to quash defendant's 30(B)(6) deposition notice and for a protective order [18-1], granting motion to quash defendants 30(B)(6) deposition notice [17-1], granting motion for protective order [17-2]. FINALLY ORDERED that Plaintiff SHALL FILE with the Court for an in camera review by January 21, 2003 the portions of the EEOC investigative filed ... signed by Honorable Sam Sparks. (td) (Entered: 01/09/2003)
26 Tender of privileged documents for in camera inspection and Motion by EEOC to seal (in camera documents) (mc2) (Entered: 01/14/2003)

5 of 9

6/15/2007 3:14 PM

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

https://ecf.txwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?107014422264354-L_3...

01/15/2003 01/15/2003 01/15/2003 01/15/2003 02/13/2003
02/13/2003
02/13/2003 03/14/2003 03/14/2003
03/18/2003 03/19/2003 03/24/2003
03/25/2003 03/26/2003
03/26/2003 03/26/2003 03/26/2003 03/28/2003

27 Order granting motion to seal (in camera documents) [26-1] signed by Honorable Sam Sparks. (Noticed 1/16/03.) (mc2) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
28 Motion by EEOC to amend complaint [1-1] (mc2) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
29 Motion by Cesar Mejias to amend intervenor complaint [9-1] (mc2) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
Received, Cesar Mejias' first amended complaint in intervention. (mc2) (Entered: 01/16/2003)
30 Order granting motion to amend intervenor complaint [9-1] [29-1], granting motion to amend complaint [1-1] [28-1] signed by Honorable Sam Sparks. (Noticed 2/14/03.) (mc2) (Entered: 02/14/2003)
31 First Amended intervenor's complaint by Cesar Mejias: amending intervenor complaint [9-1] (Pages: 9), adding Williamson County Cable Company and Cox Classic Cable, Inc. as defendants. (mc2) (Entered: 02/14/2003)
32 First Amended complaint by EEOC, amending complaint [1-1] (Pages: 7) (mc2) (Entered: 02/14/2003)
33 Opposed Joint motion by EEOC, Cesar Mejias to extend time - extend scheduling order deadlines (mc2) (Entered: 03/17/2003)
34 Waiver of Service by Williamson Cable, Cox Classic Cable; Notice and Request Mailed on 2/19/03 ; Answer due on 4/21/03 for Williamson Cable, for Cox Classic Cable (mc2) (Entered: 03/17/2003)
35 Combined Witness, Exhibit and Expert List by Cesar Mejias (fe) (Entered: 03/18/2003)
36 Certificate of service re: joint motion to extend scheduling order deadlines by Cesar Mejias (td) (Entered: 03/20/2003)
37 Order Motion hearing joint motion to extend time - extend scheduling order deadlines [33-1] for 2:00 3/26/03 signed by Honorable Sam Sparks. (Noticed 3/24/03.) (mc2) (Entered: 03/24/2003)
38 Memorandum by Cox Communications in opposition to joint motion to extend time - extend scheduling order deadlines [33-1] (mc2) (Entered: 03/26/2003)
39 Unopposed Motion by EEOC for leave to file plaintiff's designation of potential witnesses, testifying experts and proposed trial exhibits (mc2) (Entered: 03/26/2003)
40 Minutes of proceedings for motion hearing conducted on 3/26/03 by Judge Sparks. Court Reporter: Lily Reznik. (mc2) (Entered: 03/27/2003)
Motion hearing held for the following motions: [33-1] (mc2) (Entered: 03/27/2003)
Oral order by Honorable Sam Sparks denying joint motion to extend time extend scheduling order deadlines [33-1] (mc2) (Entered: 03/27/2003)
41 Order denying joint motion to extend time - extend scheduling order deadlines [33-1] signed by Honorable Sam Sparks. (Noticed 3/28/03.) (mc2) (Entered:

6 of 9

6/15/2007 3:14 PM

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

https://ecf.txwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?107014422264354-L_3...

04/01/2003
04/10/2003 04/16/2003 04/18/2003 04/18/2003 04/18/2003 04/18/2003 04/21/2003 04/21/2003 04/21/2003 04/21/2003 04/21/2003 04/22/2003 04/22/2003
04/22/2003 04/22/2003
04/23/2003 04/24/2003

