Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_97-cv-01734/USCOURTS-azd-2_97-cv-01734-2/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 Irene Canales

Simonetti, 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 Irene Canales Simonetti came before United States Magistrate

Judge Virginia A. Mathis for a bench trial during December 2003. Plaintiff claims that she

was retaliated against for engaging in activity protected by Title VII. Specifically, Plaintiff

Case 2:97-cv-01734-RGS Document 357 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 -

claims that the following alleged actions or events constituted adverse employment actions

for purposes of Title VII:

1. Lower performance evaluations;

2. Mr. Bonine telling Ms. Simonetti in a meeting that he did not want to hear negative

reports, only positive things;

3. Mr. Bonine and Ms. Peters excluding Ms. Simonetti from meetings and cancelling

meetings with her;

4. The decision to contract out the EAP program;

5. Giving Ms. Simonetti no job duties from October 1995 to April 1996;

6. The decision not to place Ms. Simonetti in the position of coordinating the EAP

contract;

7. The decision not to place Ms. Simonetti in the redeployment pool;

8. The decision to move Ms. Simonetti to a position in the Medical Review office and

not provide her with a written job description in a timely manner;

9. Initially telling Ms. Simonetti she would not receive extra compensation for acting

as the office manager, and then paying her extra compensation later;

10. The decision to make Lupe Valdivia the permanent manager for the Medical

Review office;

11. Telling Ms. Simonetti she would lose evaluation points if she did not name peers

for the peer evaluation;

12. Labeling Ms. Simonetti a "troublemaker";

 13. The decision to place Ms. Simonetti in the Right of Way Section as a detail to

special duty rather than permanent employee; and 

14. The decision not to place Ms. Simonetti in a position in the Affirmative Action

Office and telling Ms. Simonetti that she could not work in Affirmative Action unless she

agreed that information she learned in her position could not be used in her lawsuit. 

Case 2:97-cv-01734-RGS Document 357 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 -

At the close of Plaintiff's case in chief, the Magistrate Judge granted Defendants' Fed.

R. Civ. P. 52(c) motion on Allegations 3, 7, 10 and 11 because they were not supported by

evidence. Plaintiff withdrew Allegation No. 12.

 On February 6, 2004, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in

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

February 26, 2004. Defendants filed a Response to the Objections on March 11, 2004.

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.

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 an uncertified

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

Case 2:97-cv-01734-RGS Document 357 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 -

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

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

to the reference of the taping of conversations with Mary Peters. Accordingly, the three

sentences concerning this topic at lines 23-26 of page 11 of the Report and Recommendation

shall be deemed deleted. Further, Plaintiff's objection to the Report shall be sustained to the

extent of revising lines 3 to 7 on page 13 of the Report as follows: "Plaintiff indicated to her

supervisors that she could not move for health reasons. As a result, the entire office moved

without plaintiff. As a result of her inability to move, Ms. Valdivia became the permanent

manager of the Medical Review Office." 

With respect to the testimony of Shafique Jamali, the Court sustains Plaintiff's

objection to the extent that the Report's Finding of Fact No. 1 shall be deemed revised to

eliminate the word "vast" from line 24 of page 31 of the Report, and to eliminate the final

sentence of said Finding, which relates to a comparison of the contract cost with the cost of

the in-house EAP program.

The objection to Finding of Fact No. 8 is sustained to the extent that said Finding shall

be deemed revised as follows: "Ms. Simonetti did not receive extra compensation during the

45-50 days she was Office Manager in MVD because Ms. Simonetti's supervisor Charlene

Knapp testified that the normal process required payment after the detail. Even if this was

not, in fact, the proper procedure no act of retaliation was shown." 

Case 2:97-cv-01734-RGS Document 357 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 -

With respect to Finding of Fact No. 11, Plaintiff's objection is sustained and the

Report may be deemed modified by deleting Finding No. 11.

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 except

to the extent noted herein.

CONCLUSION

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

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. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED adopting the revised Report and Recommendation

recommending that Plaintiff's claim be denied. [Doc. # 257]

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's claims of 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 357 Filed 04/12/07 Page 5 of 5