THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO DIVISION

70~0 SE? 28 P 1:03
"

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY )

COMMISSION,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

":L ::" -~’-~
EPO0 CA0 97
CIVIL ACTION NO.

)

WESTLODGE HOSPITALITY, INC. d/b/a )

EL PASO TRAVELODGE-CITY CENTER, )

WW LODGING LIMITED, L.L.C. d/b/a )

EL PASO TRAVELODGE-CITY CENTER, ).

)

Defendants.

)

)

COMPLAINT Jury Trial Demanded

NATURE OF THE ACTION

This is an action under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and Title I

of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of

disability, and to provide appropriate relief to Carlos Sanchez, who was adversely affected by

such practices. As alleged with greater particularity in paragraphs 8 through 12 below, Plaintiff,

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alleges, that Defendant, Westlodge Hospitality,

Inc., and Defendant WW Lodging Limited, L.L.C. discharged Carlos Sanchez, a qualified

individual with a disability, from his employment in their hotel, because of his disability.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451,1331, 1337,

1343 and 1345..This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 107(a) of the

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a), which incorporates

by reference Sedtions 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"),

42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3), and pursuant to Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §1981a.
2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, El Paso Division.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission"), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title I of the ADA, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 107(a) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a), which incorporates by reference Sections 706(0(1 ) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3). 4. At all relevant times, Defendant, Westlodge Hospitality, Inc., a corporation incorporated in Delaware, and Defendant WW Lodging Limited, L.L.C., also incorporated in Delaware, (the "Employers") have continuously been doing business in the State of Texas and the City of E1 Paso, and have continuously had at least fifteen (15) employees. 5. At all relevant times, Defendant Employers have continuously been employers engaged in an industry affecting commerce under Section 101 (5) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C.§ 12111(5), and Section 101(7) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12111(7), which incorporates by reference Sections 701(g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(g) and (h). 6. At all relevant times, Defendant Employers have been covered entities under Section 101(2) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 121 l 1(2).

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 7. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Carlos Sanchez filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title I of the ADA by Defendant Employers. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 8. On or about October 18, 1998, Defendant Employers engaged in unlawful employment practices at their Travelodge Hotel located at 409 E. Missouri in E1 Paso, Texas, in violation of Section 102(a) of Title I of the ADA, 42 U.S.C § 12112(a). 9. Carlos Sanchez has spina bifida, and has had numerous spinal surgeries. I 0. As a result, Carlos Sanchez uses a wheelchair for mobility. 11. Carlos Sanchez is an individual with a disability, as defined by the ADA. 12. On or about October 18, 1998, Defendant Employers discharged Carlos Sanchez from his position as a night auditor at their hotel, because he is an individual with a disability, as defined by the ADA. 13. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraphs 8 through 12 above has been to deprive Carlos Sanchez of equal employment opportunities, and otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of his disability.. 14. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 8 through 12 above were intentional. 15. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 8 through 12 above were done with malice, or with reckless indifference to the federally protected right~ of Carlos Sanchez.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Employers, their officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, from terminating qualified employees with disabilities, because of.their disabilities, and any other employment practice which discriminates on the basis of disability. B. Order Defendant Employers to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for qualified individuals with disabilities, and which eradicate the effects of their past and present unlawful employment practices, including but not limited to posting notices regarding their compliance with the ADA. C. Order Defendant Employers to make whole Carlos Sanchez by providing appropriate backpay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of their unlawful employment practices, including but not limited to reinstatement, or front pay, in lieu thereof. D. Order Defendant Employers to make whole Carlos Sanchez by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraphs 8 through 12 above, including, but not limited to, relocation expenses, job search expenses, and medical expenses, in amounts to be determined at trial. E. Order Defendant Employers to make whole Carlos Sanchez by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraphs 8 through 12 above, including, but not limited to, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, and humiliation, in amounts to be determined
4

at trial.

F. Order Defendant Employers to pay Carlos Sanchez punitive damages for their

malicious and reckless conduct, as described in paragraphs 8 through 12 above, in amounts to be

determined at trial.

Go

Grant such thrther relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public

interest.

H. Award the Commission its costs of this action.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

The Commission requests a jury trial on qaullestions of fact raised by its complaint.

Dated:

Respectfully submitted,

C. GREGORY STEWART General Counsel

GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel

ROBERT B. HARWIN t , Regional Attomey D.C. State Bar No. 0760873

~tJDITH G. TA~I~,OR " ’ Supervisory Trial Attorney Texas State Bar No. 19708300

LI~TICIA DOMIN~EZ~ Trial Attorney
Texas State Bar No. 00795741

Texas State Bar No. 00795324
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 4171 N. Mesa, Bldg.C, Suite 100 El Paso, Texas 79902
Tel: (915) 832-4035 Fax: (915) 832-4026
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

 
 Case 3:00-cv-00297-DB Document 29 Filed 06/15/2001 Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

§

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

§

§

v.

§

§

WESTLODGE HOSPITALITY, INC., §

d/b/a EL PASO TRAVELODGE-CITY §

CENTER, WW LODGING LIMITED, §

L.L.C. d/b/a EL PASO

§

TRAVELODGE-CITY CENTER

§

EP-OO-CA-297-DB

ORDER On this day, the Court considered Plaintiff the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's "Motion to Compel Defendant WW Lodging Limited, L.L.c. to Respond to Discovery Requests" ("Motion to Compel"), filed in the above-captioned cause on May 21, 2001. Defendant filed a Response on June 7,2001, and Plaintiff, in turn, filed a Reply on June 13,2001. In an Original Complaint filed September 28, 2000, Plaintiff alleges that in October 1998, Defendant discharged Carlos Sanchez ("Sanchez") from his employment as a night auditor at the El Paso Travelodge-City Center on account of a disability a spinal condition that requires him to use a wheelchair for mobility, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990,42 U.S.c. § 12101, et seq. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant acted intentionally and with malice and/or reckless disregard to Sanchez's federally protected rights when it terminated Sanchez's employment. Defendant, for its part, denies Plaintiff s allegations

