RALPH E. CHAMNESS (Bar No. 6511) LAUREN I. SCHOLNICK (Bar No. 7776) STRINDBERG SCHOLNICK & CHAMNESS, LLC 44 Exchange Place, Second Floor Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Telephone: 801-359-4169 Attorneys for Plaintiff

fILED U.S O\STRICT COURT
ZUUI) St.? 22 A \I: ~ 1
DISTRICT Of \JTi\tI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

REBECCA LEIGH DEHART, Plaintiff,

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

v.

:----

STEVENS-HENAGER COLLEGE, INC., Defendant.

Judge Paul G. Cassell
DECK TYPE: Civil
DAIE SIAMP: 09/22/2005 @ 11:48:18 CASE HUMBER: 1:05CV00118 PGC

Plaintiff Rebecca Leigh Dehart ("Ms. DeHart"), by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby submits this Complaint and Jury Demand against Defendant StevensHenager College, Inc. ("Stevens-Henager").
I. INTRODUCTION 1. Stevens-Henager violated Ms. DeHart' right to receive pay based upon her job duties as opposed to her gender by paying Ms. DeHart less than it did a male employee performing substantially similar work. Stevens-Henager also violated Ms.

DeHart' right to engage in the protected activity of complaining about the discriminatory nature of the unequal pay by terminating her because she complained.
II. PARTIES 2. Ms. DeHart is a female, and resides in Weber County, State of Utah. 3. Stevens-Henager is a Utah corporation doing business in Weber County, State of Utah. At all relevant times it was engaged in an industry affecting commerce, with annual gross sales of not less than $500,000.00 and employed fifteen or more employees. 4. At all relevant times, Stevens-Henager was Ms. DeHart's employer as defined by the FLSA, the EPA and Title VII.
III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. Subject matter jurisdiction is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345, in that this action arises under federal law, specifically the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA") as amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 216( c) and 217 to enforce the requirements of the Equal Pay Act of 1963,29 U.S.C. § 206(d) ("EPA") and pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et.seq.. This action is also initiated pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981a. 6. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed inWeber County, Utah, which is within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Central Division of Utah. Thus, venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
2

7. Ms. DeHart filed a timely Charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") alleging that Stevens-Henager discriminated against her and other women on the basis of gender by failing to pay equal pay for equal work. The EEOC, after investigating Ms. Richard's Charge, issued Ms. DeHart a Letter of Determination finding reasonable cause to believe that Stevens-Henager had violated the EPA and Title VII by failing to pay Ms. DeHart equal work for equal pay. On September 20,2005, the EEOC issued Ms. DeHart a Notice of Right to Sue on her Title VII claims.
IV. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 8. Ms. DeHart began working for Stevens-Henager in May 2003 as an Admissions Consultant. 9. During her employment, Ms. DeHart would meet with potential students, interview them and help the students enroll in Steven-Henager's programs. Patrick Young ("Mr. Young"), a male employee in the same office, essentially performed the same duties as Ms. DeHart. 10. Mr. Young's duties and Ms. DeHart's duties required substantially equal work onjobs the performance of which required equal skill, effort and responsibility. The duties were performed under similar working conditions at Stevens-Henager's Ogden, Utah location.
3

11. Stevens-Henager paid Ms. DeHart $36,000.00 a year to perform the duties of an Admissions Consultant.
12. Stevens-Henager paid Mr. Young $48,000.00 a year to perform substantially the same duties as Ms. DeHart.
13. When Ms. DeHart became aware that Mr. Young was receiving more money for performing substantially the same work, she complained to Stevens-Henager about the pay inequity.
14. Stevens-Henager terminated Ms. DeHart because she had discovered what Mr. Young was making and complained about the pay inequity.
V. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF First Claim for Relief (Violation of the EPA)
15. Ms. DeHart incorporates paragraphs 1 through 14 of this Complaint by this reference.
16. By paying Ms. DeHart at a rate less than her male colleague in the same establishment for substantially equal work on a job requiring substantially equal skill, effort and responsibility under similar work conditions, Stevens-Henager violated the EPA.
17. Because Stevens-Henager purposefully and intentionally discriminated against Ms. DeHart based upon her gender, in violation of the EPA by paying her less
4

than it paid her male co-worker who was performing substantially the same work, Ms. DeHart has suffered, and will continue to suffer, economic loss.
18. As a result of Stevens-Henager's violation of the EPA, Ms. DeHart is entitled to recover the amount of wages she would have been paid in the absence of the violation, an equal amount as liquidated damages and prejudgment interest on those amounts.
19. Ms. DeHart is entitled to recover all attorneys' fees and costs expended in prosecuting this action.
20. Ms. DeHart is entitled to other such relief as this Court deems appropriate. Second Claim for Relief
(Retaliation in Violation of the EPA) 21. Ms. DeHart incorporates paragraphs 1 through 20 of this Complaint by this reference. 22. Stevens-Henager took an adverse employment action against Ms. DeHart because she engaged in the protected activity of complaining about the unequal pay she was receiving by terminating her employment. 23. Stevens-Henager's actions constitute unlawful retaliation in violation of the EPA. 24. As a result of Stevens-Henager's actions, Ms. DeHart has suffered, and will continue to suffer, both economic and non-economic loss, including, but not limited to:
5

loss of wages and benefits, future pecuniary losses, emotional distress, and other compensatory damages.
25. As outlined above, Stevens-Henager purposefully and intentionally retaliated against Ms. DeHart based upon her complaint by taking adverse employment actions against her. Ms. DeHart is entitled to recover damages for all future pecuniary losses, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and all other non-pecuniary losses caused by Stevens-Henager's unlawful retaliation.
26. Stevens-Henager's actions described above were done with malice or a reckless indifference to Ms. DeHart' federally protected right to be free from retaliation for having complained of unequal pay. Due to the willful and malicious nature of the retaliation against Ms. DeHart, Ms. DeHart is entitled to an award of punitive damages in an amount sufficient to deter Stevens-Henager from engaging in retaliatory conduct in the future.
27. Ms. DeHart is entitled to recover all attorneys' fees and costs expended in prosecuting this action.
28. Ms. DeHart is entitled to other such relief as this Court deems appropriate. Third Claim for Relief
(Discrimination in Violation of Title VII) 29. Ms. DeHart incorporates paragraphs 1 through 28 of this Complaint by this reference.
6

30. By paying a male employee more than it paid Ms. DeHart for performing the same work, Stevens-Henager purposefully and intentionally discriminated against Ms. DeHart in violation of Title VII.
31. Stevens-Henager' actions described above were done with malice or a reckless indifference to Ms. DeHart' federally protected right to have employment decisions based upon legitimate non-discriminatory business reasons. Due to the willful and malicious nature of the discrimination against Ms. DeHart, Ms. DeHart is entitled to an award of punitive damages in an amount sufficient to deter Stevens-Henager from engaging in discriminatory conduct in the future.
32. Ms. DeHart is entitled to recover all attorneys' fees and costs expended in prosecuting this action.
33. Ms. DeHart is entitled to other such relief as this Court deems appropriate. Fourth Claim for Relief
(Retaliation in Violation of Title VII) 34. Ms. DeHart incorporates paragraphs 1 through 33 of this Complaint by this reference. 35. Stevens-Henager took adverse employment actions against Ms. DeHart because she engaged in the protected activity of complaining about the discrimination she suffered, by terminating her employment.
7

36. Stevens-Henager's actions constitute unlawful retaliation in violation of Title VII.
37. As a result of Stevens-Henager's actions, Ms. DeHart has suffered, and will continue to suffer, both economic and non-economic loss, including, but not limited to: loss of wages and benefits, future pecuniary losses, emotional distress, and other compensatory damages.
38. As outlined above, Stevens-Henager purposefully and intentionally retaliated against Ms. DeHart based upon her complaint or Charge by taking adverse employment actions against her. Ms. DeHart is entitled to recover damages for all future pecuniary losses, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment oflife, and all other non-pecuniary losses caused by Stevens-Henager's unlawful retaliation.
39. Stevens-Henager's actions described above were done with malice or a reckless indifference to Ms. DeHart' federally protected right to be free from retaliation for having complained of unlawful discrimination. Due to the willful and malicious nature of the retaliation against Ms. DeHart, Ms. DeHart is entitled to an award of punitive damages in an amount sufficient to deter Stevens-Henager from engaging in retaliatory conduct in the future.
8

40. Ms. DeHart is entitled to recover all attorneys' fees and costs expended in prosecuting this action.
41. Ms. DeHart is entitled to other such relief as this Court deems appropriate. Request for Jurv Trial
42. Ms. DeHart requests that her claims be tried to a jury of her peers. VI. PRAYERFORRELIEF
WHEREFORE, Ms. DeHart respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment in her favor and against Stevens-Henager, and award the following:
a. Back pay, in amounts to be detennined at trial; b. An amount equal to the amount awarded as back pay as liquidated damages; c. Reinstatement, or front pay in lieu of reinstatement; d. Emotional distress and punitive damages; e. Compensatory and consequential damages; f. Injunctive and/or declaratory relief requiring Stevens-Henager to take
appropriate actions to ensure that its female employees are paid equal pay for equal work; g. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the highest lawful rate; h. Attorneys' fees and costs of this action, including expert witness fees, as appropriate;
9

1. Injunctive relief restraining Stevens-Henager from engaging in further

discriminatory conduct; and,

j. Any such further relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

~~ay Dated this

of September, 2005.

STRINDBERG SCHOLNICK & CHAMNESS, LLC

Plaintiff s Address 825 West 4100 South Riverdale, Utah 84045

Ralph E. Chamness Erik Strindberg Attorneys for Plaintiff

10

""IS 44 (Rev. 3/99)

CIVIL COVER SHEET

The JS-44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required

by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form. approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the

use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE OF TIlE FQRMl

rILED

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS

DEFENDANTS

U.S DISTRICT COURT

REBECCA LEIGH DEHART

STEVENS-HENAGER COLLEGE, INC.

1905 SEP 22 A II: 41

,b> County of Residence of First Listed PIaintiff

WEBER

(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)

County of Residence of First Listed wmlERIQI Of IIIA~

(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONI.Y)

US~F NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES,

THE TRACT OF

LAND INVOLVED.

PlJfY CLERK

(e) Attorney's (Firm Name, Address. and Telephone Number)
Strindberg Scholnick & Chamness. LLC. 44 Exchange Place. 2nd Floor. Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 - 801-359-4169

Attorneys (If Known)

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an "X" in One Box Only)

o 1 U.S. Government
Plaintiff

x 3 Federal Question
(U.S. Government Not a

(For Diversity Cases Only)

PTF DEF

Citizen of This State

0 1 01

and One Box for Defendant)

PTF

Incorporated or Principal Place

0 4

of Business In This State

DEF
4

02 U.S. Government
Defendant
IV. NATURE OF SUIT CONTRACT

4 Diversity
(Indicate Citizenship of
in Item III)
(Place an "X" in One Box Onlv) TORTS

Citizen of Another State
Citizen or Subject of a
ForeiPTl Countrv

2 02 Incorporated and Principal Place 0 5 05
of Business In Another State

o 3 03 Foreign Nation

0 6 06

FORFEITUREIPENALTY

BANKRUPTCY

OrnER STATUTES

0 110 Insurance 0 120 Marine 0 130 Miller Act 0 140 Negotiable Instrument 0 150 Recovery of Overpayment
& Enforcement of Judgment
0 151 Medicare Act
0 152 Recovery of Defaulted
Student Loans (Excl. Veterans)
0 153 Recovery of Overpayment
of Veteran's 8enefilll
0 160 Stockholders' Suits 0 190 Other Contract 0 195 Contract Product liability
REAL PROPERTY
0 210 Land Condenmation 0 220 Foreclosure 0 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 0 240 Torts to Land 0 245 Tort Product liability 0 290 All Other Real Property

PERSONAL INJURY 0 310 Airplane 0 315 Airplane Product
Liability 0 320 Assault, libel &
'''"'''
0 330 Federal Employers'
Liability
0 340 Marine 0 345 Marine Product
Liability 0 350 Motor Vehicle 0 355 Motor Vehicle
Product Liability 0 360 Other Personal Injury
CIVIL RIGHTS
0 441 Voting x 442 Employment
0 443 Housing! Accomroodations
0 444 Welfare 0 440 Other Civil Rights

362~sooal

MW.

0 365 Personal

0

rmu~""1"O"S"

0 0

""""Injury 0
""""tiability 0

PERSONAL

PROPERTY

o

370 OdIer 0

~'""

0 371 Truth in

0 0

~gOther

" , - Pe r f-r'i.PeM
Damage

,

""""Iloo,,,

Liability

0

.v_ PRISONER

PETITIONS

0

0 SIO Motions

s..~~

Habeas
0 ~&neral 0

0

S3S Death

~~ 0 '""'l', 0 0
0 0

Condilioo

610 Agriculture 620 Other Food & Drug 625 Drug Related Seizure
of Property 21 usc 881 630 liquor Laws
640 R.R. & Truck 650 Airline Regs. 660 Occupational
""",,",,",
6900thcr
LABOR
710 Fair Labor Standards -",
720 LaborlMgmt. Relations
730 LaborlMgmt.Reporting
& Ili$cIosure AcI
740 Railway Labor Act
790 Other Labor litigation
791 EmpL Ret. Inc.
Security Act

0 422 Appea128 USC 158
0 423 Withdrawal
28 USC 157
PROPERTY RIGHTS
0 820 Copyrights 0 830 Patent 0 840 Trademark
SOCIAL SECURITY
0 861 HIA (1395ft) 0 862 Black Lung (923) 0 863 DIWCIDIWW (405(g»
0 864 ssm Title XVI
0 865 RSI (405(g))
FEDERAL TAX SUITS
0 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff
or Defendant)
0 871 IRS-Third Party
26 USC 7609

0 400 State Reapportionment 0 410 Antitrust 0 430 Banks and Banking 0 450 CommercellCC Rates/etc. 0 460 Deportation 0 470 Racketeer Influenced and
Conupt Organizations
0 810 Selective Service
0 850 SecuritiesJCommoditiesl
Exchange
0 875 Customer Challenge
12 USC 34Hl
0 891 Agricultural Acts
0 892 Economic Stabilization Act 0 893 EnvirolllreDtal Matters 0 894 Energy Allocation Act 0 895 Freedom of
Ioknnalioo Act
0 900 Appeal of Fee Detennination
Under Equal Access 10
Justice 0 950 Constitutionality of
Stale StaW!eS
0 890 Other Statutory Actions

V. ORIGIN
X I Original. Proceeding

AN "x"' IN ONE BOX ONLY)
o 2 Removed from State Court

o 3

Remanded from Appellate Court

4 Reinstated or
Reopened

o 5

a_no"tbe"r 'di"snfiucrm (specify)

0 6 Multidistrict

o

litigation

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION

(Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing and write brief statement of cause.

