Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_97-cv-01734/USCOURTS-azd-2_97-cv-01734-3/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 Rose Vega, 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 Rose Vega came before United States Magistrate Judge

Virginia A. Mathis for a bench trial during February 2005. Plaintiff complained of violations

of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. In the Pretrial Statement and

at trial, Plaintiff Vega made the following claims of discrimination:

Case 2:97-cv-01734-RGS Document 358 Filed 04/12/07 Page 1 of 5
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 -

A. She needed and requested additional help to perform her job in the Benefits

Office, Personnel Dept. However, she never received sufficient help to allow her to do the

job. She attributes these acts of discrimination to Jerry Moreland, her supervisor.

B. While in the Benefits Section, Plaintiff Vega did not receive any promotions

to a higher pay grade although she was performing at or above a satisfactory level. Her

attempts to reclassify her job were also unsuccessful. She attributes these acts of

discrimination to her supervisor, Jerry Moreland.

C. As a result of being overworked, she suffered stress and took a leave of

absence. While on the leave of absence, she was told she could not return to her position.

She was forced to elect to transfer to another position at MVD at a lower pay grade. When

this happened, three people were assigned to do her old job, two Caucasians and one

Hispanic. One of the Caucasians was paid at grade 15 while she was a grade 13. She

attributes these acts of discrimination to Jerry Moreland.

D. After the filing of this lawsuit and her affidavit and testimony in support of the

lawsuit, she suffered retaliation in the form of a lower job evaluation by Yvonne Lewis in

June 1998, staring by Ruth Castor (Head of the Department), write-ups for being late by

Yvonne Lewis, criticism of her attire/dress by Sharon Haggerty and refusal to give her more

training by her superiors in MVD.

 On March 16, 2005, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and

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

Recommendation on April 8, 2005. Defendants filed a Response to the Objections on May

13, 2005. Supplemental authority and responses thereto were filed on August 31, 2005, and

September 14, 2005. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a Third 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.

Case 2:97-cv-01734-RGS Document 358 Filed 04/12/07 Page 2 of 5
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 -

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

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. 

Case 2:97-cv-01734-RGS Document 358 Filed 04/12/07 Page 3 of 5
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 -

CONSIDERATION OF PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO THE REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

With respect to the testimony of Plaintiff, the Court will sustain said party's objection

to the reference of her being "frequently" absent as set forth on page 12 of the Report and

Recommendation, and the Report may be deemed amended to provide that she was

"occasionally" absent. 

Contrary to Plaintiff's assertion in her objections at paragraph 17 that the Magistrate

failed to acknowledge her testimony that the volume of work led to Plaintiff experiencing

emotional distress, the Report and Recommendation cites to this issue as follows: "Plaintiff

testified that Jerry Moreland became her supervisor sometime in the late 1980s. She stated

that during this period the volume of work increased . . . and she began to feel overwhelmed

. . . ." (Report, p. 6.)

Plaintiff's objection at page 7, paragraph 19, relates to the failure to process certain

checks. Said objection is sustained to the extent that the Report may be deemed amended to

include the following: Plaintiff testified that the reason she did not process certain checks

was due to the fact that they were made out in the incorrect amount. She further testified that

she was told by Department of Administration supervisors not to process checks in the

incorrect amount.

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

to be unpersuasive. The Court adopts the Findings of Fact as set forth in the Report.

CONCLUSION

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

Title VII 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 358 Filed 04/12/07 Page 4 of 5
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 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED adopting the revised Report and Recommendation

recommending that Plaintiff's claim be denied. [Doc. # 305]

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's claims of disparate treatment 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 358 Filed 04/12/07 Page 5 of 5