Case 3:00-cv-00297-DB Document 29 Filed 06/15/2001 Page 2 of 6
and contends that Sanchez was discharged because he lacked the basic computer skills required for the position of night auditor.
In the instant motion, Plaintiff claims that Defendant has failed to comply with Requests for Production Numbers 2,6,9, and 11, as well as Plaintiffs Interrogatories 2, 6, and 8. The Parties have since reached an agreement with regard to all the issues raised by Plaintiff, save two.
The first concerns Request for Production Number 6, in which Plaintiff requested: Your financial records, including but not limited to the federal income tax returns, along with all schedules, attachments, and/or amendments thereto that you filed with the United States Internal Revenue Service for the calendar or tax years of 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, and 200 1, and all prospectus, profit and loss statements, and/or other financial reports issued by or on your behalf from January 1, 1997 through the present. In an April la, 200 1, "Objections and Responses to Plaintiff s First Request for Production," Defendant objected to the request on the grounds that it is unreasonably burdensome, that it involves confidential and proprietary information, and that it seeks to discover information that is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiff disagrees, arguing that since Plaintiff alleges that Defendant acted with malice or reckless indifference when it terminated Sanchez's employment, information concerning Defendant's net worth is relevant to punitive damages. Thus, in a letter dated May 11, 200 1, Plaintiff, agreed to limit its request to documents sufficient to permit Plaintiff to determine Defendant's net worth. Still, by the time Plaintiff filed the instant Motion, no documents were forthcoming.
2

Case 3:00-cv-00297-DB Document 29 Filed 06/15/2001 Page 3 of 6
Defendant argues that Plaintiff s claim of punitive damages is highly speculative and without any support in the documents thus far discovered. Assuming, however, that Plaintiff is entitled to this discovery, Defendant contends that Plaintiff's request requires Defendant to disclose confidential financial information that goes beyond the limited question of net worth. Moreover, Defendant argues, the relevant inquiry in determining punitive damages is as to Defendant's net worth at the date qftrial, and not Defendant's entire financial history. The Court agrees. While the Court finds that the most recent profit and loss statement is relevant to Plaintiff s damages inquiry, earlier profit and loss statements are not. Hence, the Court is of the opinion that Plaintiff s Motion to Compel as to Request for Production Number 6 should be granted in part and denied in part. Defendant must supply Plaintiff with Defendant's most recent profit and loss statement or any financial statement likely to show Defendant's current net worth. Any other document sought in Plaintiffs Request for Production Number 6 need not be produced.
The second matter remaining before the Court is Plaintiff's Interrogatory Number 6, which requests that Defendant state the number of employees it had on its payroll for calendar years 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000. In an April la, 200 1, "Objections and Answers to Plaintiff s First Set ofInterrogatories," Defendant objected on the ground that the interrogatory is not limited to a time period relevant to the dispute, and therefore, is not likely to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Nevertheless, Defendant responded that it had thirty-eight employees in 1999, and thirty-two employees in 2000.
Plaintiff argues that Defendant's response is incomplete because the number of people Defendant employed during the year when the discrimination allegedly occurred, 1998,
3

Case 3:00-cv-00297-DB Document 29 Filed 06/15/2001 Page 4 of 6
and the preceding year controls the amount of compensatory and punitive damages for which Plaintiff may be eligible. As such, on April 20, 2001, Plaintiff sent a letter to Defendant requesting the number of persons employed by Defendant in 1997 and 1998. Though Defendant agreed to provide the information requested, Plaintiff had received no such discovery by the filing of the instant Motion.
Defendant has since provided the number of persons employed in 1997 and 1998, but only those employed at the EI Paso Travelodge-City Center. Plaintiff argues that EI Paso Travelodge-City Center is not the Defendant in this case. Hence, to fully comply with Plaintiffs interrogatory, Plaintiff argues, Defendant must disclose the number of persons employed by WW Lodging Limited, 1.1.C. in all of its hotels, not just El Paso Travelodge-City Center.
Defendant, for its part, contends that Plaintiff is entitled only to information concerning the number of employees of EI Paso Travelodge-City Center; that the number of persons employed at the other two entities named in the suit, WW Lodging Limited, 1.L.C. and Westlodge Hospitality, Inc., is not relevant to this case. In any event, Defendant argues, Plaintiffs Complaint designates WW Lodging Limited, 1.L.C. and Westlodge Hospitality, Inc. as entities that are "d/b/a El Paso Travelodge-City Center." If Plaintiff intended to sue each party as a separate entity, Defendant argues, it should have so noted that in its Complaint. The Court agrees. Plaintiff s allegations involve acts of discriminatory behavior by the management at El Paso Travelodge-City Center. There is no allegation regarding employment practices at other hotels owned or managed by Westlodge Hospitality, Inc. or WW. Lodging Limited, 1.1.c. Thus, that information is not relevant. Hence, after due consideration, the Court is of the opinion that Plaintiff's motion to Compel as to Interrogatory Number 6 should be denied insofar as it
4

Case 3:00-cv-00297-DB Document 29 Filed 06/15/2001 Page 5 of 6
requests disclosure of the number of employees at entities other than EI Paso Travelodge-City Center.
Finally, the Court is inclined to impose sanctions in this case. In that respect, the Court notes that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure relating to discovery incorporate a sanctions mechanism:
If the motion [to compel] is granted or if the disclosure or requested discovery is provided after the motion was filed, the court shall .. . require the party ... whose conduct necessitated the motion ... to pay to the moving party the reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney's fees .... FED R. CIV. P. 37(a)(4)(A). In this case, Plaintiff and Defendant eventually came to an agreement with regard to most of their discovery disputes, but this did not transpire until Plaintiffs Motion to Compel had been filed. Moreover, while the Court did not grant the whole of Plaintiff s motion, it did grant some part of it. Hence, the Motion to Compel was not without merit. Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendant must pay to Plaintiff the expenses, including attorney's fees, which Plaintiff incurred in bringing the instant Motion to Compel, except as to the requests which the Court has expressly denied. Hence, after due consideration, the Court is of the opinion that the following orders should enter: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's "Motion to Compel Defendant WW Lodging Limited, L.L.c. to Respond to Discovery Requests" is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as outlined above. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that on or before June 25, 2001, Plaintiff submit to the Court an affidavit setting forth the expenses, including attorney's fees, Plaintiff incurred in bringing the instant Motion to Compel.
5

Case 3:00-cv-00297-DB Document 29 Filed 06/15/2001 Page 6 of 6 IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that on or before July 6, 2001, Defendant SHOW
CAUSE why the Court should not award the expenses Plaintiff sets forth, if any, by affidavit as provided herein.
SIGNED this 15th day of June, 2001.
6

 
 Case 3:00-cv-00297-DB Document 80 Filed 10/02/2001 Page 1 of 8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
EL PASO DIVISION

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY

§

EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION,

§

Plaintiff

§

§

v.