Do not cite jurisdictional starutes unless diversity.)

Violation of the Equal pay Act, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2~_. ______ ._ _ _ _ _ _._ _ _ _ - - - - - ~

--------------------~~~~~~~~~~~----~./----

VII. REQUESTED IN

0 CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS DEMAl

COMPLAINT:
VIII. RELATED CASE(S) IF ANY

AUNCDTIEORNF.R.C.P. 23
(See instructions):

Judge Paul G. Cassell
DECK TYPE: Civil
DATE STAMP: 09/22/2005 @ 11:48:18
CASE NUIIBER: 1: 05CVOO1l8 PGC

0<'-:

a DATE

__ JUDGE ~ SI~NATUREOFAITORNEYOFRECORD

-r-J,l/Ol

DOCKET NUMBER

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

REcEIPT# _ _ __

AMOUNT _ _ _ _ _ _ APPL _ _ _ __

JUDOE _ _ _ _ __ MAG. JUDGE _ _ _ _ _ _ __

JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 12196)
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS·44
Authority For Civil Cover Sheet

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH NORTHERN DIVISION

REBECCA LEIGH DEHART, Plaintiff,
vs. STEVENS-HENAGER COLLEGE, INC.,
Defendant.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND TO STAY PROCEEDINGS
Case No. 1:05-CV-00118 PGC

Defendant Stevens-Henager College, Inc., filed a motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings pending that arbitration with the court (#2). The court DENIES Stevens-Henager College’s motion.
DISCUSSION Plaintiff Rebecca Leigh DeHart filed a complaint with the court alleging that the College violated her civil rights under the Equal Pay Act1 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1965.2 She timely filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and
129 U.S.C. § 206(d). 242 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.

received a Letter of Determination finding reasonable cause to believe that the College had
violated both statutes. After she filed her complaint, the College submitted a motion asking the
court to stay proceedings, along with a signed Mediation and Arbitration Agreement, stating that
Ms. DeHart had agreed to mandatory arbitration in her employment contract.
The Arbitration Agreement provides, in relevant part:
Step Three: Any and all disputes, conflicts, problems, controversies, or claims of any kind arising from or connected to employment with the [College] with the exception of any matter reserved to the Court or denied the arbitration process by any state [or] federal laws, shall be submitted to binding arbitration. The parties shall jointly choose a single arbitrator from the panel of arbitrators with the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”). The arbitration shall be conducted under the rules of the AAA. . . . The decision of the majority of the arbitrators shall be final and binding upon both parties. Should either party refuse or neglect to choose an arbitrator or otherwise sincerely and in good faith participate in the arbitration process then the arbitrator(s) is empowered to proceed with one side alone. Each party shall share equally in the cost of the mediation and/or arbitration process.3
The above wording is contained in two separate documents simultaneously provided to
Ms. DeHart as part of a packet during new hire training at the College.4 The first document was
the employee manual that contained the College’s policies and procedures.5 The second
document was a separate sheet containing the Agreement which Ms. DeHart signed.6 Because
Ms. DeHart signed this Agreement upon employ, the College now argues that she must submit
3Defendant’s Memo. in Supp. of Mot. to Compel Arbit., Docket No. 3, at 3 (Oct. 31, 2005) (emphasis added).
4Plaintiff’s Decl. in Supp. of Opp’n to Mot. to Compel Arbit., Docket No. 5, Ex. A at 2 (Nov. 10, 2005).
5Plaintiff’s Opp’n, Ex. A at 2 and Ex. B at 5. 6Id.; Defendant’s Memo. in Supp. of Mot. to Compel Arbit., Ex. A.
2

her claim to binding arbitration before filing her complaint with the court. Ms. DeHart counters that (1) no Agreement to arbitrate exists or the Agreement is illusory; (2) the impermissible costsplitting provision renders the Arbitration Agreement ineffective; and (3) the Arbitration Agreement is unenforceable against the EEOC. The court will address each of Ms. DeHart’s contentions.
Both sides disagree as to whether the Arbitration Agreement is an actual contract. The College alleges that Ms. DeHart actually signed the Agreement as part of her employment agreement, and that the Agreement should control. Ms. DeHart claims that the Agreement was presented as part of the Employee Manual and is not a contract. Ms. DeHart also contends that the College expressly reserved the unilateral right to modify the Agreement, thus making it illusory. The Employee manual states, “The Company reserves the right to revise, modify, delete, or add to any and all policies, procedures, work rules, or benefits stated in this manual, or any other document, except for the policy of at-will employment.”7 The Manual also contains the above-quoted language of the Arbitration Agreement under the heading “Introductory Policies.”8 While the court declines to address whether the Arbitration Agreement was an actual contract, it is clear by the language of the Agreement and manual that the College considered the Agreement one of its policies. And the College, in its employee manual distributed contemporaneously with the Agreement, expressly reserved for itself the unfettered right to modify “any and all” of its policies, whether contained in the manual “or any other document.”
7Plaintiff’s Opp’n, Ex. B at 3 (emphasis added). 8Plaintiff’s Opp’n, Ex. B at 1, 5 (emphasis added).
3

Under these facts, and in accordance with the Tenth Circuit’s holding in Dumais v. American Golf Corp.,9 the court finds the Agreement illusory. In Dumais, the arbitration agreement was contained in an employee manual that also contained two contradictory provisions, one reserving to the employer the right to change any provision in the manual except for the at-will employment provision, and one reserving to the employer the right to change any provision in the manual except for the at-will and arbitration provisions.10 The employee had signed an agreement binding her to the provisions of the manual.11 Construing the document against the drafting employer, the Tenth Circuit held that the provision allowing the employer to modify the arbitration provision applied, and that “an arbitration agreement allowing one party the unfettered right to alter the arbitration agreement’s existence or its scope is illusory.”12
The College argues that Dumais should not apply here. The College contends that it lacked the power to alter the Arbitration Agreement because the Agreement was contained in a separate contractual document, and because the employee handbook states that “[n]othing in this manual or in any other personnel document, including benefit plan descriptions, creates, or is intended to create a contract, promise, or representation of continued employment for any employee.”13 Neither argument is compelling. The language cited by the College is clearly
9299 F.3d 1216 (10th Cir. 2002). 10Id. at 1217. 11Id. 12Id. at 1219 (citing cases from the Sixth, Fourth, and Seventh Circuits). 13See Plaintiff’s Opp’n, Ex. B at 3.
4

directed at the at-will employment status of employees contained in the previous section of the manual and does not deal with the arbitration provision. More importantly, however, the College expressly reserved for itself the power to modify the terms of any policy on any document through language even broader than the provisions addressed in Dumais. This case is indistinguishable from Dumais, as the Agreement allows only the College to alter its existence or scope, thereby rendering the Agreement illusory, and the court cannot compel arbitration.
Ms. DeHart’s second argument, that the cost-splitting provision in the Agreement should not be compelled because her access to a forum for vindicating her claims would be denied, may also have merit. The Agreement states that “Each party shall equally share in the cost of the mediation and/or arbitration process.” Ms. DeHart has submitted an affidavit stating that the costs of this arbitration would be prohibitively expensive, and has provided some indication of cost estimates should the employment claim go to arbitration. The Tenth Circuit has refused to enforce such fee-splitting provisions because they effectively deny a Title VII plaintiff a forum to vindicate her claims.14
On the other side of this argument, however, the U.S. Supreme Court has held, after Shankle, that the strong preference for arbitration of disputes expressed by Congress in the Federal Arbitration Act must be enforced where possible.15 Green Tree specifically held that while the existence of large arbitration costs could preclude a litigant from effectively vindicating her federal statutory rights in arbitral form, “unsupported statements” regarding the costs
14Shankle v. B-G Maint. Mgmt. of Colo., Inc., 163 F.3d 1230, 1234-35 (10th Cir. 1999). 15See Green Tree Fin. Corp. - Alabama v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79 (2000).
5

involved were not sufficient to carry a plaintiff’s burden against compelled arbitration.16 Under this holding, the party who sought to avoid arbitration has the burden to show the likelihood of prohibitive costs, and upon a threshold showing, the burden of production of evidence shifts to the party seeking arbitration to counter that showing.17 Indeed, the Tenth Circuit has cited Green Tree with approval on other points of law.18
It is possible to reconcile Green Tree and Shankle.19 In Shankle, the court noted that the plaintiff in that case could not afford to pay the arbitral fees that would be incurred, and that it was unlikely that other similarly situated employees could either.20 Thus, an acceptable reading of Shankle after Green Tree is that the Tenth Circuit employs a case-by-case evaluation of the employee’s ability to pay arbitration costs. The evidence before the Tenth Circuit was little more than the evidence before the court in this case: an estimate of the costs that would be incurred in an arbitration according to the fee estimates of area arbitrators.21 Based on these comparisons, the College’s motion would likely have to be denied, at least for a time sufficient to allow the parties to conduct discovery on the issue of Ms. DeHart’s or other similarly-situated employees’
16Id. at 90-91 & n.6. 17Id. at 92. 18See, e.g., Commanche Indian Tribe v. 49, L.L.C., 391 F.3d 1129 (10th Cir. 2004); Dumais, 299 F.3d 1216. 19See In re Universal Serv. Fund Tel. Billing Practices Litig., 300 F. Supp. 2d 1107, 1128-29 (D. Kan. 2003) (reconciling Green Tree and Shankle). 20163 F.3d at 1234-35. 21See Shankle v. B-G Maint. Mgmt. of Colo., No. 96 N 2932, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11024, at *3-*4, 1997 WL 416405, at *1 (D. Colo. Mar. 24, 1997).
6

ability to pay half of the cost of the arbitration as part of a determination of the validity of the Agreement. In light of the court’s earlier conclusion that the arbitration provision is unenforceable, however, the court need not finally resolve this issue.
Ms. DeHart finally contends that the Agreement is unenforceable against the EEOC. Although the EEOC has filed a claim against the College in this district,22 Ms. DeHart has not moved to consolidate this case with the EEOC case. The EEOC filed a motion to consolidate the two cases yesterday, however (#4 in Case No. 1:05-CV-122 DAK). A review of the EEOC complaint by this court shows that it arises from substantially the same transaction or event as this cases, involves many of the same parties, calls for determination of substantially the same questions of law, and would likely entail the duplication of labor or unnecessary court costs or delay if heard by different judges. Normally, the court would wait ten days for a response from the parties, but even before the EEOC’s motion, the court planned on consolidating these two cases on its own motion. Having reviewed the instant complaint and the complaint filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in Case No. 1:05-CV-122 DAK, and given the reasons articulated above, the court orders this case consolidated with Case No. 1:05-CV-122 DAK under Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 42(a) and DUCivR 42-1.
The court finds that the Agreement to compel arbitration is unenforceable against Ms. DeHart because it only allows for the College to alter the Agreement’s existence or scope. At this time, the court declines to decide whether the fee-splitting provision also renders the
22EEOC v. Stevens-Henager College, Case No. 1:05-CV-00122 DAK (D. Ut. Sept. 28, 2005)
7

Agreement unenforceable. Given the current findings, the court DENIES the College’s motion to compel arbitration (#2). The court also orders this case consolidated with Case No. 1:05-CV122 DAK in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 42(a) and DUCivR 42-1.
DATED this 2nd day of December, 2005. BY THE COURT: _______________________ Paul G. Cassell United States District Judge
8

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH NORTHERN DIVISION

REBECCA LEIGH DEHART, Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR HEARING AND GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES AND MOTION TO BIFURCATE TRIAL

STEVENS-HENAGER COLLEGE, INC.,

Defendant. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 1:05-CV-00118 [consolidated with case no. 1:05-CV-00122]

STEVENS-HENAGER COLLEGE, INC., Defendant.