03/28/2003)
42 Order granting motion for leave to file plaintiff's designation of potential witnesses, testifying experts and proposed trial exhibits [39-1] signed by Honorable Sam Sparks. (Noticed 4/1/03.) (mc2) (Entered: 04/01/2003)
43 Supplemental Witness List by Cesar Mejias (mc2) (Entered: 04/11/2003)
44 Advisory to the court filed by EEOC (td) (Entered: 04/16/2003)
45 Proposed designation of potential Witnesses and testifying experts List by Cox Communications (mc2) (Entered: 04/21/2003)
46 Designated of proposed Exhibit list by Cox Communications (mc2) (Entered: 04/21/2003)
47 Joint motion by EEOC, Cox Communications, Cesar Mejias for agreed protective order (mc2) (Entered: 04/21/2003)
48 Upposed Motion by Cox Communications for psychiatric exam - for mental examination of intervenor Cesar Mejias (mc2) (Entered: 04/21/2003)
49 Answer by Williamson Cable to first amended complaint of Cesar Mejias. (mc2) (Entered: 04/22/2003)
50 Answer by Cox Communications to amended complaint (mc2) (Entered: 04/22/2003)
51 Answer by Cox Classic Cable to first amended complaint of Cesar Mejias. (mc2) (Entered: 04/22/2003)
52 Separate Answer by Williamson Cable to first amended complaint (mc2) (Entered: 04/22/2003)
53 Separate Answer by Cox Communications to first amended complaint of Cesar Mejias. (mc2) (Entered: 04/22/2003)
Sent letter to Joseph Freeman, Ryan Shelton and W. Joseph Miguez re bar status. (mc2) (Entered: 04/22/2003)
54 Order granting motion for psychiatric exam - for mental examination of intervenor Cesar Mejias [48-1] signed by Honorable Sam Sparks, Cesar Mejias to submit on 4/25/03, 2:00 p.m. in Dr. James Kreisle, Jr.'s office... (mc2) (Entered: 04/22/2003)
55 Order granting joint motion for agreed protective order [47-1] signed by Honorable Sam Sparks (mc2) (Entered: 04/22/2003)
56 Order signed by Honorable Sam Sparks that any documents the parties wish to file under seal must be accompanied by a motion to seal... (mc2) (Entered: 04/22/2003)
57 Response by EEOC in opposition to motion for psychiatric exam - for mental examination of intervenor Cesar Mejias [48-1] (mc2) (Entered: 04/24/2003)
58 Joint motion by EEOC, Cox Communications, Cesar Mejias, Williamson Cable, Cox Classic Cable to extend time - discovery deadline (mc2) (Entered:

7 of 9

6/15/2007 3:14 PM

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

https://ecf.txwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?107014422264354-L_3...

04/25/2003 04/29/2003 05/20/2003 05/22/2003 06/16/2003 06/16/2003
06/17/2003
06/17/2003 06/17/2003 06/17/2003 06/17/2003

04/24/2003)
59 Order granting joint motion to extend time - discovery deadline [58-1] revising scheduling order deadlines: Discovery deadline on 6/23/03 signed by Honorable Sam Sparks (mc2) (Entered: 04/28/2003)
60 Supplemental Designation of rebuttal expert witnesses filed by Cesar Mejias (mc2) (Entered: 04/30/2003)
61 Advisory to the court filed by EEOC, Cox Communications, Cesar Mejias, Williamson Cable, Cox Classic Cable - parties settled case at mediation. (mc2) (Entered: 05/20/2003)
Per telephone w/Ryan Shelton this date, he will take necessary steps to rectify bar status for himself, Joseph Freeman and Joseph Miguez. (mc2) (Entered: 05/22/2003)
62 Joint motion by EEOC, Cesar Mejias, Williamson Cable to enter consent decree (mc2) (Entered: 06/17/2003)
63 Agreed Joint motion by EEOC, Cox Communications, Cesar Mejias, Williamson Cable, Cox Classic Cable to dismiss with prejudice as to Cox Communications, Cox Classic Cable and Cox Communications , and to change caption of the case (mc2) (Entered: 06/17/2003)
64 Agreed final judgment Order of dismissal, granting joint motion to dismiss with prejudice as to Cox Communications, Cox Classic Cable and Cox Communications [63-1] signed by Honorable Sam Sparks (mc2) (Entered: 06/17/2003)
65 Order granting joint motion to change caption of the case [63-2], deleting defendants Cox Communications, Cox Classic Cable and Cox Communications, signed by Honorable Sam Sparks (mc2) (Entered: 06/17/2003)
66 Consent judgment for EEOC, Cesar Mejias against Williamson Cable, $99,000 to Cesar Majias, signed by Honorable Sam Sparks (Pages: 7) (mc2) (Entered: 06/17/2003)
67 Order granting joint motion to enter consent decree [62-1], all parties to bear own costs and attorney's fees, signed by Honorable Sam Sparks (mc2) (Entered: 06/17/2003)
Case closed (mc2) (Entered: 06/17/2003)

8 of 9

PACER Login:
Description:

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt
06/15/2007 15:14:34

hs0328

Client Code: eeoc

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

1:02-cv-00341-SS

6/15/2007 3:14 PM

CM/ECF LIVE - U.S. District Court:txwd - Docket Report Billable Pages: 4

https://ecf.txwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?107014422264354-L_3...

Cost:

0.32

9 of 9

6/15/2007 3:14 PM

 
 EEOC LITIGATION SETTLEMENT REPORT - APRIL 2003

http://www.eeoc.gov/litigation/settlements/settlement06-03.html

EEOC v. Williamson County Cablevision Co. d/b/a Cox Communications No. A-02-CV-341 (W.D. Tex. June 16, 2003)
The San Antonio District Office alleged in this Title VII lawsuit that defendant, a cable television provider and distributor, subjected charging party, a construction foreman, to a hostile working environment based on his national origin (Puerto Rican). From summer 1999 until he filed an EEOC charge in February 2001, charging party was called derogatory names such as "dirty Puerto Rican," "mother fucking spic," and "nigger" by a white coworker. The harasser also physically threatened charging party by picking up a metal pipe and gesturing at him. After filing his EEOC charge, charging party was told by defendant's General Manager that he would be fired if he followed through with his complaint. The General Manager also verbally harassed charging party, disciplined him more severely than coworkers who had not filed discrimination charges, and closely scrutinized his work. As a result of the harassment and retaliation, charging party quit his job. The case was resolved through a consent decree which provides for payment of $99,000 to charging party. Defendant is enjoined from discriminating on the basis of national origin or color and from engaging in any form of retaliation.

1 of 1

6/15/2007 3:16 PM