§

§

WESTLODGE HOSPITALITY, INC.

§

d/b/a EL PASO TRAVELODGE-CITY

§

CENTER, WW LODGING LIMITED,

§

L.L.C. d/b/a EL PASO TRAVELODGE- §

CITY CENTER,

§

Defendants

§

EP-OO-CA-297-DB

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING SUMMARY JUDGMENT

I I!
'.: ( i

On this day, the Court considered the Motion for Summary Judgment, filed in the
above-captioned cause on August 15,200 t, by Defendants Westlodge Hospitality, Inc. d/b/a EI
Paso Travelodge-City Center, WW Lodging Limited, L.L.C. d/b/a El Paso Travelodge-City Center. Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a Response to Defendants' Motion on August 31,2001. On September 7, 2001, Defendants filed a Reply to Plaintiffs Response.
After due consideration, the Court is of the opinion that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment should be denied, as set forth below.
BACKGROUND Plaintiff filed this action based on a Charge of Discrimination filed with Plaintiff on November 20, 1998, by Carlos Sanchez ("Sanchez"), alleging employment discrimination by Defendants because of his disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213. Sanchez suffers from spina bifid a, resulting in permanent paralysis of his lower extremities and confinement to a wheelchair.

Case 3:00-cv-00297-DB Document 80 Filed 10/02/2001 Page 2 of 8
In October 1998, Sanchez applied for employment with Defendants as a hotel night auditor/desk clerk, responsible for maintenance of financial records and for general operation of the hotel from 11 :00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. Mary Perkins ("Perkins"), Manager of the hotel, acting on behalf of Defendants, interviewed Sanchez and hired him for the position. Sanchez began work on the night of October 17, 1998, supervised by Mario Hidalgo ("Hidalgo"), Assistant Manager. The following day, Hidalgo reported to Perkins that Sanchez was not qualified for the position and that it would take too long to train Sanchez to work as the night auditor. That night, when Sanchez reported for work, Hidalgo communicated to him that he was no longer employed by the hotel. The next day, Sanchez and Perkins discussed the termination. Perkins informed Sanchez that she was concerned about his qualifications for the job.
Sanchez alleges that Perkins initially informed him that her decision to terminate him was based on his lack of qualifications for the job and her concern that his disability may hamper him in responding to potential events during his work shift. Specifically, Sanchez claims that Perkins told him that he lacked the necessary computer skills and work experience in the hotel industry. Sanchez also claims that Perkins told him that, because he is in a wheelchair, she was concerned about his ability to handle emergencies such as fires at the hotel or fights among guests. Plaintiffs investigator, Arturo Carrion ("Carrion"), employed by the EI Paso Area Office of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, asserts that Perkins shared these same concerns with him during the course of his investigation. Carrion adds that Perkins also stated that the hotel was in a high crime area and expressed fear for Sanchez because of his disability.
Perkins avers that her basis for terminating Sanchez was that Sanchez did not possess the necessary prerequisite skills and experience to properly perform the job for which he was hired, and that it would take too long to train him to perform his duties. Perkins asserts that
2

Case 3:00-cv-00297-DB Document 80 Filed 10/02/2001 Page 3 of 8
she arrived at this conclusion based on Hidalgo's report to her concerning Sanchez's performance during his first night on the job. Specifically, Hidalgo reported that Sanchez lacked familiarity with the computer keyboard and lacked knowledge of basic hotel operations. Hidalgo also told Perkins that training Sanchez would take up to a month. Perkins denies considering Sanchez's disability in her decision or making any statements to that effect to Sanchez or Carrion.
Sanchez claims that Perkins's concern about Sanchez's job qualifications were merely a pretext for an underlying discriminatory intent for the termination decision. That is, Sanchez claims that the real reason he was fired was because he is confined to a wheelchair. First, Sanchez insists that experience in the hotel industry was not a stated prerequisite for employment as night auditor/desk clerk. He adds that, even if such experience was a prerequisite, he had significant education in the field in lieu of experience and that Perkins was aware of his qualifications when she hired him for the position. Next, Sanchez denies any lack of familiarity with computer keyboards and maintains that he had significant experience operating personal computers since the mid-1980's, and that he had previously taken two computer classes. Finally, Sanchez refutes Defendants' claim that it would take a month to train him. In support, he argues that Hidalgo made no attempt to train him on the first night, thereby rendering Hidalgo's assessment unsupported by any appropriate observation.
Based on the above, Plaintiff commenced this lawsuit on September 28,2000. The instant motion followed.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT STANDARD Courts should grant summary judgment only when "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment
3

Case 3:00-cv-00297-DB Document 80 Filed 10/02/2001 Page 4 of 8
as a matter oflaw." FED. R. CIv. P. 56(c). Summary judgment is not proper "if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-moving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 248,106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). The parties that move for summary judgment - the Defendants in this case - bear the initial burden of identifying those portions of the pleadings and discovery on file, together with any affidavit, which they believe demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2553, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). The party opposing a summary judgment motion that is supported by evidence must present affirmative evidence in order to defeat a properly supported motion for summary judgment. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248-49. When making a summary judgment determination, courts review the evidence and draw inferences therefrom in a light most favorable to the non-movant. McInnis v. Alamo Cmty. Coli. Dist., 207 FJd 276, 279 (5th Cir. 2000). Substantive law identifies which facts are material. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. In this case, the substantive law includes the ADA and related case law.
DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE ADA The ADA provides that no employer! "shall discriminate against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability of such individual in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment." 42 V.S.c.A. § 12112(a) (West 1995). Where circumstantial evidence is offered to show the alleged discrimination, as in this case, courts apply the McDonnell Douglas, Title VII burden-shifting analysis. McInnis, 207
I The ADA constrains only "covered entit[ies]," which is defined in 42 V.S.C. § 12111(2) as including an "employer." Defendants do not dispute that they are "covered entit[ies]" within the meaning of the ADA.
4