Before the court are three motions: plaintiffs’ motion to compel discovery responses (#56); defendant’s motion for bifurcated trial (#60); and, defendant’s motion for a hearing to simultaneously address the aforementioned motion to compel and motion to bifurcate (#62). The court has sufficient information to rule on the motion to compel and the motion to bifurcate. Consequently, the court DENIES defendant’s motion for a hearing to address these issues (#62). For the reasons stated below, the court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part plaintiffs’ motion

to compel discovery responses (#56); and the court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part defendant’s motion to bifurcate (#60). These latter two motions are addressed in turn.
On September 29, 2006, plaintiffs filed a joint motion to compel defendant’s discovery responses (#56). Specifically, plaintiffs motion the court to compel defendant to provide information regarding defendant’s financial condition as outlined in Request No. 14 of Ms. DeHart’s First Set of Written Discovery and Request No. 13 of the EEOC’s Written Discovery Request. This latter request reads:
Please produce documents showing Defendant’s financial condition from January 1, 2002 to the present including, but not limited to, audited and/or unaudited financial statements, balance sheets, income statements, loan applications, documents concerning gross and net income and expenditures, annual reports to stockholders, if appropriate, and federal and state tax returns for the years 2002, 2003, . . . 2004, and 2005.
Request No. 14 of Ms. DeHart’s First Set of Written Discovery requests generally the same information. Defendant argues that these requests are unduly burdensome and that the disclosure of this financial information is not justified at this stage of the litigation process. Defendant concedes that it could timely produce gross revenues, net revenue, and net worth for the years 2002-2005, should the case proceed to a punitive damages phase.
The court is persuaded that plaintiffs’ requests are unduly burdensome to defendant. The court is not persuaded, however, that disclosure of all financial information is unwarranted at this stage of the litigation process. Consequently, the court orders that defendant produce its gross revenue, net revenue, and net worth for the years 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005, within two weeks from the date of this Order. If appropriate, a protective order can cover this information.
2

Also before the court is defendant’s motion to bifurcate the trial (#60). Defendant requests the court to issue an order bifurcating this trial so that issues related to punitive damages are tried separately from all other issues. Defendant also requests the court to issue an order that would allow defendant to withhold information related to its financial condition unless and until this case proceeds to a trial on the issue of punitive damages. Plaintiffs oppose the motion, arguing that a bifurcated trial will not be conducive to expedition and economy, and will not avoid the prejudice defendant fears.
The court agrees with defendant that the trial should be bifurcated to allow issues related to punitive damages - liability for and amount of punitive damages - to be heard separately from all other issues in the case. With regard to defendant’s request to withhold evidence of its financial condition, the court has ordered defendant, as outlined above, to produce certain evidence of its financial condition within two weeks of this Order. Because defendant’s financial condition will soon be disclosed, and because the court seeks expedition and economy, the court orders that the trial shall be a continuous, two-part trial. Part one of the trial will address all issues except punitive damages. Should the defendant be found liable, the case will immediately proceed to part two - liability for and amount of punitive damages; this phase shall commence with the same jury immediately following resolution of part one.
As outlined above, the court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part plaintiffs’ joint motion to compel discovery responses (#56). Defendant shall produce evidence showing its gross revenue, net revenue, and net worth for the years 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005, within two weeks of this Order. The court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part defendant’s motion to
3

bifurcate trial (#60). The trial shall be a continuous, two-part trial, with part two, if necessary, addressing the liability for and amount of punitive damages. The court DENIES the defendant’s motion for hearing (#62).
SO ORDERED. DATED this 8th day of November, 2006.
BY THE COURT: _______________________ Paul G. Cassell United States District Judge
4

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION

REBECCA LEIGH DEHART, Plaintiff,
v. STEVENS-HENAGER COLLEGE, INC.,
Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Consolidated Case No. 1:05CV00118 (Formerly Case No 1:05CV00122DAK)
Judge Paul G. Cassell

The court, having considered Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff EEOC’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, and having heard oral argument on February 7, 2007, hereby ORDERS:
(1) for the reasons set forth by this court during oral argument, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is denied in its entirety;
(2) for the reasons set forth by this court during oral argument, (a) Plaintiff EEOC’s Motion for Partial Summary with regard to Defendant’s Third Affirmative Defense (statute of limitations) as it applies to the EEOC’s Title VII claims is granted and the court acknowledges that the parties have agreed that Plaintiffs may seek backpay under the Equal Pay Act only for the time periods as set forth in the Act; (b) EEOC’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment with regard to Defendant’s Second Affirmative Defense (laches) is granted, the court, however, gives leave to Defendant to revisit this issue should Defendant develop evidence

that might support such a defense; and, (c) the EEOC’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment with regard to Defendant’s Fourteenth Affirmative Defense (doctrine of after-acquired evidence) is denied, the court, however, acknowledges that this issue may be addressed in a Motion in Limine; and (3) pursuant to DUCivR 56-1(f), the EEOC’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Defendant’s First, Fourth, Fifth, Eight, Eleventh, Twelfth, Thirteenth, and Sixteenth Affirmative Defenses is granted because Defendant failed to respond to these issues. SO ORDERED. DATED this 15th day of February, 2007.
BY THE COURT:
______________________________ Judge Paul G. Cassell United States District Judge
2

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH NORTHERN DIVISION

REBECCA LEIGH DEHART, Plaintiff, v.
STEVENS-HENAGER COLLEGE, INC., Defendant.
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff, v.
STEVENS-HENAGER COLLEGE, INC., Defendant.

VERDICT FORM
Case No. 1:05-CV-00118 [consolidated with case no. I :05-CV-OOI22]

We the jury impaneled in this case find the issues of liability and damages as follows:
EQUAL PAY ACT:
Plaintiff Rebecca DeHart:
1.1. Have Plaintiffs established by a preponderance ofthe evidence that Stevens-Henager violated the Equal Pay Act with respect to PlaintiffDeHart by paying her less than a male who was performing substantially equal work?

Yes

No

(If your answer is Yes, proceed to Question 1.2. If your answer is No, proceed to Question 2.1 and do not answer Questions 1.2 througb 1.4.)

1.2. If your answer to Question 1.1 was Yes, has Stevens-Henager established by a preponderance of the evidence that the difference in pay was the result of any factor other than the gender ofPlaintiffDeHart?

Yes

No

(If your answer is No, proceed to Question 1.3. Ifyour answer is Yes, proceed to Question 2.1 and do not answer Questions 1.3 and 1.4.)

1.3. Have Plaintiffs established by a preponderance of the evidence that Stevens-Henager's conduct was willful?

Yes

No

1.4. If you answered Yes to Question 1.3, you should award damages, if any, based on the wages Plaintiff DeHart earned from May 5, 2003 to January 27,2004. If you answered No to Question 1.3, you should award damages based on the wages Plaintiff DeHart earned from September 22,2003 to January 27,2004. Based upon the foregoing, what sum will compensate PlaintiffDeHart for the difference between what she was paid and what the male comparator(s) was paid?

$_-----

Jana Miller:
2.1. Have Plaintiffs established by a preponderance of the evidence that Stevens-Henager violated the Equal Pay Act with respect to Ms. Miller by paying her less than Mr. Young who was perfonning substantially equal work?

Yes

No

(Tfyour answer is Yes, proceed to Question 2.2. If your answer is No, proceed to Question 3.1 and do not answer Questions 2.2 through 2.4.)

2.2. If your answer to Question 2.1 was Yes, has Stevens-Henager established by a preponderance of the evidence that the difference in pay was the result of any factor other than the gender of Ms. Miller?

Yes

No

(If your answer is No, proceed to Question 2.3. If your answer is Yes, proceed to Question 3.1 and do not answer Questions 2.3 and 2.4.)

2.3. Have Plaintiffs established by a preponderance of the evidence that Stevens-Henager's conduct was willful?

Yes

No

2.4. If you answered Yes to Question 2.3, you should award damages, if any, based on the wages Ms. Miller earned from September 28, 2002 to February 20,2004. If you answered No to Question 2.3, you should award damages based on the wages Ms. Miller earned from Septem,ber 28, 2003 to February 20, 2004. Based upon the foregoing, what sum will compensate Ms. Miller for the difference between what she was paid and what Mr. Young was paid?

$_------
Jennifer Morris:
3.1. Have Plaintiffs established by a preponderance of the evidence that Stevens-Henager violated the Equal Pay Act with respect to Ms. Morris by paying her less than a male who was performing substantially equal work?

Yes

No

(If your answer is Yes, proceed to Question 3.2. If your answer is No, proceed to Question 4.1 and do not answer Questions 3.2 through 3.4.)
3.2. Ifyour answer to Question 3.1 was Yes, has Stevens-Henager established by a preponderance of the evidence that the difference in pay was the result of any factor other than the gender of Ms. Morris?

Yes

No

(If your answer is No, proceed to Question 3.3. If your answer is Yes, proceed to Question 4.1 and do not answer Questions 3.3 and 3.4.)

3.3. Have Plaintiffs established by a preponderance of the evidence that Stevens-Henager's conduct was willful?

Yes

No

3.4. If you answered Yes to Question 3.3, you should award damages, if any, based on the wages Ms. Morris earned from December 9, 2002 to November 30, 2003. If you answered No to Question 3.3, you should award damages based on the wages Ms. Morris earned from September 28, 2003 to November 30, 2003. Based upon the foregoing, what sum will compensate Ms. Morris for the difference between what she was paid and what the male comparator(s) was paid?

$_-----

Stacy Nelson:
4.1. Have Plaintiffs established by a preponderance of the evidence that Stevens-Henager violated the Equal Pay Act with respect to Ms. Nelson by paying her less than Mr. Young who was performing substantially equal work?

Yes

No

(If your answer is Yes, proceed to Question 4.2. If your answer is No, proceed to Question 5.1 and do not answer Questions 4.2 and 4.3.)

4.2. Ifyour answer to Question 4.1 was Yes, has Stevens-Henager established by a preponderance of the evidence that the difference in pay was the result of any factor other than the gender ofMs. Nelson?

Yes

No

(If your answer is No, proceed to Question 4.3. If your answer is Yes, proceed to Question 5.1 and do not answer Question 4.3.)

4.3. If you answered No to Question 4.2, you should award damages, if any, based on the wages Ms. Nelson earned from November 13, 2003 to October 26, 2004. Based upon the foregoing, what sum will compensate Ms. Nelson for the difference between what she was paid and what Mr. Young was paid?

$_------

TITLE VII WAGE DISCRIMINATION:
Plaintiff Rebecca DeHart
5.1. Have Plaintiffs established by a preponderance of the evidence that Stevens-Henager violated Title VII with respect to Plaintiff DeHart by paying her less than a male who was performing similar work and such pay disparity was the result ofintentional discrimination?

Yes

No

(If your answer is Yes, proceed to Question 5.2. If your answer is No, proceed to Question 6.1 and do not answer Questions 5.2 and 5.3.)

5.2. If your answer to Question 5.1 was Yes, what sum will compensate Plaintiff DeHart for being paid less than the male comparator(s) for performing similar work from May 5,2003 through December 31, 2004?

$_------
Note: If you have awarded damages in Question 1.4, do not deduct or "back out" those damages here.
5.3. If your answer to Question 5.1 was Yes, what sum is Plaintiff DeHart entitled to for compensatory damages for intentional wage discrimination, excluding lost wages and benefits from May 5, 2003 through December 31, 2004?

$_-----

Jana Miller
6.1. Have Plaintiffs established by a preponderance of the evidence that Stevens-Henager violated Title VII with respect to Ms. Miller by paying her less than Mr. Young who was perfonning similar work and such pay disparity was the result of intentional discrimination?

Yes

No

(If your answer is Yes, proceed to Question 6.2. If your answer is No, proceed to Question 7.1 and do not answer Question 6.2.)

6.2. If your answer to Question 6.1 was Yes, what sum will compensate Ms. Miller for being paid less than Mr. Young for perfonning similar work?

$_------
Note: If you have awarded damages in Question 2.4, do not deduct or "back out" those damages here.

Jennifer Morris
7.1. Have Plaintiffs established by a preponderance of the evidence that Stevens-Henager violated Title VII with respect to Ms. Morris by paying her less than a male who was perfonning similar work and such pay disparity was the result ofintentional discrimination?

Yes

No

(If your answer is Yes, proceed to Question 7.2. If your answer is No, proceed to Question 8.1 and do not answer Question 7.2.)

7.2. If your answer to Question 7.1 was Yes, what sum will compensate Ms. Morris for being paid less than the male comparator(s} for perfonning similar work?

$_-----
Note: Ifyou have awarded damages in Question 3.4, do not deduct or "back out" those damages here.

Stacy Nelson
8.1. Have Plaintiffs established by a preponderance of the evidence that Stevens-Henager violated Title VII with respect to Ms. Nelson by paying her less than Mr. Young who was performing similar work and such pay disparity was the result of intentional discrimination?

Yes

No

(If your answer is Yes, proceed to Question 8.2. If your answer is No, proceed to Question 9.1 and do not answer Question 8.2.)

8.2. lfyour answer to Question 8.1 was Yes, what sum will compensate Ms. Nelson for being paid less than Mr. Young for performing similar work?

$_------
Note: If you have awarded damages in Question 4.3, do not deduct or "back out" those damages here.

DISCRIMINATORY DISCHARGE CLAIMS:
Plaintiff DeHart
9.1. Have Plaintiffs established by a preponderance ofthe evidence that Stevens-Henager violated Title VII andlor the Equal Pay Act by retaliating against Plaintiff DeHart by discharging her for engaging in protected opposition to discrimination and that Plaintiff DeHart's opposition was a motivating factor in Stevens-Henager's decision to terminate her?

Yes

No

(If you answered Yes to Question 9.1, proceed to Question 9.2. If you answered No to Question 9.1, proceed to Question 10.1 and do not answer Questions 9.2 and 9.3.)

9.2. If your answer to Question 9.1 was Yes, has Stevens-Henager established by a preponderance ofthe evidence that its decision to terminate Plaintiff DeHart was also motivated by a lawful reason and that Stevens-Henager would have made the same decision to terminate Plaintiff DeHart even if she had not engaged in protected activity?

Yes

No

(If your answer is No, proceed to Question 9.3. If your answer is Yes, proceed to Question 10.1 and do not answer Question 9.3)
9.3. If your answer to Question 9.2 was No, what sum will compensate Plaintiff DeHart for any actual damages she sustained as a direct result of Stevens-Henager's retaliatory discharge?
We assess Plaintiff DeHart's damages as follows:
A. Lost wages and benefits from January 27,2004 through December 31, 2004:
$_ _ _ _ _ (stating the amount [or, ifnone, write the word "none"])
B. Plaintiff DeHart's compensatory damages for retaliatory discharge, excluding lost wages and benefits from January 27,2004 through December 31, 2004:
$_ _ _ _ _ (stating the amount [or, if you find that Plaintiff DeHart's damages do not have a monetary value, write in the nominal amount of "$1 "])
C. Amount Plaintiff DeHart did earn, or with the exercise of reasonable efforts, should have earned from the date January 27, 2004 through December 31, 2004:
$_ _ _ _ _ (stating the amount [or, ifnone, write the word "none"])
Amount in A, plus amount in B, minus amount in C (A + B - C =): $_ _ _ _ __

Jennifer Morris
10.1. Have Plaintiffs established by a preponderance of the evidence that Stevens-Henager violated Title VII andlor the Equal Pay Act by discharging Ms. Morris because of her gender and that gender was a motivating factor in Stevens-Henager's decision to discharge Ms. Morris?

Yes

No

(If your answer is Yes, proceed to Question 10.2. If your answer is No, do not answer Questions 10.2 and 10.3.)

10.2. If your answer to Question 10.1 was Yes, has Stevens-Henager established by a preponderance of the evidence that its decision to terminate Ms. Morris was also motivated by a lawful reason and that Stevens-Henager would have made the same decision to terminate Ms.

Morris even ifher gender had played no role in Stevens-Henager's decision to tenninate Ms. Morris?

Yes

No

(If your answer is No, proceed to Question 10.3. If your answer is Yes, do not answer Question 10.3.)

