Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_97-cv-01734/USCOURTS-azd-2_97-cv-01734-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jose G. Puente, Claimant Frances

Ortiz, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

State of Arizona, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 97-1734-PHX-RGS

ORDER

This matter was instituted by the filing of a complaint on August 15, 1977, against the

Arizona Department of Transportation ("ADOT") and others. On March 15, 1999 Class

Certification was granted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. § 23(b). The class included all Hispanic

applicants for an ADOT position and all Hispanic employees of ADOT.

A final consent decree disposing of the class complaint was issued in September 2000.

The decree provided that certain named individuals could present claims for damages for

alleged ADOT acts of discrimination, retaliation or discriminatory employment policies for

the period from January 1, 1994, to December 19, 2000.

The claims of Plaintiff Frances Ortiz came before United States Magistrate Judge

Virginia A. Mathis for a bench trial during September 2003. Plaintiff's claims for recovery

were presented as follows:

Case 2:97-cv-01734-RGS Document 356 Filed 04/12/07 Page 1 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 2 -

Claims of Discrimination by Her Supervisor

Sam Lee During Her Time in the Mail Room

1. Subjecting Ms. Ortiz to inappropriate scrutiny and surveillance.

2. Assigning Ms. Ortiz tasks which required heavy lifting which had traditionally

been assigned to male employees.

3. Making threatening statements to Ms. Ortiz not made to Anglos (such as

threatening to fire her).

4. Making derogatory racial remarks to Ms. Ortiz.

5. Removing Ms. Ortiz' desk from her office.

6. Refusing to place Ms. Ortiz on light duty status while she recovered from an injury.

7. Although not set forth in the Pretrial Statement and, therefore, not properly before

the Court, Plaintiff at trial testified she was sexually harassed by Sam Lee.

Claim of Discrimination by Her Supervisor Sharon Chavez

1. Ms. Chavez failed to upgrade her position when requested. (This claim was

disposed of on Defendants' motion pursuant to Rule 52(c), Fed. R. Civ. P., at the close

of Plaintiff's case).

Claims of Retaliation

1. Around February 1998, Plaintiff was threatened with being transferred back into

the mail room to work under Sam Lee.

2. On May 8, 1998, after she testified in this case, Plaintiff found all her desk drawers

open and it appeared as though they had been searched and her cassette/CD player

was missing.

3. Sharon Chavez was angry with Plaintiff when Plaintiff reported that she had to

appear in court again on May 13, 1998, and Ms. Chavez required her to come to work

before she went to court.

4. Plaintiff was not allowed to list Wendy Miller as a "peer" for her 360 appraisal. 

Case 2:97-cv-01734-RGS Document 356 Filed 04/12/07 Page 2 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 3 -

5. In June 1998, Ms. Ortiz was chastised by her supervisor, Sharon Chavez, when it

was reported that she was involved in a incident with Christina Mendez. 

6. During May 1998, the microfilm room was remodeled and reduced in size. During

the remodeling, Plaintiff was forced to work in dust and debris, she developed a

respiratory problem and was hospitalized for one week. When she complained to

Chavez, she was told to find another place to work.

7. When Ms. Ortiz was interviewed by Eddie Edison and Thomas Moore in early

August 1998 with respect to issues raised in the lawsuit against ADOT, they did not

take her complaints seriously and instead insisted she was wrong in her accusations

of discrimination and retaliation.

On October 16, 2003, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in

favor of Defendants. Plaintiff filed Objections to the Report and Recommendation on

November 5, 2003. Defendants filed a Response to the Objections on November 19, 2003.

Supplemental authority and responses thereto were filed on August 31, 2005, and September

14, 2005. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a Citation of Supplemental Authority on June 23, 2006.

Oral argument with respect to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation

was held, and the matter was submitted to the District Court for ruling.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

In the Federal Magistrate's Act, Congress provided that, when reviewing a magistrate

judge's report and recommendation, district court judges “shall make a de novo determination

of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which

objection is made" and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see Baxter v.

Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991). De novo determination applies to all

objections made to the report and recommendation, including objections to credibility

findings. See Taylor v. Farrier, 910 F.2d 518, 521 (8th Cir. 1990). The court must make its

Case 2:97-cv-01734-RGS Document 356 Filed 04/12/07 Page 3 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 4 -

de novo determination based on a review of the record, and, if an evidentiary hearing was

held, a review of the transcript of that proceeding. See id. The district court in its discretion

"may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with

instructions." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).

DISCUSSION

The Court has conducted a review of the record before it, including a certified

transcript of the evidentiary hearing, the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation,

each of Plaintiff's Objections, and Defendants' Responses thereto. The Court has also

considered the positions presented by the parties at oral argument on October 31, 2005, as

well as the applicable law, including Plaintiff's citation of supplemental authorities. Further,

the Court previously has heard the testimony of Plaintiffs Manuel Hernandez, Frances Ortiz,

Irene Simonetti, and Rose Vega during the hearings on Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary

Injunction. The Court's resolution of Plaintiff's claims is based upon acceptance of the

parties' stipulated facts and all of the Magistrate's Findings of Fact except as hereinafter noted

by the Court. 

CONSIDERATION OF PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO THE REPORT AND 

 RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff's objection concerning her claims for recovery is sustained to the extend that

the Report and Recommendation is deemed modified to include the following in a listing of

her claims for recovery:

Plaintiff's Mail Room Supervisor made her aware that he was unhappy when told by

his superiors that he must hire Plaintiff.

Plaintiff's Mail Room Supervisor refused to allow Plaintiff opportunities to apply for

a promotion until required to do so by his supervisor.

Plaintiff's Mail Room Supervisor removed time from her time card.

Plaintiff claims that she was racially harassed by Jerry Millhouse.

Case 2:97-cv-01734-RGS Document 356 Filed 04/12/07 Page 4 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 5 -

Because of the incident with Christina Mendez, Ms. Chavez advised Plaintiff that she

would not be permitted to go to the front part of the building adjacent to her office because

Christina Mendez might be present.

Following the Mendez incident, Plaintiff was required to eat lunch in the Microfilm

Room; however Ms. Chavez would not allow anyone else to eat lunch in the work area.

With respect to the Findings of Fact in the Report the same are deemed supplemented

to include the following:

Plaintiff's medical records include history related by Plaintiff as follows: "She

complains of situational anxiety and depression. This is mainly regarding her work. She's

a plaintiff in a lawsuit with the State of Arizona and the case has been going on for about five

years now. It's actually almost over. She's under a lot of stress from her supervisor as well."

(Ex. 136 F0Z0094)

"Patient says that work counselor recommended that she transfer to another dept."

(Ex. 136 F0Z0128)

With respect to the Finding of Fact set forth in paragraph S of Section III of the

Report, Plaintiff's objection to the use of the word "extreme" is sustained, and the sentence

shall be deemed amended to provide as follows: "Plaintiff's supervisors at ADOT were

prudent and careful in their conduct to prevent any potential for retaliation." 

With respect to Plaintiff's remaining Objections, the Court finds Plaintiff's arguments

unpersuasive. The Court adopts the Findings of Fact as set forth except to the extent herein

noted.

CONCLUSION

The court finds and concludes that the Magistrate Judge properly applied the law on

discrimination and retaliation to the facts that have been established in this claim proceeding.

Further the Court adopts the conclusions of law as set forth in the Report.

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED revising the Report as noted above. 

Case 2:97-cv-01734-RGS Document 356 Filed 04/12/07 Page 5 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 6 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED adopting the revised Report and Recommendation

recommending that Plaintiff's claims be denied. [Doc. # 230] 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's claims of discrimination and retaliation

in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., be denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment in

accordance with this order.

DATED this 10th day of April, 2007.

Case 2:97-cv-01734-RGS Document 356 Filed 04/12/07 Page 6 of 6