Case 3:00-cv-00297-DB Document 80 Filed 10/02/2001 Page 5 of 8
FJd at 279 (citing McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 1824,36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973)). According to the analysis, "a plaintiff must first make a prima facie showing of discrimination by establishing that: (1) He is disabled or is regarded as disabled; (2) he is qualified for the job; (3) he was subjected to an adverse employment action on account of his disability; and (4) he was replaced by or treated less favorably than non~disabled employees." Id. at 279-80. Once the plaintiff makes this showing, the burden shifts to the defendant to show a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the adverse employment action. Id. at 280. Once the defendant does so, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to show that the reason claimed by the defendant as legitimate was merely a pretext for unlawful discrimination. Id. To find the defendant's reason for the adverse employment action unlawfully discriminatory, the "circumstantial evidence must be such as to allow a rational factfinder to make a reasonable inference that [disability] was a determinative reason for the employment decision." ld. at 282 (quoting Rhodes v. Gulberson Oil Tools, 75 FJd 989,994 (5th Cir. 1996) (en bane)).
DISCUSSION Defendants contend that Plaintiff cannot succeed on its disability discrimination claim for two reasons. First, Defendants assert that Plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case of discrimination, arguing that Plaintiff cannot show that Sanchez was qualified for the job or that he was fired because of his disability. In the alternative, Defendants argue that, even if Plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of discrimination, Plaintiff cannot meet its burden to show that Defendants' legitimate reasons for their actions were, in reality, pretexts for a discriminatory intent. A. Prima Facie Case ofDiscrimination Defendants essentially argue that Plaintiff has failed to make a prima facie case of employment discrimination because it has failed to meet the second and third elements outlined in
5

Case 3:00-cv-00297-DB Document 80 Filed 10/02/2001 Page 6 of 8
the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting analysis? Their first argument, relating to the second element ofthe analysis which concerns Sanchez's job qualifications, is that Sanchez was "patently unqualified for the position of night auditor." In support of this position, Defendants point to Sanchez's lack of work experience in the hotel industry and to Hidalgo's report that Sanchez was "unfamiliar with the computer keyboard."
Plaintiff contends that Sanchez was qualified for the job, first pointing out that, although Sanchez had not worked in the hotel industry, he had extensive training in the field. Plaintiff argues that Perkins knew the extent of Sanchez's work experience and education when she hired him, and that Perkins, therefore, initially determined that he was qualified for the position. Plaintiff also points out that Sanchez spent many hours operating a personal computer over the past five years, along with having taken two computer courses. Plaintiff argues, therefore, that Defendants' assertion that Sanchez was unfamiliar with a computer keyboard is unfounded.
Defendants' next argument relates to the third element of the McDonnell Douglas analysis, concerning whether Sanchez was subjected to an adverse employment action because of his disability. Defendants assert that they had legitimate reasons for firing Sanchez that were not related to his disability. Specifically, Defendants point to Hidalgo's and Perkins's joint assessment that Sanchez lacked the necessary skills for the job and that it would take too much time to train him. Plaintiff refutes the validity of this assessment, arguing that Sanchez received no training on
2 The Court notes that, in their Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendants list only the first three elements ofthe McDonnell Douglas analysis and argue only that Sanchez failed to meet elements (2) and (3). Accordingly, the Court finds Defendants to have no objections to Plaintiffs case based on elements (1) and (4).
6

Case 3:00-cv-00297-DB Document 80 Filed 10/02/2001 Page 7 of 8
the one night that he was employed and that, because of his education and existing skills, he could have learned the job within a reasonable time.
After reviewing the evidence presented by both Parties concerning Sanchez's job qualifications, the Court finds that there are significant issues of material fact as to whether Plaintiff has made a prima facie case of discrimination.
B. Legitimate, Non-discriminatory Reasons or Pretext? Alternatively, relying on their position that Perkins's concerns about Sanchez's job
qualifications constituted legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for dismissing him, Defendants argue that there is no evidence that those reasons were pretexts for an underlying, discriminatory intent. Sanchez, however, claims that Perkins told him that her decision to fire him was based, not only on his job qualifications, but also on her concern that he would not be able to handle certain emergencies because of his disability. Plaintiffs investigator, Carrion, reported that Perkins made similar statements to him. Perkins, on the other hand, denies this allegation and denies having made such statements to Carrion.
Because intent is usually inferred from the surrounding circumstances, it is nearly always a fact issue. The evidence presents an issue for a jury if it "(1) creates a fact issue as to whether each of the employer's stated reasons was what actually motivated the employer and (2) creates a reasonable inference that [disability] was a determinative factor in the action of which plaintiff complains." McInnis, 207 FJd at 282 (quoting Rhodes v. Gulberson Oil Tools, 75 FJd 989, 994 (5th Cir. 1996)(en banc)) In this case, the Court has already found there to be fact issues concerning Sanchez's job qualifications and the validity of the reasons asserted by Defendants as legitimate bases for terminating Sanchez. Clearly, there is a disagreement as to what reasons Perkins actually stated to Sanchez and to Carrion. Under conditions such as these, a jury should be
7

Case 3:00-cv-00297-DB Document 80 Filed 10/02/2001 Page 8 of 8
given the opportunity to assess the credibility of those whose state of mind is at issue. Croley v. Matson Navigation Co., 434 F.2d 73, 77 (5th Cir. 1970); lOB CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT, ARTHUR R. MILLER, & MARY KAY KANE, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 2730 (3d ed. 1998). Based on the factual uncertainty as to Sanchez's job qualifications and the disagreement over Perkins's statements, the Court finds that Defendants' intent and, therefore, whether the legitimate reasons stated for firing Sanchez were pretext for discriminatory reasons, remains a genuine issue of material fact. The Court finds that the evidence is sufficient to allow a jury to infer that Sanchez's disability was a determinative consideration in Perkins's decision to fire him. McInnis, 207 FJd at 282.
Having considered the evidence and argument presented by Defendants and Plaintiff, the Court finds that there are numerous disputed issues of material fact. The Court is, therefore, of the opinion that summary judgment is not proper and should be denied.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants Westlodge Hospitality, Inc. d/b/a EI Paso Travelodge-City Center, WW Lodging Limited, L.L.c. d/b/a El Paso Travelodge-City Center is DENIED.
SIGNED this 2nd day of October, 2001.
8

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

https://ecf.txwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?113630594091738-L_3...