10.3. If your answer to Question 10.2 was No, what sum will compensate Ms. Morris for any actual damages she sustained as a direct result of Stevens-Henager's discriminatory discharge?

We assess Ms. Morris' damages as follows:

A. Lost wages and benefits from November 30, 2003 through March 29, 2007:

$_ _ _ _ _ (stating the amount [or, if none, write the word "none"])

B. Ms. Morris' compensatory damages for discriminatory discharge, excluding lost wages and benefits from November 30, 2003 through March 29, 2007:

$_ _ _ _ _ {stating the amount [or, if you find that Ms. Morris' damages do not have a monetary value, write in the nominal amount of "$1"])
c. Amount Ms. Morris did earn, or with the exercise of reasonable efforts,
should have earned from the date November 30, 2003 through March 29, 2007:

$_____ (stating the amount [or, if none, write the word "none"])

Amount in A, plus amount in B, minus amount in C (A + B - C =): $ _ _ _ _ _ __

Please sign below and return this Verdict Fonn to the court security officer.

FOREPERSON OF THE JURY

DATE

 
 AD 450 (Rev.5/85) Judgment in a Civil Case
United States District (S!dITit()\ihT~2 'lcliUn1\ "} nrno _ q ,6. \\: ::J Northern Division for the District of Utah

Rebecca Leigh Dehart et al v.
Stevens-Henager College, Inc

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE Case Number: 1:05cv 118 POC

This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been tried and the jury has rendered its verdict.

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED
that judgment be entered in favor ofthe defendant and plaintiffs' cause of action is dismissed with prejudice.

April 9, 2007
Date

D. Mark Jones
Clerk a/Court
;p (/A.I+e
~L__~~_==~_______

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

https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?110545703906104-L_35...

APPEAL, CLOSED, CONSOLIDATED, JURY, LEAD CASE
Electronic Case Filing System District of Utah (Northern)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:05-cv-00118-PGC

Dehart v. Stevens-Henager College Assigned to: Judge Paul G. Cassell Case in other court: Tenth Circuit, 07-04134
Tenth Circuit, 07-04140 Cause: 29:0206 Collect Unpaid Wages
Plaintiff
Rebecca Leigh Dehart

Date Filed: 09/22/2005 Date Terminated: 04/11/2007 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 710 Labor: Fair Standards Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by April L. Hollingsworth STRINDBERG & SCHOLNICK 426 N 300 W SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84103 (801)359-4169 Email: aprilecf@xmission.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erik Strindberg STRINDBERG & SCHOLNICK 426 N 300 W SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84103 (801)359-4169 Email: erikecf@xmission.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erika Birch STRINDBERG & SCHOLNICK 426 N 300 W SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84103 (801)359-4169 Email: erikaecf@xmission.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lauren I. Scholnick STRINDBERG & SCHOLNICK 426 N 300 W SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84103 (801)359-4169 Email: laurenecf@xmission.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

1 of 22

7/10/2007 12:57 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:utd - Docket Report
Consol Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
2 of 22

https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?110545703906104-L_35...
Ralph E. Chamness SALT LAKE CITY ATTORNEYS OFFICE 451 S STATE ST STE 505 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84111 (801)535-7630 Email: ralph.chamness@slcgov.com TERMINATED: 08/07/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sandra J. Padegimas EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (AZ) 3300 N CENTRAL AVE STE 690 PHOENIX, AZ 85012-1848 (602)640-5000 Email: sandra.padegimas@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen J. Sorenson US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE (UT) SALT LAKE CITY, UT 00000 (801)524-5682 Email: Stephen.Sorenson@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonathan M. Benson STRINDBERG & SCHOLNICK 426 N 300 W SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84103 (801)359-4169 Email: jonnyecf@xmission.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by C. Emanuel Smith EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (AZ) PHOENIX DISTRICT OFFICE 3300 N CENTRAL AVE STE 690 PHOENIX, AZ 85012-1848 (602)640-5000 Email: emanuel.smith@eeoc.gov TERMINATED: 03/29/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
7/10/2007 12:57 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:utd - Docket Report 3 of 22

https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?110545703906104-L_35...
Carlie Christensen US ATTORNEY'S OFFICE (UT) SALT LAKE CITY, UT 00000 (801)524-5682 Email: Carlie.Christensen@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary Jo O'Neill EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (AZ) PHOENIX DISTRICT OFFICE 3300 N CENTRAL AVE STE 690 PHOENIX, AZ 85012-1848 (602)640-5000 Email: mary.oneill@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michelle T. Deutsch EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (AZ) PHOENIX DISTRICT OFFICE 3300 N CENTRAL AVE STE 690 PHOENIX, AZ 85012-1848 (602)640-4773 Email: michelle.deutsch@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sally C. Shanley EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (AZ) PHOENIX DISTRICT OFFICE 3300 N CENTRAL AVE STE 690 PHOENIX, AZ 85012-1848 (602)640-5032 Email: sally.shanley@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sandra J. Padegimas EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION (AZ) PHOENIX DISTRICT OFFICE 3300 N CENTRAL AVE STE 690 PHOENIX, AZ 85012-1848 (602)640-5000 Email: sandra.padegimas@eeoc.gov
7/10/2007 12:57 PM

CM/ECF - U.S. District Court:utd - Docket Report
V. Defendant Stevens-Henager College
4 of 22

https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?110545703906104-L_35...
LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Stephen J. Sorenson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gabrielle L. Caruso VAN COTT BAGLEY CORNWALL & MCCARTHY 1790 BONANZA DR STE E250 PO BOX 681077 PARK CITY, UT 84068 (435)649-3889 Email: gcaruso@vancott.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert E. Mansfield VAN COTT BAGLEY CORNWALL & MCCARTHY (SLC) 50 S MAIN STE 1600 PO BOX 45340 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84145 (801)532-3333 Email: rmansfield@vancott.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa B. Bohman VAN COTT BAGLEY CORNWALL & MCCARTHY (SLC) 50 S MAIN STE 1600 PO BOX 45340 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84145 (801)532-3333 Email: lbohman@vancott.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert H. Scott VAN COTT BAGLEY CORNWALL & MCCARTHY (SLC) 50 S MAIN STE 1600 PO BOX 45340 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84145 (801)237-0212
7/10/2007 12:57 PM

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

https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?110545703906104-L_35...

Email: rscott@vancott.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 09/22/2005 10/31/2005 10/31/2005 10/31/2005 11/10/2005 11/22/2005 11/30/2005 12/01/2005 12/02/2005 12/02/2005 12/02/2005 12/07/2005 12/08/2005 12/12/2005

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT against Stevens-Henager College (Filing fee $ 250, receipt number 4681006482), filed by Rebecca Leigh Dehart.Assigned to Judge Paul G. Cassell (rlr, ) (Entered: 09/22/2005)
2 MOTION to Compel Arbitration, MOTION to Stay Proceedings filed by Defendant Stevens-Henager College. (asp, ) (Entered: 11/01/2005)
3 MEMORANDUM in Support re 2 MOTION to Compel Arbitration MOTION to Stay filed by Defendant Stevens-Henager College. (asp, ) (Entered: 11/01/2005)
4 DECLARATION of Vicky Dewsnup re 2 MOTION to Compel Arbitration MOTION to Stay filed by Stevens-Henager College. (asp, ) (Entered: 11/01/2005)
5 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 2 MOTION to Compel Arbitration MOTION to Stay filed by Plaintiff Rebecca Leigh Dehart. (kvs, ) (Entered: 11/14/2005)
6 REPLY to Response to Motion re 2 MOTION to Compel Arbitration MOTION to Stay Proceedings and Request for Oral Argument filed by Defendant Stevens-Henager College. (Mansfield, Robert) (Entered: 11/22/2005)
10 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint filed by Defendant Stevens-Henager College. (Originally filed in 1:05cv122) (blk, ) (Entered: 12/06/2005)
8 MOTION to Consolidate Cases 1:05-cv-00118-PGC and 1:05-cv-00122-DAK filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (asp, ) (Entered: 12/02/2005)
7 ORDER denying 2 Motion to Compel, denying 2 Motion to Stay . Signed by Judge Paul G. Cassell on 12/2/05. (asp, ) (Entered: 12/02/2005)
9 ORDER granting 8 Motion to Consolidate Cases . Signed by Judge Paul G. Cassell on 12/2/05. (asp, ) (Entered: 12/02/2005)
11 ORDER granting 10 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer Answer deadline updated for Stevens-Henager College answer due 12/7/2005. . Signed by Judge Dale A. Kimball on 12/1/05. (blk, ) (Entered: 12/06/2005)
12 ANSWER to Complaint filed by Stevens-Henager College.(Caruso, Gabrielle) (Entered: 12/07/2005)
13 NOTICE of Change of Address by Erika Birch, April L. Hollingsworth, Erik Strindberg, Ralph E. Chamness, Lauren I. Scholnick (asp, ) (Entered: 12/09/2005)
14 NOTICE OF INITIAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE: (Notice generated by chambers)***The Attorneys Planning Meeting Report and Proposed Scheduling Order forms, available on the court web site at

5 of 22

7/10/2007 12:57 PM

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

https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?110545703906104-L_35...

01/12/2006
01/20/2006 01/23/2006
01/23/2006 01/26/2006 01/31/2006 01/31/2006 03/28/2006 03/29/2006

http://www.utd.uscourts.gov/documents/formpage.html, should be prepared 30 days before the Initial Pretrial Conference hearing date. The Court may enter a scheduling order and vacate the hearing if counsel (a) file a stipulated Attorneys Planning Meeting Report and (b) e-mail a Proposed Scheduling Order to ipt@utd.uscourts.gov 30 days before the scheduled hearing.*** Initial Pretrial Conference set for 1/25/2006 02:30 PM in Room 477 before Magistrate Judge David Nuffer. (asp, ) (Entered: 12/12/2005)
15 NOTICE REMINDER of Attorneys' Planning Meeting Report due five days from receipt of this notice re [14] NOTICE OF INITIAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE: (Notice generated by chambers)***The Attorneys Planning Meeting Report and Proposed Scheduling Order forms, available on the court web site at http://www.utd.uscourts.gov/documents/formpage.html, should be prepared 30 days before the Initial Pretrial Conference hearing date. The Court may enter a scheduling order and vacate the hearing if counsel (a) file a stipulated Attorneys Planning Meeting Report and (b) e-mail a Proposed Scheduling Order to ipt@utd.uscourts.gov 30 days before the scheduled hearing.*** Initial Pretrial Conference set for 1/25/2006 02:30 PM in Room 477 before Magistrate Judge David Nuffer. (asp, ) (tsh, ) (Entered: 01/12/2006)
16 REPORT OF ATTORNEY PLANNING MEETING. (Mansfield, Robert) (Entered: 01/20/2006)
17 SCHEDULING ORDER: Initial Pretrial Conference vacated. Amended Pleadings due by 3/31/2006. Joinder of Parties due by 3/31/2006. Discovery due by 9/29/2006. Motions due by 10/31/2006. Final Pretrial Conference set for 3/14/2007 03:00 PM in Room 103 before Judge Paul G. Cassell. 5 day Jury Trial set for 3/26/2007 08:30 AM in Room 103 before Judge Paul G. Cassell. Signed by Judge David Nuffer on 1/21/06. (asp, ) (Entered: 01/23/2006)
18 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Samuel Alba under 28:636 (b)(1) for Settlement. Magistrate to conduct a settlement conference by February 9, 2007. Counsel shall, by January 5, 2007, jointly contact the Magistrate to schedule the settlement conference.Signed by Judge Paul G. Cassell on 1/23/2006. (yre) (Entered: 01/23/2006)
19 CERTIFICATE of Counsel for Initial Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosure Statement by Sandra J. Padegimas for Consol Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Padegimas, Sandra) (Entered: 01/26/2006)
20 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Stevens-Henager College of Rule 26(a)(3) Initial Disclosures (Mansfield, Robert) (Entered: 01/31/2006)
21 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Rebecca Leigh Dehart re: initial disclosures(asp, ) (Entered: 02/02/2006)
22 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney for Plaintiff EEOC filed by Consol Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Smith, C.) (Entered: 03/28/2006)
23 ORDER granting 22 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney C. Emanuel Smith withdrawn from case . Signed by Judge Paul G. Cassell on 3/29/06. (kla, ) (Entered: 03/30/2006)

6 of 22

7/10/2007 12:57 PM

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

https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?110545703906104-L_35...

05/02/2006 05/02/2006 05/02/2006 05/02/2006 05/02/2006 06/06/2006 06/06/2006 06/07/2006 06/20/2006
06/30/2006 06/30/2006 07/03/2006 07/07/2006 07/10/2006 07/14/2006

24 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Stevens-Henager College re 1st set of Interrogatories (Caruso, Gabrielle) (Entered: 05/02/2006)
25 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Stevens-Henager College Nelson 1st set of interrogatories (Caruso, Gabrielle) (Entered: 05/02/2006)
26 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Stevens-Henager College EEOC 1st set of interrogatories (Caruso, Gabrielle) (Entered: 05/02/2006)
27 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Stevens-Henager College Morris 1st set of interrogatories (Caruso, Gabrielle) (Entered: 05/02/2006)
28 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Stevens-Henager College DeHart 1st set of interrogatories (Caruso, Gabrielle) (Entered: 05/02/2006)
29 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Service of Discovery Requests to Defendant (Padegimas, Sandra) (Entered: 06/06/2006)
30 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Service of Discovery Responses to Defendant (Padegimas, Sandra) (Entered: 06/06/2006)
31 NOTICE OF REQUIREMENTS for appearance phv mailed to attorney Sally C. Shanley, for Consol Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (kla, ) (Entered: 06/07/2006)
32 MOTION/ORDER granting motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice for of Sally C. Shanley for Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Attorneys admitted pro hac vice may download a copy of the District of Utah's local rules from court's web site at http://www.utd.uscourts.gov. Signed by Judge Paul G. Cassell on 6/20/06. (kla, ) (Entered: 06/20/2006)
33 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Rebecca Leigh Dehart re 28 Certificate of Service of Plaintiff's Answers to Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents (Chamness, Ralph) (Entered: 06/30/2006)
35 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of discovery documents by Rebecca Leigh Dehart (blk, ) (Entered: 07/05/2006)
34 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Stevens-Henager College Defendant's Responses to Plaintiff's EEOC's First Set of Requests for Admission (Caruso, Gabrielle) (Entered: 07/03/2006)
36 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Stevens-Henager College Defendant's Responses to Plaintiff Rebecca DeHart's First Set of Written Discovery (Caruso, Gabrielle) (Entered: 07/07/2006)
37 DESIGNATION OF EXPERTS Kelly Johnson, CPA Defendant's Disclosure of Expert Witness filed by Defendant Stevens-Henager College.(Caruso, Gabrielle) (Entered: 07/10/2006)
38 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Stevens-Henager College to EEOC's First Request for Production of Documents and Interrogatories (Mansfield, Robert) (Entered: 07/14/2006)

7 of 22

7/10/2007 12:57 PM

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

https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?110545703906104-L_35...