U.S. District Court [LIVE] Western District of Texas (El Paso) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:00-cv-00297-DB

EEOC v. Westlodge Hosp., et al Assigned to: Judge David Briones Demand: $0 Case in other court: 01-51291
USCA, :01- -51291 Cause: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

Date Filed: 09/28/2000 Date Terminated: 10/19/2001 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Leticia Dominguez Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 300 E. Main Suite 500 El Paso, TX 79901 (915) 534-6676 Fax: 915/534-6701 Email: Tisha.Dominguez@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Westlodge Hospitality, Inc. doing business as El Paso Travelodge-City Center
Defendant WW Lodging Limited, L.L.C. doing business as El Paso Travelodge-City Center

represented by Matthew L. Hoeg Andrews Kurth LLP 600 Travis, Suite 4200 Houston, TX 77002-2778 (713) 220-4012 Fax: 713/238-7328 Email: matthewhoeg@andrewskurth.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Matthew L. Hoeg (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed

#

Docket Text

1 of 9

6/11/2007 10:39 AM

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

https://ecf.txwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?113630594091738-L_3...

09/28/2000 09/28/2000 11/20/2000
11/29/2000 12/20/2000 01/16/2001 01/25/2001 02/09/2001 02/13/2001 02/23/2001
03/02/2001 04/06/2001
04/09/2001 04/09/2001 05/21/2001 05/21/2001 05/22/2001 05/22/2001 05/23/2001 06/07/2001

Case assigned to Judge David Briones (rc) (Entered: 09/29/2000)
1 Complaint filed. (rc) (Entered: 09/29/2000)
2 Waiver of Service by Westlodge Hosp., WW Lodging Limited ; Notice and Request Mailed on 11/13/00 ; Answer due on 1/12/01 for Westlodge Hosp., for WW Lodging Limited (fe) (Entered: 11/20/2000)
3 Answer by Westlodge Hosp., WW Lodging Limited (fe) (Entered: 12/04/2000)
4 Standing Order Regarding Amendments to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Court Rules (fe) (Entered: 12/20/2000)
5 Notice of filing joint report of meeting & Joint discovery/case management by EEOC, Westlodge Hosp., WW Lodging Limited (fe) (Entered: 01/16/2001)
6 Notice of filing by disclosure of interested parites EEOC (fe) (Entered: 01/25/2001)
7 Notice of filing initial disclosures by WW Lodging Limited (fe) (Entered: 02/09/2001)
8 Order striking initial disclosures as premature (fe) Modified on 02/13/2001 (Entered: 02/13/2001)
10 Alternate Dispute Resolution Report filed by EEOC, Westlodge Hosp., WW Lodging Limited, Party(s) do not agree to Alternate Dispute Resolution (fe) (Entered: 02/23/2001)
11 Proposed / Witness / exhibit List by EEOC (fe) (Entered: 03/02/2001)
12 Scheduling order setting Joining of parties, amending of pleadings on 2/23/01 Deadline for filing of all motions 8/8/01 Discovery cutoff 7/8/01 Status conference by 9:00 10/9/01 ; Alternate Dispute Resolution Report due by 2/23/01 ; Jury Selection set for 9:30 10/9/01 ; Jury trial set for 9:30 10/9/01 (fe) (Entered: 04/06/2001)
13 Order set status conference for 9:00 10/9/01 (fe) (Entered: 04/09/2001)
14 Order set Jury trial for 9:30 10/9/01 , and set Jury selection for 9:30 10/9/01 (fe) (Entered: 04/09/2001)
15 Motion by EEOC for leave to file motion to compel in excess of 10 pages (fe) (Entered: 05/21/2001)
16 Combined Witness, Exhibit and Expert List by Westlodge Hosp., WW Lodging Limited (fe) (Entered: 05/21/2001)
17 Order granting motion for leave to file motion to compel in excess of 10 pages [15-1] (fe) (Entered: 05/22/2001)
18 Motion by EEOC to compel (fe) (Entered: 05/22/2001)
19 Motion by EEOC to strike (fe) (Entered: 05/23/2001)
20 Response by Westlodge Hosp., WW Lodging Limited motion to strike [19-1] (fe) (Entered: 06/07/2001)

2 of 9

6/11/2007 10:39 AM

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

https://ecf.txwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?113630594091738-L_3...

06/07/2001 06/07/2001 06/08/2001 06/08/2001 06/11/2001 06/11/2001 06/13/2001 06/14/2001 06/15/2001
06/15/2001
06/21/2001 06/22/2001 06/25/2001 06/25/2001 06/25/2001 07/05/2001 07/05/2001
07/09/2001

21 Motion by Westlodge Hosp., WW Lodging Limited for leave to file response to motion to compel out of time (fe) (Entered: 06/07/2001)
22 Motion by Westlodge Hosp., WW Lodging Limited for protective order (fe) (Entered: 06/07/2001)
23 Order granting motion for leave to file response to motion to compel out of time [21-1] (fe) (Entered: 06/08/2001)
24 Response by Westlodge Hosp., WW Lodging Limited motion to compel [18-1] (fe) (Entered: 06/08/2001)
25 Motion by EEOC to extend discovery (fe) (Entered: 06/11/2001)
26 Response by EEOC in opposition to motion for protective order [22-1] (fe) (Entered: 06/12/2001)
27 Reply by EEOC to response to motion for protective order [22-1] (fe) (Entered: 06/14/2001)
28 Order denying motion for protective order [22-1] (fe) (Entered: 06/14/2001)
29 Order granting in part, denying in part motion to compel [18-1] Futher Ordered that on or before 6/25/01 plfts submit to the Court an affidavit setting forth the expenses, including attorney's fees, plft incurred in brignt the instant motion to compel and deft to show cause on or before 7/6/01 why the Court should not award the expense plfts sets forth, if any, by a ffidavit as provided herein. ; (fe) (Entered: 06/15/2001)
30 Order denying motion to strike [19-1] and plft submit an affidavit to the Court setting for the expense, including attorney's fees, which plft incurred in bringing the instant Motion to strike (fe) (Entered: 06/18/2001)
31 Memorandum by Westlodge Hosp. in support of motion to extend discovery [25-1] (fe) (Entered: 06/21/2001)
32 Order granting motion to extend discovery [25-1] re discovery deadline set 8/8/01 (fe) (Entered: 06/22/2001)
33 Motion by EEOC to amend order [29-2] (fe) (Entered: 06/25/2001)
34 Response by EEOC to order [30-1] (fe) (Entered: 06/25/2001)
35 Response by EEOC to order [29-2] (fe) (Entered: 06/25/2001)
36 Reply by EEOC to Defendant's response to Plaintiff's motion to alter or amend order of 6/15/01 [29-2] [33-1] (fe) (Entered: 07/09/2001)
37 Motion by EEOC for leave to file amended designation of potential witnesses, designation of testifying experts, and list of proposed exhibits to add one potential witness (fe) (Entered: 07/09/2001)
38 Order granting motion for leave to file amended designation of potential witnesses, designation of testifying experts, and list of proposed exhibits [37-1] (fe) (Entered: 07/10/2001)

3 of 9

6/11/2007 10:39 AM

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

https://ecf.txwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?113630594091738-L_3...

07/09/2001 07/09/2001 07/12/2001 07/13/2001 07/13/2001
07/13/2001
07/23/2001 08/02/2001 08/06/2001
08/14/2001 08/15/2001 08/22/2001 08/31/2001 08/31/2001 09/04/2001 09/07/2001 09/07/2001 09/12/2001

39 Amended Designation of potential witnesses, designation of testifying expert witnesses, and list of proposed exhibits filed by EEOC (fe) (Entered: 07/10/2001)
40 Response by Westlodge Hosp., WW Lodging Limited to Plaintiff's motion to amend the Court's 6/15/01 order [29-2] [33-1] (fe) (Entered: 07/11/2001)
41 Motion by Westlodge Hosp., WW Lodging Limited for leave to file late responses (fe) (Entered: 07/12/2001)
42 Order granting motion for leave to file late responses [41-1] (fe) (Entered: 07/13/2001)
43 Response by Westlodge Hosp., WW Lodging Limited to Plaintiff's submission of affidavits on Court's order ruling on Plaintiff's motion to strike [34-1] (fe) (Entered: 07/13/2001)
44 Response by Westlodge Hosp., WW Lodging Limited to Plaintiff's submission of affidavits on Court's order ruling on Plaintiff's motion to compel [35-1] (fe) (Entered: 07/13/2001)
45 Order granting motion to amend order [29-2] [33-1] (fe) (Entered: 07/26/2001)
46 Defendant's unnopposed motion by Westlodge Hosp., WW Lodging Limited to extend Dispositive motion deadline (fe) (Entered: 08/02/2001)
47 Order granting motion to extend Dispositive motion deadline [46-1]. The dispositive motion deadline is reset for 8/15/01. Plaintiff response is due 8/31/01 (fe) (Entered: 08/07/2001)
48 Motion by EEOC with memorandum in support exclude the testimony of defendants' expert witness. (fe) (Entered: 08/15/2001)
49 Motion by Westlodge Hosp., WW Lodging Limited for summary judgment (fe) (Entered: 08/16/2001)
50 Response by Westlodge Hosp., WW Lodging Limited to motion exclude the testimony of defendants' expert witness. [48-1] (fe) (Entered: 08/22/2001)
51 Response by EEOC to Defendant's motion for summary judgment [49-1] (fe) (Entered: 08/31/2001)
52 Appendix of material facts cited in support of Plaintiff's response to Defendant's motion for summary judgment [51-1] by EEOC (fe) (Entered: 08/31/2001)
53 Reply by EEOC to Defendant's response to Plaintiff's motion exclude the testimony of defendants' expert witness. [48-1] (fe) (Entered: 09/05/2001)
54 Reply by Westlodge Hosp., WW Lodging Limited to Plaintiff's response to motion for summary judgment [49-1] (fe) (Entered: 09/07/2001)
55 Motion by Westlodge Hosp., WW Lodging Limited to strike affidavit of Arturo Carrion (fe) (Entered: 09/07/2001)
56 Order denying Plaintiff's motion to exclude the testimony of defendants' expert witness. [48-1] (fe) (Entered: 09/14/2001)

4 of 9

6/11/2007 10:39 AM

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

https://ecf.txwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?113630594091738-L_3...

09/18/2001
09/25/2001 09/28/2001
09/28/2001 09/28/2001 09/28/2001 09/28/2001 09/28/2001
09/28/2001 09/28/2001
09/28/2001 09/28/2001 09/28/2001 09/28/2001
10/01/2001
10/01/2001
10/01/2001
10/01/2001
10/01/2001
10/01/2001
10/01/2001
10/01/2001

57 Response by EEOC to Defendant's motion to strike affidavit [55-1] (fe) (Entered: 09/19/2001)
58 Order denying motion to strike affidavit [55-1] (fe) (Entered: 09/26/2001)
59 Notice of filing Plaintiff's proposed voir dire questions by EEOC (fe) Modified on 10/01/2001 (Entered: 10/01/2001)
60 Statement of issues filed by EEOC (fe) (Entered: 10/01/2001)
61 Proposed Stipulation of facts filed by EEOC (fe) (Entered: 10/01/2001)
62 Exhibit Identification list by EEOC (fe) (Entered: 10/01/2001)
63 Designation of trial Witness List by EEOC (fe) (Entered: 10/01/2001)
64 Notice of filing Proposed Jury Instructions by EEOC (fe) Modified on 10/01/2001 (Entered: 10/01/2001)
65 Notice of filing Proposed Verdict form by EEOC (fe) (Entered: 10/01/2001)
66 Notice of filing Witnesses whose testimony may be presented by means of deposition by EEOC (fe) (Entered: 10/01/2001)
67 Motion by EEOC in limine (fe) (Entered: 10/01/2001)
68 Brief by EEOC in support of motion in limine [67-1] (fe) (Entered: 10/01/2001)
69 Notice of filing Estimate of trial length by EEOC (fe) (Entered: 10/01/2001)
78 Reply by Westlodge Hosp., WW Lodging Limited to Plaintiff's response to motion to strike affidavit [55-1] (fe) (Entered: 10/02/2001)
70 Notice of filing estimation of trial length by Westlodge Hosp., WW Lodging Limited (fe) (Entered: 10/01/2001)
71 Statement of defenses filed by Westlodge Hosp., WW Lodging Limited (fe) (Entered: 10/01/2001)
72 Exhibit list by Westlodge Hosp., WW Lodging Limited (fe) (Entered: 10/01/2001)
73 Proposed Stipulation of facts filed by Westlodge Hosp., WW Lodging Limited (fe) (Entered: 10/01/2001)
74 Designation of fact and expert witnesses filed by Westlodge Hosp., WW Lodging Limited (fe) (Entered: 10/01/2001)
75 Motion by Westlodge Hosp., WW Lodging Limited in limine (fe) (Entered: 10/01/2001)
76 Notice of filing requested voir dire by Westlodge Hosp., WW Lodging Limited (fe) (Entered: 10/01/2001)
77 Notice of filing requested charge to the jury by Westlodge Hosp., WW Lodging Limited (fe) (Entered: 10/01/2001)

5 of 9

6/11/2007 10:39 AM

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

https://ecf.txwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?113630594091738-L_3...