08/02/2006 08/03/2006 08/07/2006
08/07/2006 08/08/2006 08/14/2006 08/14/2006 08/14/2006 08/15/2006 08/17/2006 08/17/2006 08/28/2006 09/12/2006 09/15/2006 09/20/2006

39 Ex Parte (Not Sealed) MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney filed by Plaintiff Rebecca Leigh Dehart. (Attachments: # 1 # 2)(Birch, Erika) (Entered: 08/02/2006)
40 MOTION for Protective Order Regarding Confidential Information filed by Defendant Stevens-Henager College. (Attachments: # 1)(Caruso, Gabrielle) (Entered: 08/03/2006)
41 NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY re 40 MOTION for Protective Order Regarding Confidential Information. The document states that Exhibit 1 is the Proposed Protective Order. The document attached as Exhibit 1 is the Motion for Proposed Protective Order. The motion has been terminated. The court asks the filer of the original document to refile the pleading. The new pleading will receive a new document number on the docket. (kla, ) (Entered: 08/07/2006)
42 ORDER granting 39 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Ralph E. Chamness withdrawn from case for Rebecca Leigh Dehart. Signed by Judge Paul G. Cassell on 8/2/06.(kla, ) (Entered: 08/07/2006)
43 MOTION for Protective Order Regarding Confidential Information filed by Defendant Stevens-Henager College. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Caruso, Gabrielle) (Entered: 08/08/2006)
44 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for First Supplemental Rule 26(a)(1) Disclosure Statement (Padegimas, Sandra) (Entered: 08/14/2006)
45 NOTICE of Appearance by Robert H. Scott on behalf of Stevens-Henager College (Scott, Robert) (Entered: 08/14/2006)
46 NOTICE of Deposition of Stacey Nelson by Stevens-Henager College 2:00 pm, August 15, 2006 (Scott, Robert) (Entered: 08/14/2006)
47 PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION. Signed by Judge Paul G. Cassell on 8/15/06. (kla, ) (Entered: 08/15/2006)
48 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Rebecca Leigh Dehart re: Request for Entry Upon Land (Benson, Jonathan) (Entered: 08/17/2006)
49 NOTICE of Appearance by Jonathan M. Benson on behalf of Rebecca Leigh Dehart (Benson, Jonathan) (Entered: 08/17/2006)
50 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Stevens-Henager College 2nd Discovery Requests to EEOC (Scott, Robert) (Entered: 08/28/2006)
51 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Rebecca Leigh Dehart re: Notice of Depositions (Benson, Jonathan) (Entered: 09/12/2006)
52 NOTICE of Issuance of Subpoenas by Rebecca Leigh Dehart (Attachments: # 1)(Birch, Erika) (Entered: 09/15/2006)
53 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Stevens-Henager College Answers to EEOC's 2nd Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents (Scott, Robert) (Entered: 09/20/2006)

8 of 22

7/10/2007 12:57 PM

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

https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?110545703906104-L_35...

09/21/2006 09/27/2006 09/29/2006 09/29/2006 10/02/2006
10/16/2006 10/16/2006 10/16/2006
10/16/2006
10/23/2006 10/25/2006 10/26/2006
10/30/2006

54 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Stevens-Henager College Notice of Deposition of Roberto Rivera (Scott, Robert) (Entered: 09/21/2006)
55 MOTION for Extension of Time Discovery filed by Consol Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Padegimas, Sandra) (Entered: 09/27/2006)
56 Joint MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses filed by Plaintiff Rebecca Leigh Dehart. (Birch, Erika) (Entered: 09/29/2006)
57 Joint MEMORANDUM in Support re 56 Joint MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses filed by Plaintiff Rebecca Leigh Dehart. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1-4)(Birch, Erika) (Entered: 09/29/2006)
58 ORDER granting 55 Motion for 30 day Extension of Discovery. The court continues discovery until 10/30/06 for the limited purpose of permitting plaintiffs to depose Susan Hamilton and Todd Knecht. Signed by Judge Paul G. Cassell on 10/2/06.(kla) (Entered: 10/02/2006)
59 Defendant's MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 56 Joint MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses filed by Defendant Stevens-Henager College. (Scott, Robert) (Entered: 10/16/2006)
60 Defendant's MOTION to Bifurcate Trial with Respect to Punitive Damages filed by Defendant Stevens-Henager College. (Scott, Robert) (Entered: 10/16/2006)
61 Defendant's MEMORANDUM in Support re 60 Defendant's MOTION to Bifurcate Trial with Respect to Punitive Damages filed by Defendant Stevens-Henager College. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Kloke v. Buckley Industries, Inc., 1996 U.S.Dist.Ct. LEXIS 9135)(Scott, Robert) (Entered: 10/16/2006)
62 Defendant's MOTION for Hearing re 61 Memorandum in Support of Motion,, 56 Joint MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses, 57 Memorandum in Support of Motion, 60 Defendant's MOTION to Bifurcate Trial with Respect to Punitive Damages, 59 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion (Simultaneous Hearing Requested) filed by Defendant Stevens-Henager College. (Scott, Robert) (Entered: 10/16/2006)
63 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Rebecca Leigh Dehart Re: Supplemental Disclosures (Birch, Erika) (Entered: 10/23/2006)
64 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Stevens-Henager College of Supplemental Discovery Responses (Scott, Robert) (Entered: 10/25/2006)
65 Joint MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 60 Defendant's MOTION to Bifurcate Trial with Respect to Punitive Damages filed by Plaintiff Rebecca Leigh Dehart, Consol Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Padegimas, Sandra) (Entered: 10/26/2006)
66 REPLY to Response to Motion re 56 Joint MOTION to Compel Discovery Responses filed by Plaintiff Rebecca Leigh Dehart. (Birch, Erika) (Entered: 10/30/2006)

9 of 22

7/10/2007 12:57 PM

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

https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?110545703906104-L_35...

10/31/2006 10/31/2006
10/31/2006 10/31/2006
11/06/2006 11/08/2006 11/08/2006 11/30/2006 11/30/2006 12/04/2006
12/04/2006 12/04/2006 12/04/2006

67 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Consol Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Padegimas, Sandra) (Entered: 10/31/2006)
68 MEMORANDUM in Support re 67 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Consol Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit List and Exhibits 1 -6# 2 Exhibit 7)(Padegimas, Sandra) (Entered: 10/31/2006)
69 Defendant's MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Stevens-Henager College. (Scott, Robert) (Entered: 10/31/2006)
70 Defendant's MEMORANDUM in Support re 69 Defendant's MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Stevens-Henager College. (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# 9 Exhibit I# 10 Exhibit J# 11 Appendix Unpublished Cases)(Scott, Robert) (Entered: 10/31/2006)
71 REPLY to Response to Motion re 60 Defendant's MOTION to Bifurcate Trial with Respect to Punitive Damages filed by Defendant Stevens-Henager College. (Scott, Robert) (Entered: 11/06/2006)
72 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 56 Motion to Compel, granting in part and denying in part 60 Motion to Bifurcate, denying 62 Motion for Hearing. Signed by Judge Paul G. Cassell on 11/8/06.(kla) (Entered: 11/08/2006)
73 ERRATA to 68 Memorandum in Support of Motion filed by Consol Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Padegimas, Sandra) (Entered: 11/08/2006)
74 Joint MOTION to Strike filed by Plaintiff Rebecca Leigh Dehart. (Birch, Erika) (Entered: 11/30/2006)
75 Joint MEMORANDUM in Support re 74 Joint MOTION to Strike filed by Plaintiff Rebecca Leigh Dehart. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A & B)(Birch, Erika) (Entered: 11/30/2006)
76 Joint MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 69 Defendant's MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiff Rebecca Leigh Dehart. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Index# 2 Exhibit)(Birch, Erika) Modified on 12/5/2006 added Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as filer of document (asp, ). (Entered: 12/04/2006)
77 Defendant's MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 67 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Stevens-Henager College. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B)(Scott, Robert) (Entered: 12/04/2006)
78 EXHIBITS filed by Rebecca Leigh Dehart, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 76 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion. (The exhibits are not scanned and are available in the clerk's office.) (kla) (Entered: 12/05/2006)
80 **SEALED DOCUMENT** Exhibits in Support re 76 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, filed by Plaintiff Rebecca Leigh Dehart, Consol Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (The exhibits are not scanned and are located in the sealed area.) (kla) (Entered: 12/05/2006)

10 of 22

7/10/2007 12:57 PM

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

https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?110545703906104-L_35...

12/05/2006 12/11/2006 12/15/2006 12/18/2006 12/20/2006 12/20/2006 12/21/2006
12/21/2006 01/04/2007 01/12/2007 01/17/2007 02/05/2007 02/05/2007

79 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION re: 69 Defendant's MOTION for Summary Judgment, 67 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment: Motion Hearing set for 1/19/2007 03:00 PM in Room 103 before Judge Paul G. Cassell. (ttl, ) (Entered: 12/05/2006)
81 Defendant's MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 74 Joint MOTION to Strike filed by Defendant Stevens-Henager College. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A through E)(Scott, Robert) (Entered: 12/11/2006)
82 REPLY to Response to Motion re 67 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Consol Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits A - B)(Padegimas, Sandra) (Entered: 12/15/2006)
83 REPLY to Response to Motion re 74 Joint MOTION to Strike filed by Plaintiff Rebecca Leigh Dehart. (Birch, Erika) (Entered: 12/18/2006)
84 Stipulated MOTION for Extension of Time Pretrial Deadlines filed by Plaintiff Rebecca Leigh Dehart. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Birch, Erika) (Entered: 12/20/2006)
85 NOTICE OF HEARING: (Notice generated by SA Chambers) Settlement Conference set for 2/8/2007 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 248 before Magistrate Judge Samuel Alba. (cas) (Entered: 12/20/2006)
86 REPLY to Response to Motion re 69 Defendant's MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant Stevens-Henager College. (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# 9 Exhibit I# 10 Exhibit J# 11 Exhibit K# 12 Exhibit L# 13 Exhibit M# 14 Exhibit N# 15 Exhibit O# 16 Exhibit List)(Scott, Robert) (Entered: 12/21/2006)
87 REQUEST for LEAVE TO FILE OVERLENGTH MEMORANDUM re 86 Reply Memorandum/Reply to Response to Motion, filed by Defendant Stevens-Henager College. (Scott, Robert) (Entered: 12/21/2006)
88 AFFIDAVIT of Sandra J. Padegimas re 76 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Padegimas, Sandra) (Entered: 01/04/2007)
89 AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION re: 69 Defendant's MOTION for Summary Judgment, 67 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment : Motion Hearing reset for 2/7/2007 02:30 PM in Room 103 before Judge Paul G. Cassell. (ttl) (Entered: 01/12/2007)
90 ORDER granting 87 Request to File Over-Length Reply Memorandum filed by Stevens-Henager College. Signed by Judge Paul G. Cassell on 1/17/07. (kla) (Entered: 01/17/2007)
91 ERRATA to 68 Memorandum in Support of Motion filed by Consol Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Padegimas, Sandra) (Entered: 02/05/2007)
92 Supplemental MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 69 Defendant's MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiff Rebecca Leigh Dehart. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A & B)(Birch, Erika) (Entered: 02/05/2007)

11 of 22

7/10/2007 12:57 PM

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

https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?110545703906104-L_35...

02/06/2007 02/06/2007 02/07/2007 02/07/2007
02/12/2007
02/12/2007 02/14/2007 02/15/2007 02/15/2007

93 Defendant's MOTION to Strike 92 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion filed by Defendant Stevens-Henager College. (Scott, Robert) (Entered: 02/06/2007)
94 Defendant's MEMORANDUM in Support re 93 Defendant's MOTION to Strike 92 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion filed by Defendant Stevens-Henager College. (Scott, Robert) (Entered: 02/06/2007)
95 Joint MOTION for Leave to File Surreply to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiff Rebecca Leigh Dehart. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion)(Benson, Jonathan) (Entered: 02/07/2007)
96 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Paul G. Cassell : Motion Hearing held on 2/7/2007 re 69 Defendant's MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Stevens-Henager College, 67 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. After hearing arguments, the Court denies defendant's motion 69 and grants in part and denies in part 67 the EEOC's motion. Counsel are to file a consolidate motion in limine by 02/23/2007 with responses due 03/08/2007. Proposed jury instruction are due 02/23/2007. Counsel are then to meet and confer and file any objections by 03/08/2007. Proposed exhibits are to be filed by 02/23/2007 with objections by 03/08/2007. Witness list by 03/08/2007. Settlement cutoff 03/14/2007. Ms. Padegimas is to prepare an order reflecting todays rulings. The Court will prepare an order reflecting the dates set.Attorney for Plaintiff: Erika Birch, Sandra Padegimas - EEOC, Attorney for Defendant Robert E. Mansfield, Robert H. Scott. Court Reporter: Laura Robinson. (ttl) Modified on 2/14/2007 (Little, Trisha). (Entered: 02/08/2007)
97 SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE REPORT: A Settlement Conference was held on 02/08/2007. Parties and counsel were present. The settlement conference was conducted by Magistrate Judge Samuel Alba pursuant to the Order of Reference for Settlement. The parties were Unable to reach settlement. As settlement proceedings have been completed, the district judge may now issue an Order to Withdraw the Order of Referral for Settlement. (asp) (Entered: 02/12/2007)
Case no longer referred to Samuel Alba. (asp) (Entered: 02/12/2007)
98 Modification of Docket: Error: Wrong Motion Number 69 listed when granting/denying the EEOC's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Correction: Correct Motion Number added 67 added. re [96] Minute Entry from 02/07/2007 (ttl) (Entered: 02/14/2007)
99 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 67 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; denying 69 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Paul G. Cassell on 2/15/07. (kla) (Entered: 02/15/2007)
100 PRETRIAL ORDER with instructions for counsel.Pretrial Conference set for 3/14/2007 at 03:30 PM in Room 103 before Judge Paul G. Cassell. PLEASE NOTE NEW TIME. Signed by Judge Paul G. Cassell on 2/15/07. (kla) (Entered: 02/16/2007)

12 of 22

7/10/2007 12:57 PM

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

https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?110545703906104-L_35...