10/01/2001
10/02/2001 10/03/2001 10/05/2001 10/05/2001 10/05/2001 10/05/2001 10/05/2001 10/05/2001 10/05/2001 10/05/2001 10/09/2001 10/09/2001 10/09/2001 10/09/2001 10/09/2001 10/09/2001 10/09/2001 10/09/2001 10/09/2001 10/09/2001

79 Order sua sponte by the Court that Defendants Westlodge Hospitality, Inc., and WW Lodging Limited pay Plaintiff EEOC $3117.50 on or before 10/19/01 for expenses incurred and tender proof of compliance to the Court (fe) (Entered: 10/02/2001)
80 Memorandum and Order denying motion for summary judgment [49-1] (fe) (Entered: 10/03/2001)
81 Notice of filing Intention to present deposition testimony by Westlodge Hosp., WW Lodging Limited (fe) (Entered: 10/04/2001)
82 Memorandum by Westlodge Hosp., WW Lodging Limited in response to motion in limine [75-1] (fe) (Entered: 10/05/2001)
83 Objections by Westlodge Hosp., WW Lodging Limited to exhibits list [62-1] (fe) (Entered: 10/05/2001)
84 Objections by EEOC to Defendant's proposed exhibits list [72-1] (fe) (Entered: 10/09/2001)
85 Notice of filing offer of testimony by deposition by EEOC (fe) (Entered: 10/09/2001)
86 Written objections by EEOC to Defendants' requested Charge to the Jury [77-1] (fe) (Entered: 10/09/2001)
87 Response by EEOC and objections to Defendants' motion in limine [75-1] (fe) (Entered: 10/09/2001)
88 Brief by EEOC in support of the admissibility of it's Letter of Determination (fe) (Entered: 10/09/2001)
89 Supplemental Motion by EEOC in limine (fe) (Entered: 10/09/2001)
90 Response by Westlodge Hosp., WW Lodging Limited to Plaintiff's supplemental motion in limine [89-1] (fe) (Entered: 10/09/2001)
91 Motion by Westlodge Hosp., WW Lodging Limited for leave to file amended answer to complaint (fe) (Entered: 10/10/2001)
92 Notice of filing requested Charge to the Jury by Westlodge Hosp., WW Lodging Limited (fe) (Entered: 10/10/2001)
93 Notice of filing proposed order of trial witnesses by EEOC (fe) (Entered: 10/12/2001)
94 Order granting motion in limine [89-1] (fe) (Entered: 10/12/2001)
95 Order granting motion in limine [75-1] (fe) (Entered: 10/12/2001)
Status conference held (fe) (Entered: 10/12/2001)
Voir dire begins (fe) (Entered: 10/12/2001)
96 Peremptory challenges by EEOC (fe) (Entered: 10/12/2001)
97 Peremptory challenges by Westlodge Hosp., WW Lodging Limited (fe) (Entered: 10/12/2001)

6 of 9

6/11/2007 10:39 AM

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

https://ecf.txwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?113630594091738-L_3...

10/09/2001 10/09/2001 10/09/2001 10/09/2001 10/10/2001 10/10/2001 10/10/2001 10/11/2001 10/11/2001
10/11/2001
10/11/2001 10/11/2001 10/11/2001 10/11/2001 10/11/2001 10/11/2001 10/11/2001 10/11/2001 10/11/2001 10/19/2001 10/19/2001 10/31/2001

Jury impaneled (fe) (Entered: 10/12/2001)
98 Jury seating arrangement filed (fe) (Entered: 10/12/2001)
Jury trial begun and continued to 10/10/01 at 9:30 (fe) (Entered: 10/12/2001)
Jury selection held (mm1) (Entered: 11/05/2001)
Jury trial held. Opening statements heard. Plaintiff began presenting evidence. Trial recessed at 5:00 pm. Trial to resume 10/11/01 (fe) (Entered: 10/12/2001)
99 Response by EEOC to Defendant's motion for leave to file amended answer to complaint [91-1] (fe) (Entered: 10/12/2001)
100 Memorandum by EEOC in opposition to Defendant's motion for leave to file amended answer to complaint [91-1] (fe) (Entered: 10/12/2001)
101 Notice of filing Trial Brief on Same-Actor Inference by EEOC (fe) (Entered: 10/12/2001)
Jury trial held. Plaintiff continues presenting evidence. Plaintiff rests. Defendant presented evidence. Both sides rest and close. Oral motion for judgment as a matter of law Pursuant to Rule 50 FRCP by Defendant. Closing arguments heard by both parties. Jury began deliberations (fe) (Entered: 10/12/2001)
Motion in open court by Westlodge Hosp., WW Lodging Limited ORAL for judgment as a matter of law Pursuant to Rule 50 Fed.R.Civil Proc. (fe) (Entered: 10/12/2001)
Oral order denying Oral Motion for judgment as a matter of law Pursuant to Rule 50 Fed.R.Civil Proc. (fe) (Entered: 10/12/2001)
102 Court's Instructions to the Jury (fe) (Entered: 10/12/2001)
103 Jury note #1 filed (fe) (Entered: 10/12/2001)
104 Jury verdict for Westlodge Hosp., WW Lodging Limited (fe) (Entered: 10/12/2001)
105 Exhibit list by EEOC (fe) (Entered: 10/12/2001)
106 Exhibit list by Westlodge Hosp., WW Lodging Limited (fe) (Entered: 10/12/2001)
107 Exhibits by Westlodge Hosp., WW Lodging Limited (fe) (Entered: 10/12/2001)
108 Witness List by EEOC, Westlodge Hosp., WW Lodging Limited (fe) (Entered: 10/12/2001)
Jury trial concluded (fe) (Entered: 11/05/2001)
109 Judgment for Westlodge Hosp., WW Lodging Limited against EEOC (Pages: 1) (fe) (Entered: 10/19/2001)
Case closed (fe) (Entered: 10/19/2001)
110 Bill of costs filed by Westlodge Hosp., WW Lodging Limited (fe) (Entered: 11/07/2001)

7 of 9

6/11/2007 10:39 AM

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

https://ecf.txwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?113630594091738-L_3...