02/16/2007 02/23/2007 02/23/2007
02/23/2007 02/23/2007 02/23/2007 02/23/2007 02/23/2007 02/23/2007 02/23/2007
02/28/2007
03/01/2007
03/01/2007 03/08/2007

101 AMENDED PRETRIAL ORDER.Pretrial Conference set for 3/14/2007 02:30 PM in Room 103 before Judge Paul G. Cassell. PLEASE NOTE NEW TIME.* Signed by Judge Paul G. Cassell on 2/16/07. (kla) (Entered: 02/16/2007)
102 Joint MOTION in Limine to Exclude Expert Witness filed by Plaintiff Rebecca Leigh Dehart. (Birch, Erika) (Entered: 02/23/2007)
103 Joint MEMORANDUM in Support re 102 Joint MOTION in Limine to Exclude Expert Witness filed by Plaintiff Rebecca Leigh Dehart. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D)(Birch, Erika) (Entered: 02/23/2007)
104 Proposed Exhibit List by Plaintiff Rebecca Leigh Dehart.. (Birch, Erika) (Entered: 02/23/2007)
105 Joint MOTION in Limine filed by Consol Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Padegimas, Sandra) (Entered: 02/23/2007)
106 Joint MEMORANDUM in Support re 105 Joint MOTION in Limine filed by Consol Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits 1 to 8)(Padegimas, Sandra) (Entered: 02/23/2007)
107 Proposed Exhibit List by Consol Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.. (Padegimas, Sandra) (Entered: 02/23/2007)
108 Proposed Exhibit List by Defendant Stevens-Henager College.. (Scott, Robert) (Entered: 02/23/2007)
109 Defendant's MOTION in Limine filed by Defendant Stevens-Henager College. (Scott, Robert) (Entered: 02/23/2007)
110 Defendant's MEMORANDUM in Support re 109 Defendant's MOTION in Limine filed by Defendant Stevens-Henager College. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit E# 6 Exhibit F)(Scott, Robert) (Entered: 02/23/2007)
111 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Michelle T. Deutsch (no registration fee required) filed by Plaintiff Rebecca Leigh Dehart, Consol Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Pro Hac Vice packet# 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Sorenson, Stephen) (Entered: 02/28/2007)
112 ORDER granting 111 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Michelle T. Deutsch for Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Attorneys admitted Pro Hac Vice may download a copy of the District of Utahs local rules from the courts web site at http://www.utd.uscourts.gov. Signed by Judge Paul G. Cassell on 3/1/07. (kla) (Entered: 03/01/2007)
113 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Stevens-Henager College 2nd Supplemental Discovery Responses (Scott, Robert) (Entered: 03/01/2007)
114 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages for Response to Motion in Limine filed by Plaintiff Rebecca Leigh Dehart, Consol Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Padegimas, Sandra) (Entered: 03/08/2007)

13 of 22

7/10/2007 12:57 PM

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

https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?110545703906104-L_35...

03/08/2007 03/08/2007
03/08/2007 03/08/2007 03/08/2007 03/08/2007 03/08/2007 03/08/2007 03/08/2007 03/08/2007 03/08/2007 03/09/2007 03/09/2007 03/09/2007 03/09/2007 03/09/2007

115 Proposed Voir Dire by Plaintiff Rebecca Leigh Dehart, Consol Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Padegimas, Sandra) (Entered: 03/08/2007)
116 Joint MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 109 Defendant's MOTION in Limine filed by Plaintiff Rebecca Leigh Dehart, Consol Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Padegimas, Sandra) (Entered: 03/08/2007)
117 Proposed Witness List by Rebecca Leigh Dehart, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Padegimas, Sandra) (Entered: 03/08/2007)
118 OBJECTIONS to 108 Exhibit List(Proposed) filed by Plaintiff Rebecca Leigh Dehart, Consol Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Padegimas, Sandra) (Entered: 03/08/2007)
119 Proposed Jury Instructions by Rebecca Leigh Dehart, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Padegimas, Sandra) (Entered: 03/08/2007)
120 Proposed Jury Instructions by Stevens-Henager College. (Scott, Robert) (Entered: 03/08/2007)
121 Proposed Jury Verdict by Defendant Stevens-Henager College. (Scott, Robert) (Entered: 03/08/2007)
122 Defendant's MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 105 Joint MOTION in Limine filed by Defendant Stevens-Henager College. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-B)(Scott, Robert) (Entered: 03/08/2007)
123 Proposed Voir Dire by Defendant Stevens-Henager College. (Scott, Robert) (Entered: 03/08/2007)
124 Proposed Witness List by Stevens-Henager College. (Scott, Robert) (Entered: 03/08/2007)
125 Proposed Exhibit List OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' EXHIBITS by Defendant Stevens-Henager College.. (Scott, Robert) (Entered: 03/08/2007)
126 NOTICE of Errata Re: Document 119 by Rebecca Leigh Dehart, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 119 Proposed Jury Instructions (Padegimas, Sandra) (Entered: 03/09/2007)
127 NOTICE of 2nd Errata Re: Document 119 by Rebecca Leigh Dehart, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 119 Proposed Jury Instructions Verdict Form (Padegimas, Sandra) (Entered: 03/09/2007)
128 Joint MOTION for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 37 filed by Consol Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Padegimas, Sandra) (Entered: 03/09/2007)
129 Joint MEMORANDUM in Support re 128 Joint MOTION for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 37 filed by Consol Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1)(Padegimas, Sandra) (Entered: 03/09/2007)
130 Joint MOTION for Sanctions Against Defendant's Counsel for "Excessive Costs" filed by Consol Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

14 of 22

7/10/2007 12:57 PM

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

https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?110545703906104-L_35...

03/09/2007
03/09/2007 03/09/2007 03/12/2007
03/12/2007 03/12/2007 03/12/2007 03/13/2007 03/14/2007 03/14/2007
03/14/2007

(Padegimas, Sandra) (Entered: 03/09/2007)
131 Joint MEMORANDUM in Support re 130 Joint MOTION for Sanctions Against Defendant's Counsel for "Excessive Costs" filed by Consol Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 and 2)(Padegimas, Sandra) (Entered: 03/09/2007)
132 OBJECTIONS to Defendant's Jury Instructions filed by Consol Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Padegimas, Sandra) (Entered: 03/09/2007)
133 Proposed Jury Instructions by Stevens-Henager College. (Scott, Robert) (Entered: 03/09/2007)
134 NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY re 133 Proposed Jury Instructions. The document was filed as Proposed Jury Instructions. The document image states that the document is actually an Objection to Plaintiff's Joint Proposed Jury Instructions. The court asks the filer of the original document to file the pleading as an Objection to the Plaintiff's Joint Proposed Jury Instructions. The new pleading will receive a new document number on the docket. (kla) (Entered: 03/12/2007)
135 OBJECTIONS to 119 Proposed Jury Instructions filed by Defendant Stevens-Henager College. (Scott, Robert) (Entered: 03/12/2007)
136 NOTICE of Errata by Rebecca Leigh Dehart re 119 Proposed Jury Instructions (Birch, Erika) (Entered: 03/12/2007)
137 REPLY BRIEF re 135 Objections by Defendant to Plaintiffs Jury Instructions filed by Consol Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Padegimas, Sandra) (Entered: 03/12/2007)
138 NOTICE of 4th Errata re: Document 119 by Rebecca Leigh Dehart, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 119 Proposed Jury Instructions (Padegimas, Sandra) (Entered: 03/13/2007)
139 NOTICE of 5th Errata re: Document 119 by Rebecca Leigh Dehart, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 119 Proposed Jury Instructions (Padegimas, Sandra) (Entered: 03/14/2007)
140 Defendant's MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 130 Joint MOTION for Sanctions Against Defendant's Counsel for "Excessive Costs" filed by Defendant Stevens-Henager College. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A through C# 2 Exhibit D)(Scott, Robert) (Entered: 03/14/2007)
141 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Paul G. Cassell : Final Pretrial Conference held on 3/14/2007. After hearing arguments, Motions in Limine 105109 were granted in part and denied in part. Jury instructions 1 - 13a reviewed. FinalPretrial Conference continued until 3/20/2007 09:00 AM in Room 103 before Judge Paul G. Cassell. Counsel are to meet and confer on trial exhibits prior to the next hearing to see if they are able to reach a stipulation as to most of the exhibits. Attorney for Plaintiff: Erika Birch, Michelle Deutsch, Attorney for Defendant Robert E. Mansfield, Robert H. Scott. Court Reporter: Laura Robinson. (ttl) (Entered: 03/14/2007)

15 of 22

7/10/2007 12:57 PM

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

https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?110545703906104-L_35...

03/16/2007 03/16/2007 03/19/2007 03/20/2007 03/20/2007
03/22/2007 03/22/2007 03/22/2007 03/22/2007 03/22/2007 03/22/2007 03/22/2007 03/22/2007

142 Supplemental MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 130 Joint MOTION for Sanctions Against Defendant's Counsel for "Excessive Costs" filed by Defendant Stevens-Henager College. (Scott, Robert) (Entered: 03/16/2007)
143 Defendant's MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 128 Joint MOTION for Sanctions Pursuant to Rule 37 filed by Defendant Stevens-Henager College. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to C)(Scott, Robert) (Entered: 03/16/2007)
144 Defendant's RESPONSE to Plaintiffs' Suggested Revisions to the Court's Proposed Jury Instructions filed by Defendant Stevens-Henager College. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Scott, Robert) (Entered: 03/19/2007)
145 Proposed Exhibit List (Corrected) by Plaintiff Rebecca Leigh Dehart, Consol Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.. (Padegimas, Sandra) (Entered: 03/20/2007)
146 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Paul G. Cassell : Final Pretrial Conference held on 3/20/2007. Jury Instructions reviewed and finalized. Proposed verdict form reviewed, revisions made. Motion for sanctions DENIED. Objections to exhibits argued and resolved. Counsel will meet with the courtroom deputy by Friday to list their final stipulations to the exhibits. Voir Dire discussed. Each side will have 6 hours to present their case in chief. The Court will entertain additional time for the plaintiff as there are multiple plaintiffs. The Court will meet with counsel at 8:15 on Monday 03/26/2007 the first day of trial. Stipulated facts are due by Thursday 03/22/2007. Attorney for Plaintiff: Erika Birch, Sandra Padegimas, Michelle Deutsch, Attorney for Defendant Robert E. Mansfield, Robert H. Scott. Court Reporter: Ed Young, Dawn Brunner-Hahn. (ttl) (Entered: 03/20/2007)
147 NOTICE of DESIGNATION OF DEPOSITION TO BE SHOWN AT TRIAL by Stevens-Henager College (Scott, Robert) (Entered: 03/22/2007)
148 NOTICE of DESIGNATION OF PORTIONS OF DEPOSITION TO BE SHOWN AT TRIAL (TODD KNECHT) by Stevens-Henager College (Scott, Robert) (Entered: 03/22/2007)
149 NOTICE of Plaintiffs' Designation of Deposition of Cynthia Williams by Rebecca Leigh Dehart, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (Padegimas, Sandra) (Entered: 03/22/2007)
150 NOTICE OF FILING of Designation Deposition Testimony filed by Plaintiff Rebecca Leigh Dehart. (Birch, Erika) (Entered: 03/22/2007)
151 OBJECTIONS to 147 Notice (Other) Deposition Designations filed by Plaintiff Rebecca Leigh Dehart. (Birch, Erika) (Entered: 03/22/2007)
152 NOTICE of Designation of Portions of Cynthia Williams Deposition to be Introduced at Trial by Stevens-Henager College (Scott, Robert) (Entered: 03/22/2007)
153 OBJECTIONS to Plaintiffs' Designations of Cynthia Williams Deposition filed by Defendant Stevens-Henager College. (Scott, Robert) (Entered: 03/22/2007)
154 OBJECTIONS to Plaintiffs' Designations of Todd Knecht's Deposition filed by Defendant Stevens-Henager College. (Scott, Robert) (Entered: 03/22/2007)

16 of 22

7/10/2007 12:57 PM

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

https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?110545703906104-L_35...

03/22/2007 03/22/2007
03/22/2007
03/23/2007
03/23/2007
03/23/2007 03/23/2007 03/23/2007 03/23/2007 03/23/2007 03/23/2007 03/23/2007 03/23/2007
03/23/2007 03/25/2007
03/25/2007
03/25/2007

155 OBJECTIONS to Plaintiffs' Designations of Hamilton Deposition filed by Defendant Stevens-Henager College. (Scott, Robert) (Entered: 03/22/2007)
156 NOTICE of SUPPLEMENTAL DESIGNATION OF HAMILTON DEPOSITION by Stevens-Henager College re 147 Notice (Other) (Scott, Robert) (Entered: 03/22/2007)
157 Defendant's RESPONSE re 151 Objections, by Plaintiffs to Deposition Designations (Hamilton) filed by Defendant Stevens-Henager College. (Scott, Robert) (Entered: 03/22/2007)
158 NOTICE of Plaintiffs' Objections to Defendant's Designations of Deposition of Cindy Williams by Rebecca Leigh Dehart, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 152 Notice (Other) (Padegimas, Sandra) (Entered: 03/23/2007)
159 NOTICE of Correction to Plaintiffs' Proposed Exhibit List (as of 3-23-07) by Rebecca Leigh Dehart, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 145 Exhibit List(Proposed) (Padegimas, Sandra) (Entered: 03/23/2007)
160 ORDER Addressing Reasonableness-of-Opposition Defense. Signed by Judge Paul G. Cassell on 3/22/07. (kla) (Entered: 03/23/2007)
161 Court's Proposed Jury Instructions (3/14/07). (kla) (Entered: 03/23/2007)
162 Court's Proposed Jury Instructions (3/19/07). (kla) (Entered: 03/23/2007)
163 Court's Proposed Jury Verdict (3/19/07). (kla) (Entered: 03/23/2007)
164 Court's Proposed Jury Instructions (3/23/07). (kla) (Entered: 03/23/2007)
165 Court's Proposed Punitive Damages Verdict Form (3/23/07). (kla) (Entered: 03/23/2007)
166 Court's Proposed Verdict Form (3/23/07). (kla) (Entered: 03/23/2007)
167 Defendant's RESPONSE re 158 Notice (Other), Plaintiffs' Objections to Williams Deposition Designations filed by Defendant Stevens-Henager College. (Scott, Robert) (Entered: 03/23/2007)
168 OBJECTIONS to 148 Notice (Other) Knecht Deposition Designations filed by Plaintiff Rebecca Leigh Dehart. (Birch, Erika) (Entered: 03/23/2007)
169 REPLY BRIEF re 153 Objections to Designations of Cynthia Williams' Deposition filed by Plaintiff Rebecca Leigh Dehart, Consol Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Padegimas, Sandra) (Entered: 03/25/2007)
170 REPLY BRIEF re 155 Objections to Designations of Susan Hamilton's Deposition filed by Plaintiff Rebecca Leigh Dehart, Consol Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Padegimas, Sandra) (Entered: 03/25/2007)
171 REPLY BRIEF re 154 Objections to Designations of Todd Knecht's Deposition filed by Plaintiff Rebecca Leigh Dehart, Consol Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Padegimas, Sandra) (Entered: 03/25/2007)

17 of 22

7/10/2007 12:57 PM

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

https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?110545703906104-L_35...

03/26/2007 03/26/2007 03/26/2007
03/27/2007
03/28/2007

172 Proposed Witness List for Plaintiffs by Rebecca Leigh Dehart, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Padegimas, Sandra) (Entered: 03/26/2007)
173 Proposed Witness List by Stevens-Henager College. (Scott, Robert) (Entered: 03/26/2007)
174 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Paul G. Cassell : Voir Dire held on 03/26/2007. Court opens at 8:24 a.m. Prior to the beginning of trial, the Court met with counsel to review exhibits. Additional exhibits are admitted. Counsel are instructed to meet later on today to pre-admit further exhibits. Trial begins at 8:51 am. Voir dire and jury selection completed. A panel of 12 jurors and 1 alternate are selected and sworn. Opening statements made. Testimony heard. Evidence admitted. The deposition of Jana Miller is published to the jury. Court excuses the jurors at 2:00 p.m. to return at 7:45 am on 03/27/2007. Juror #7 is asked to remain for some additional questioning by the Court. The Court and counsel find that he able to remain on the jury. Objections to deposition testimony ruled on. Objection by defense counsel to Ms Nelsons testimony regarding medical conditions. Court recesses at 2:00 pm.Attorney for Plaintiff: Sandra Padegimas, Erika Birch, Michelle Deutsch, Carol Bauss, Attorney for Defendant Robert Mansfield, Robert Scott. Court Reporter: Laura Robinson. (ttl) (Entered: 03/27/2007)
175 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Paul G. Cassell : Jury Trial held on 3/27/2007. Outside the presence of the jury, defense objection to Ms Nelsons medical testimony argued. The Court ruled that the request was made during discovery for medical records regarding Ms Nelson and not produced, therefore all her testimony regarding medical conditions is stricken. Mr. Mansfield also alerts the Court to overhearing multiple comments, although undistinguishable, made by Juror #11 the previous day, which were of concern to the defense, which appeared derogatory to the defense. The Court will watch for further comments. Trial resumes at 8:02 am. Testimony resumes. Exhibits admitted. Counsel have stipulated to additional exhibits. The depositions of Stacy Nelson, Jennifer Morris and Rebecca DeHart are published to the jury. Outside the presence of the jury, the Court discusses a note from one of the jurors, as to Juror #11 making comments out loud. The Court makes findings, as reflected in the record, dismissing Juror #11 from service. Juror #11 is brought into Court, thanked for her service and dismissed. Court resumes. The Court excuses the jurors at 1:57 pm to return at 7:45 am on 03/28/2007. Attorney for Plaintiff: Robert Mansfield, Robert Scott, Attorney for Defendant Sandra Padegimas, Erika Birch, Michelle Deutsch. Court Reporter: Becky Janke. (ttl) (Entered: 03/28/2007)
176 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Paul G. Cassell : Jury Trial held on 3/28/2007. Trial resumes at 8:03 am. Testimony resumes. Exhibits admitted. Depositions of Kenneth Beckstrand and Vicky Dewsnup published to the jury. Outside the presence of the jury, discussion held about who should be able to call Ms. Hurtado first as a witness. The Court rules the defense will be able to call Ms Hurtado as their witness. Court resumes. The Court excuses the jurors at 2:03 p.m. to return at 7:45 am on 03/29/2007. Jury Instructions/Special Verdict form meeting held from 3:09 pm until 4:00 pm. Attorney for Plaintiff: Sandy Padegimas, Erika Birch, Michelle Deutsch, Attorney for Defendant Robert Mansfield, Robert Scott. Court Reporter: Laura Robinson. (ttl) (Entered:

18 of 22

7/10/2007 12:57 PM

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

https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?110545703906104-L_35...

03/29/2007 03/29/2007
03/29/2007 03/29/2007 03/29/2007 03/29/2007 03/29/2007 03/29/2007 03/29/2007
03/29/2007 04/03/2007 04/03/2007 04/04/2007 04/10/2007

03/29/2007)
177 Jury Instructions. (kla) (Entered: 03/30/2007)
178 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Paul G. Cassell : Jury Trial completed on 3/29/2007. Outside the presence of the jury, Mr. Mansfield represents to the Court that Mr. Barney will not be available to testify. Any further revisions counsel wish to suggest to the jury instructions and the verdict form should be made by mid morning. Trial resumes at 8:07 a.m. Testimony resumes. Exhibits admitted. The deposition of Wynn Hurtado is published to the jury. Both sides rest. The Court reads the jury instructions into the record. Closing arguments and rebuttal held. The jury begins to deliberate at 2:44 pm. Both sides stipulate to the admission of the exhibits as listed with the exception of the objection made by Mr. Mansfield as noted by the Court. Outside the presence of the jury, the defense makes a motion for a directed verdict as to all of plaintiffs claims. The Court overrules the objection. The jury reaches a verdict at 5:55 pm. and finds for the defendant on all claims. The Court thanks the jurors for their service and excuses them at 6:29 p.m.Attorney for Plaintiff: Sandra Padegimas, Erika Birch, Michelle Deutsch, Attorney for Defendant Robert Mansfield, Robert Scott. Court Reporter: Kelly Hicken. (ttl) (Entered: 03/31/2007)
179 JURY VERDICT for Defendant on all claims. (ttl) (Entered: 03/31/2007)
180 **SEALED DOCUMENT** Jury Seating Arrangement. (ttl) (Entered: 03/31/2007)
181 Exhibit List, filed by Defendant Stevens-Henager College. (ttl) (Entered: 03/31/2007)
182 Exhibit List, filed by Plaintiff Rebecca Leigh Dehart, Consol Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (ttl) (Entered: 03/31/2007)
183 Witness List, filed by Defendant Stevens-Henager College. (ttl) (Entered: 03/31/2007)
184 Witness List, filed by Plaintiff Rebecca Leigh Dehart, Consol Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (ttl) (Entered: 03/31/2007)
185 RECEIPT filed as to Plaintiff Rebecca Leigh Dehart, Consol Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re: Receipt for return of all Plaintiff's trial exhibits. Withdrawal of 2 White Binders, 1 CD signed for by Sandra Padegimas. (ttl) (Entered: 03/31/2007)
186 **SEALED DOCUMENT** Jury Notes. (ttl) (Entered: 03/31/2007)
187 Jury Instructions. (kla) (Entered: 04/03/2007)
188 RECEIPT as to Defendant Stevens-Henager College re: Receipt for return of Defendant's Trial Exhibits. Withdrawal of 1 Binder, 1 Large Display Board. Signed for by Adam Petersen. (ttl) (Entered: 04/04/2007)
189 Jury Verdict Form. (kla) (Entered: 04/05/2007)
190 Defendant's MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Defendant Stevens-Henager College. (Mansfield, Robert) (Entered: 04/10/2007)

19 of 22

7/10/2007 12:57 PM

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

https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?110545703906104-L_35...

04/10/2007 04/10/2007 04/11/2007 04/12/2007
04/23/2007 04/23/2007 04/26/2007 04/26/2007 04/27/2007 05/01/2007 05/01/2007 05/07/2007 05/10/2007

191 Defendant's MEMORANDUM in Support re 190 Defendant's MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Defendant Stevens-Henager College. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 Exhibit E)(Mansfield, Robert) (Entered: 04/10/2007)
192 DECLARATION of Robert E. Mansfield re 190 Defendant's MOTION for Attorney Fees, 191 Memorandum in Support of Motion filed by Stevens-Henager College. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B)(Mansfield, Robert) (Entered: 04/10/2007)
193 CLERK'S JUDGMENT in favor of Stevens-Henager College against Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Rebecca Leigh Dehart signed by Louise S. York. Case Closed. (kla) (Entered: 04/11/2007)
194 ORDER finding as moot 74 Motion to Strike ; finding as moot 84 Motion for Extension of Time; finding as moot 93 Motion to Strike ; finding as moot 95 Motion for Leave to File; finding as moot 102 Motion in Limine; finding as moot 114 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages. Signed by Judge Paul G. Cassell on 4/12/07. (kla) (Entered: 04/12/2007)
195 Stipulated MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 190 Defendant's MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Plaintiff Rebecca Leigh Dehart, Consol Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Padegimas, Sandra) (Entered: 04/23/2007)
196 Joint MOTION to Strike 190 Defendant's MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Plaintiff Rebecca Leigh Dehart. (Birch, Erika) (Entered: 04/23/2007)
197 ORDER granting 195 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 190 Defendant's MOTION for Attorney Fees. Replies due by 5/11/2007. Signed by Judge Paul G. Cassell on 4/24/07. (kla) (Entered: 04/26/2007)
198 BILL OF COSTS AND CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE filed by Stevens-Henager College. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement)(Mansfield, Robert) (Entered: 04/26/2007)
199 DECLARATION of Robert E. Mansfield re 198 Bill of Costs filed by Stevens-Henager College. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 5 of 5# 2 Exhibit 4 of 5# 3 Exhibit 3 of 5# 4 Exhibit 2 of 5# 5 Exhibit 1 of 5)(Mansfield, Robert) (Entered: 04/27/2007)
200 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 196 Joint MOTION to Strike 190 Defendant's MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Defendant Stevens-Henager College. (Scott, Robert) (Entered: 05/01/2007)
201 NOTICE of ERRATA by Stevens-Henager College re 200 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion (Scott, Robert) (Entered: 05/01/2007)
202 OBJECTIONS to 198 Bill of Costs filed by Plaintiff Rebecca Leigh Dehart. (Birch, Erika) (Entered: 05/07/2007)
203 REPLY to Response to Motion re 190 Defendant's MOTION for Attorney Fees and Reply to Objections to Bill of Costs filed by Defendant Stevens-Henager College. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit B# 3 Exhibit C# 4 Exhibit D# 5 # 6 Exhibit F# 7 Exhibit G# 8 Exhibit H)(Scott, Robert) (Entered: 05/10/2007)

20 of 22

7/10/2007 12:57 PM

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

https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?110545703906104-L_35...

05/11/2007
05/22/2007 05/29/2007 06/04/2007
06/07/2007 06/08/2007 06/11/2007
06/11/2007 06/11/2007
06/12/2007 06/15/2007 06/18/2007 06/27/2007

204 RESPONSE to Motion re 190 Defendant's MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Plaintiff Rebecca Leigh Dehart, Consol Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 to 3)(Padegimas, Sandra) (Entered: 05/11/2007)
205 MOTION for Extension of Time Reply in Support of Motion for Attorneys' Fees filed by Defendant Stevens-Henager College. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Scott, Robert) (Entered: 05/22/2007)
206 REPLY to Response to Motion re 190 Defendant's MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Defendant Stevens-Henager College. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Reply Memo Exhibits)(Mansfield, Robert) (Entered: 05/29/2007)
207 ORDER denying 190 Motion for Attorney Fees; finding as moot 205 Motion for Extension of Time. The court declines to address the issue of costs at this time because it is an issue currently before the Clerk of the Court. Signed by Judge Paul G. Cassell on 6/4/07. (kla) (Entered: 06/05/2007)
208 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 193 Clerk's Judgment filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Appeals to the USCA for the 10th Circuit. No Filing Fee. (Padegimas, Sandra) (Entered: 06/07/2007)
209 NOTICE of Appeal by Stevens-Henager College (Scott, Robert) (Entered: 06/08/2007)
210 NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY re 209 Notice (Other). The document was filed using the wrong event. Please file the notice of appeal again using the correct event called Notice of Appeal(found in the Appeal Category). The court asks the filer of the original document to refile the pleading. The new pleading will receive a new document number on the docket. (jmr) (Entered: 06/11/2007)
211 Transmission of Preliminary Record to USCA re 208 Notice of Appeal ; packets to counsel. (jmr) (Entered: 06/11/2007)
212 NOTICE OF APPEAL from 207 filed by Stevens-Henager College. Appeals to the USCA for the 10th Circuit. Filing fee $ 455, receipt number 521702. (Scott, Robert) Modified on 6/12/2007 to add docket text relationship (jmr). (Entered: 06/11/2007)
213 Transmission of Preliminary Record to USCA re 212 Notice of Appeal ; packets to counsel. (jmr) (Entered: 06/12/2007)
214 Costs Taxed in amount of $ 6,730.35 for Stevens-Henager College against Rebecca Leigh Dehart, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission signed by Louise S. York 6/15/07. (kla) (Entered: 06/18/2007)
215 USCA Case Number Case Appealed to Tenth Circuit Case Number 07-4134 for 212 Notice of Appeal filed by Stevens-Henager College. (jmr) (Entered: 06/18/2007)
216 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Stevens-Henager College for proceedings held on Trial Proceedings 3/26/07, 3/28/07, Opening Statements 3/26/07, Instruction Cnf 3/14/07, 3/20/07 before Judge Paul G. Cassell, re 212 Notice of Appeal. Transcript due by 7/27/2007. (jmr) (Entered: 06/28/2007)

21 of 22

7/10/2007 12:57 PM

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

https://ecf.utd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?110545703906104-L_35...