10/31/2001 11/06/2001 11/26/2001 12/07/2001 12/17/2001 12/17/2001 12/18/2001 12/18/2001 12/18/2001 01/08/2002 01/17/2002 01/30/2002 02/21/2002 02/25/2002 04/03/2002 04/05/2002

111 Motion by Westlodge Hosp., WW Lodging Limited to enter Bill of Costs (fe) (Entered: 11/07/2001)
112 Objections by EEOC to Defendants' Bill of Costs [110-1] (fe) (Entered: 11/07/2001)
113 Order Defendants to amend request to enter Bill of Costs on or before 12/10/01 (fe) (Entered: 11/26/2001)
114 Amended Motion by Westlodge Hosp., WW Lodging Limited to enter amended Bill of Costs (fe) (Entered: 12/18/2001)
115 Order denying motion to enter Bill of Costs [111-1] (fe) Modified on 12/18/2001 (Entered: 12/17/2001)
116 Response in opposition by EEOC to Defendant's motion to enter amended Bill of Costs [114-1] (fe) (Entered: 12/18/2001)
117 Order vacating Order Denying Defendants' Bill of Costs filed 12/17/01 (fe) (Entered: 12/18/2001)
118 Notice of appeal by EEOC (fe) (Entered: 12/18/2001)
Notice of appeal and certified copy of docket to USCA: appeal [118-1] (fe) (Entered: 12/18/2001)
Return of appeal information sheet received. appeal [118-1] USCA NUMBER: 01-51291 (fe) (Entered: 01/08/2002)
119 Certified copy of judgment of USCA dismissing appeal [118-1] (fe) (Entered: 01/18/2002)
120 Order granting in part, denying in part motion to enter amended Bill of Costs [114-1] (fe) (Entered: 01/30/2002)
121 Motion by EEOC to extend time for payment of bill of costs (mt) (Entered: 02/21/2002)
122 Order granting motion to extend time for payment of bill of costs within 60 days of the signing and entering of this order [121-1] (mt) (Entered: 02/25/2002)
123 Motion by EEOC to extend time for payment of bill of costs (mt) (Entered: 04/03/2002)
124 Order granting motion to extend time for payment of bill of costs within 90 days of the signing and entering of this order [123-1] (mt) (Entered: 04/05/2002)

8 of 9

PACER Login:

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt
06/11/2007 10:38:52

hs0328

Client Code: eeoc

6/11/2007 10:39 AM

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

https://ecf.txwd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?113630594091738-L_3...

Description:

Docket Report

Billable Pages: 5

Search Criteria:
Cost:

3:00-cv-00297-DB 0.40

9 of 9

6/11/2007 10:39 AM

 
 USCA5 Docket Sheet for 01-51291

http://pacer.ca5.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/dktrpt.pl?CASENUM=01-51291&...

General Docket
US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Court of Appeals Docket #: 01-51291 Nsuit: 1442 Civil Rights: Jobs EEOC v. Westlodge, et al Appeal from: Western District of Texas, El Paso

Filed: 12/27/01

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Lower court information:

District: 0542-3 : EP-00-CV-297-DB Trial Judge: David Briones, US District Judge Court Reporter: Maria del Socorro Briggs, Court Reporter Date Filed: 9/28/00 Date order/judgment: 10/19/01 Date NOA filed: 12/18/01 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Fee status: United States Appeal

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Prior cases:
None Current cases:
None

Docket as of January 15, 2002 2:43 pm

Page 1

01-51291 EEOC v. Westlodge, et al

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Plaintiff - Appellant

Jennifer Susan Goldstein FAX 202-663-7090 202-663-4733 [COR LD NTC gvt] Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 1801 L Street NW Washington, DC 20507

Leticia Dominguez FAX 915-832-4026 915-832-4035 Suite C-100 [NTC gvt] Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 4171 N Mesa El Paso, TX 79901

v.

WESTLODGE HOSPITALITY INC dba El Paso Travelodge-City Center
Defendant - Appellee

Matthew L Hoeg FAX 713-225-7047 713-225-7096 Suite 1900 [NTC ret] Andrews & Kurth, Mayor, Day, Caldwell & Keeton 700 Louisiana Street Houston, TX 77002

WW LODGING LIMITED LLC dba

Matthew L Hoeg (See above)

1 of 2

6/11/2007 10:53 AM

USCA5 Docket Sheet for 01-51291

El Paso Travelodge-City Center Defendant - Appellee

[NTC ret]

Docket as of January 15, 2002 2:43 pm

http://pacer.ca5.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/dktrpt.pl?CASENUM=01-51291&... Page 2

01-51291 EEOC v. Westlodge, et al

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

WESTLODGE HOSPITALITY INC, doing business as El Paso Travelodge-City Center; WW LODGING LIMITED LLC, doing business as El Paso Travelodge-City Center

Defendants - Appellees

Docket as of January 15, 2002 2:43 pm

Page 3

01-51291 EEOC v. Westlodge, et al

12/27/01

Civil rights case docketed. NOA filed by Appellant EEOC. [01-51291] (vds)

1/7/02

Unopposed motion filed by Appellant EEOC to dismiss appeal pursuant to Rule 42 [3473033-1] Sufficient [Y/N]: y . [01-51291] (rff)

1/7/02

Appearance form filed by Jennifer Susan Goldstein for Appellant EEOC. [01-51291] (mcs)

1/10/02

CLERK Order filed granting appellant's unopposed motion to dismiss appeal per FRAP 42 [3473033-1]. Copies to all counsel. [01-51291] (mcs)

Docket as of January 15, 2002 2:43 pm

Page 4

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

06/11/2007 10:53:45

PACER Login: hs0328

Client Code:

Description:

dkt report

Case Number:

eeoc 01-51291

Billable

4

Pages:

Cost:

0.32

Note: The 'as of' date shown is the date of the last public or private docket entry. The docket does, however, show all entries as of today's date.

2 of 2

6/11/2007 10:53 AM