06/27/2007 06/27/2007 06/29/2007

217 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Stevens-Henager College for proceedings held on Trial Proceedings 3/27/07, Instruction Cnf 3/14/07, 3/20/07 before Judge Paul G. Cassell, re 212 Notice of Appeal. Transcript due by 7/27/2007. (jmr) (Entered: 06/28/2007)
218 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by Stevens-Henager College for proceedings held on Trial Proceedings 3/29/07, Instruction Cnf 3/14/07, 3/20/07, Closing Arguments 3/29/07 and Directed Verdict 3/29/07 before Judge Paul G. Cassell, re 212 Notice of Appeal. Transcript due by 7/27/2007. (jmr) (Entered: 06/28/2007)
219 USCA Case Number Case Appealed to Tenth Circuit Case Number 07-4140 for 208 Notice of Appeal filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (jmr) (Entered: 06/29/2007)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

07/10/2007 11:59:49

PACER Login:

hs0328

Client Code:

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages: 14

Cost:

eeoc 1:05-cv-00118-PGC 1.12

22 of 22

7/10/2007 12:57 PM

 
 07-4134 Docket

https://ecf.ca10.uscourts.gov/cmecf/servlet/TransportRoom

Court Home

Case Search

Calendar

Opinions

Orders/Judgments

Billing History

XML

TXT

Logout

Help

General Docket Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals
Court of Appeals Docket #: 07-4134 Nature of Suit: 2710 Fair Labor Standards Act Dehart, et al v. Stevens-Henager Appeal From: United States District Court for the District of Utah
Case Type Information: 1) civil 2) USA as party 3) -
Originating Court Information: District: 1088-2 : 1:05-CV-118-PGC Court Reporter: Dawn Brunner-Hahn, -, Court Reporter Court Reporter: Kelly Hicken, Court Reporter: Becky Janke, Court Reporter: Laura Robinson, Sentencing Judge: Paul G. Cassell, -, U.S. District Judge Date Filed: 09/22/2005 Date NOA Filed: 06/07/2007
Prior Cases: None

Current Cases: Lead
Companion 07-4134

Member 07-4140

Panel Assignment: Not available

Start

End

06/26/2007

Docketed: 06/14/2007 Termed: 02/04/2008

REBECCA LEIGH DEHART Plaintiff - Appellee

Jonathan M. Benson Email: jonny@utahjobjustice.com [NTC Retained] Strindberg Scholnick & Chamness Firm: 801/359-4169 426 N. 300 W. Salt Lake City, UT 84103-0000
Erika Birch Email: erika@utahjobjustice.com [NTC Retained]

1 of 5

4/10/2008 4:01 PM

07-4134 Docket

https://ecf.ca10.uscourts.gov/cmecf/servlet/TransportRoom

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
STEVENS-HENAGER COLLEGE Defendant - Appellant

Strindberg Scholnick & Chamness Firm: 801/359-4169 426 N. 300 W. Salt Lake City, UT 84103-0000
James M. Tucker Email: James.Tucker@EEOC.gov [COR NTC Government] Firm: 202-663-4870 1801 L. St., NW Washington, DC 20507-0000
Thomas R. Barton Email: tbarton@vancott.com [NTC Retained] Vancott, Bagley, Cornwall & McCarthy Firm: 801-237-0234 50 South Main Street Suite 1600 Salt Lake City, UT 84144-0450
Robert E. Mansfield Email: rmansfield@vancott.com [COR NTC Retained] Van Cott, Bagley, Cornwall & McCarthy Firm: 801/532-3333 36 South State Street Suite 1900 Salt Lake City, UT 84111-1478
Robert H. Scott Email: rscott@vancott.com [NTC Retained] Van Cott, Bagley, Cornwall & McCarthy Firm: 801/532-3333 36 South State Street Suite 1900 Salt Lake City, UT 84111-1478

REBECCA LEIGH DEHART; EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiffs - Appellees, v. STEVENS-HENAGER COLLEGE,

2 of 5

4/10/2008 4:01 PM

07-4134 Docket

https://ecf.ca10.uscourts.gov/cmecf/servlet/TransportRoom

Defendant - Appellant.

06/14/2007
06/29/2007 06/29/2007 06/29/2007 06/29/2007 07/11/2007 09/17/2007 09/20/2007 10/30/2007 11/01/2007 11/05/2007 11/06/2007 11/06/2007
11/19/2007

[2038215] Civil case docketed. Preliminary record filed. DATE RECEIVED: 6/14/07. Transcript order form, docketing statement and entry of appearance due 6/29/07 for Stevens-Heager. Notice of appearance due 6/29/07 for for EEOC, for Rebecca Leigh Dehart.
[2042588] Notice of appearance filed by Robert E. Mansfield and Robert H. Scott as attorneys for Stevens-Heager in 07-4134. CERT. OF INTERESTED PARTIES (y/n): y.
[2042591] Docketing statement filed by Stevens-Heager in 07-4134. Original and 4 copies. c/s: y.
[2042593] Acknowledgement of transcript order filed by Stevens-Henager in 07-4134. Transcript order due 7/13/07 for Rebecca Janke (instruction conference 3/14/07, 3/20/07, trial proceedings 3/14/07).
[2042599] Notice of appearance filed by James M. Tucker as attorney for EEOC in 07-4134. CERT. OF INTERESTED PARTIES (y/n): y.
[2045020] Transcript order form filed by Rebecca Janke in 07-4134. Transcript due 9/5/07 for Rebecca Janke.
[9513142] Filed notice record is complete. Served on 09/13/2007. Manner of Service: US Mail. Appellant's brief and appendix due on 10/23/2007 for Stevens-Henager College.
[9514426] Case referred for mediation conferencing.
[9524464] On the court's own motion and pursuant to 10th Cir. R. 33.1, order filed by (CLK) extending time to file appellant's brief and appendix until 11/01/2007. Appellant's brief and appendix due on 11/01/2007 for Stevens-Henager College.
[9525589] Appellant's motion filed by Stevens-Henager College to supplement the record on appeal. Original and 0 copies. Served on 11/01/2007. Manner of Service: US Mail.
[9525811] Amended motion to supplement the record on appeal filed by appellant Stevens-Henager College.Original and 0 copies. Served on 11/05/2007. Manner of Service: US Mail.
[9526090] Order filed by Clerk of the Court (cvc) granting Appellant's amended motion to supplement the record on appeal. Served on 11/06/2007.
[9526096] Appellant brief filed by Stevens-Henager College. Original and 7 copies.. Served on 11/01/2007. Oral argument requested? y. Appendix filed in 4 volumes. Volume 4 of appendix is SEALED. Original and 1 copy. Appendix pages: 819. Appellee's brief due 12/10/2007 for Rebecca Leigh Dehart, and for Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
[9528704] On the court's own motion and pursuant to 10th Cir. R. 33.1, order filed by Clerk of Court extending time to file appellees' brief until 12/20/2007. Appellees' brief now due 12/20/2007 for Rebecca Leigh Dehart and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

3 of 5

4/10/2008 4:01 PM

07-4134 Docket

https://ecf.ca10.uscourts.gov/cmecf/servlet/TransportRoom

12/21/2007
12/21/2007 12/26/2007
12/26/2007 12/27/2007
01/07/2008 01/16/2008 01/28/2008 02/04/2008
02/14/2008 02/19/2008 03/12/2008 03/12/2008 03/28/2008 03/28/2008 03/28/2008

[9536793] Appellee brief filed by EEOC. Original and 7 copies. Served on: 12/20/2007. Manner of service: U.S. Mail. Oral argument requested? n. Appendix filed. Original and 1 copies. Appendix pages: 113.
[9536898] Errata sheet filed by EEOC. Served on 12/21/2007. Manner of Service: US Mail.
[9537117] Appellee's supplemental appendix filed by Appellee Rebecca Leigh Dehart. Original and 1 copy. Appendix pages: 42. Served on 12/21/2007. Manner of Service: US Mail.
[9537287] Appellee's brief filed by Rebecca Leigh Dehart. Original and 7 copies. Served on: 12/21/2007. Manner of service: U.S. Mail. Oral argument requested? n.
[9537288] On the court's own motion and pursuant to 10th Cir. R. 33.1, order filed by Clerk of the Court extending time to file a reply brief until 01/15/2008 Appellant's reply brief now due 01/15/2008 by Stevens-Henager College.
[9539047] Case mediation conferencing terminated.
[9541608] Appellant's reply brief filed by Stevens-Henager College. Original and 7 copies. Served on 01/15/2008. Manner of Service: US Mail.
[9544060] Case submitted to panel on the briefs pursuant to Rule 34.
[9545884] Affirmed;Terminated on the merits after submissions without oral hearing;Written, signed, unpublished;. Judges Kelly; Anderson, authoring; Murphy. Mandate to issue.
[9548707] Bill of costs filed by EEOC. Original and 1 copies. Served on 02/14/2008. Manner of Service: US Mail.
[9549716] Bill of costs filed by Rebecca Leigh Dehart. Served on 02/19/2008. Any response due 3/5/08 for Stevens-Henager College. Manner of Service: US mail.
[9554557] Statement of costs filed in favor of Appellee U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
[9554558] Statement of costs filed in favor of Appellee Rebecca Leigh DeHart.
[9558642] Statement of costs issued for Appellee Rebecca Leigh Dehart, against Appellant Stevens-Henager College in the amount of $ 110.10.
[9558643] Statement of costs issued for Appellee EEOC, against Appellant Stevens-Henager College in the amount of $ 542.08.
[9558644] Mandate issued.

4 of 5

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

04/10/2008 15:01:38

PACER Login: wu0079

Client Code: eeoc

Description: Docket Report (full) Search Criteria: 07-4134

4/10/2008 4:01 PM

07-4134 Docket

Billable Pages: 2

https://ecf.ca10.uscourts.gov/cmecf/servlet/TransportRoom

Cost:

0.16

5 of 5

4/10/2008 4:01 PM

 
 07-4140 Docket

https://ecf.ca10.uscourts.gov/cmecf/servlet/TransportRoom

Court Home

Case Search

Calendar

Opinions

Orders/Judgments

Billing History

XML

TXT

Logout

Help

General Docket Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals
Court of Appeals Docket #: 07-4140 Nature of Suit: 2710 Fair Labor Standards Act Dehart, et al v. Stevens-Henager Appeal From: United States District Court for the District of Utah
Case Type Information: 1) civil 2) USA as party 3) -
Originating Court Information: District: 1088-2 : 1:05-CV-118-PGC Court Reporter: Dawn Brunner-Hahn, -, Court Reporter Court Reporter: Kelly Hicken, Court Reporter: Becky Janke, Court Reporter: Laura Robinson, Sentencing Judge: Paul G. Cassell, -, U.S. District Judge Date Filed: 09/22/2005 Date NOA Filed: 06/07/2007
Prior Cases: None

Current Cases: Lead
Companion 07-4134

Member 07-4140

Panel Assignment: Not available

Start

End

06/26/2007

Docketed: 06/26/2007 Termed: 07/10/2007

REBECCA LEIGH DEHART Plaintiff - -

Jonathan M. Benson Email: jonny@utahjobjustice.com [NTC Retained] Strindberg Scholnick & Chamness Firm: 801/359-4169 426 N. 300 W. Salt Lake City, UT 84103-0000
Erika Birch Email: erika@utahjobjustice.com [NTC Retained]

1 of 3

4/10/2008 4:04 PM

07-4140 Docket

https://ecf.ca10.uscourts.gov/cmecf/servlet/TransportRoom

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Plaintiff - Appellant
v. STEVENS-HENAGER COLLEGE
Defendant - Appellee

Strindberg Scholnick & Chamness Firm: 801/359-4169 426 N. 300 W. Salt Lake City, UT 84103-0000
Michelle T. Deutsch [NTC Government] EEOC Phoenix District Office Firm: 602/640-5000 3300 N. Central Avenue #690 Norwest Tower Phoenix, AZ 85012-1848
Sandra Padegimas [NTC Government] EEOC Phoenix District Office Firm: 602/640-5000 3300 N. Central Avenue #690 Norwest Tower Phoenix, AZ 85012-1848
Robert H. Scott Email: rscott@vancott.com [NTC Retained] Van Cott, Bagley, Cornwall & McCarthy Firm: 801/532-3333 36 South State Street Suite 1900 Salt Lake City, UT 84111-1478

REBECCA LEIGH DEHART, Plaintiff,
and EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff - Appellant, v. STEVENS-HENAGER COLLEGE,
Defendant - Appellee.

2 of 3

4/10/2008 4:04 PM

07-4140 Docket

https://ecf.ca10.uscourts.gov/cmecf/servlet/TransportRoom

06/26/2007
07/06/2007 07/09/2007 07/10/2007
07/10/2007 07/10/2007

[2041439] Civil case docketed. Preliminary record filed. DATE RECEIVED: 6/26/07 Transcript order form and docketing statement due 7/10/07 for EEOC. Notice of appearance due 7/10/07 for Stevens-Henager and EEOC.
[2043979] E-Motion (Motion for Voluntary Dismissal of the Appeal) received from EEOC in 07-4140. Submission type: Email.
[2044399] Motion filed by Appellant EEOC in 07-4140 to dismiss case [07-4140]. Original and 3 copies. c/s: y.
[2044734] Order filed by Clerk (cvc)- granting Appellant's motion to dismiss case no. 07-4140 [2044399-1] the related appeal no. 07-4134 remains pending with this court. Parties served by mail.
[2044735] Procedurally Terminated Without Judicial Action; F.R.A.P. 42. [07-4140] Parties served by mail on 7/10/07.
[2044736] Mandate issued.

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

04/10/2008 15:04:43

PACER Login: wu0079

Client Code: eeoc

Description: Docket Report (full) Search Criteria: 07-4140

Billable Pages: 1

Cost:

0.08

3 of 3

4/10/2008 4:04 PM