Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_97-cv-01734/USCOURTS-azd-2_97-cv-01734-0/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 Henry 

Serrano, 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 Henry Serrano came before United States Magistrate Judge

Virginia A. Mathis for a bench trial during August and September, 2003. Plaintiff's three

theories of recovery were set forth as follows:

1. The 1% merit pay increase awarded to Plaintiff in 

January, 1998, was due to the racial animus of his

Case 2:97-cv-01734-RGS Document 354 Filed 04/11/07 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 -

work supervisors Dennis Kasl and Victor Ausbun;

2. Although Plaintiff assumed added duties in the

Traffic Operations warehouse in October 1977,

replacing a Grade 15 storekeeper in those duties, 

Traffic Operations manager Victor Ausbun's refusal 

to promote or reclassify his grade 11 warehouse 

worker position to Grade 15 storekeeper until 

March, 1999 when he was finally promoted to that 

position, was based on racial prejudice; and

3. The conduct of Victor Ausbun and Dennis Kasl,

including verbal abuse by Dennis Kasl and 

offensive language by Victor Ausbun, created a 

hostile work environment in and of itself, resulting 

in severe mental and emotional distress, justifying

damages for violation of his federal constitutional

rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

 On September 30, 2003, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation

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

October 14, 2003. Defendants filed a response to the objections on November 5, 2003.

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

14, 2005. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed an Amended and Corrected Second Citation of

Supplemental Authority on February 21, 2006, and 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

Case 2:97-cv-01734-RGS Document 354 Filed 04/11/07 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 -

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

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 Mr. Serrano's claims is based upon acceptance of the

parties' stipulated facts and all of the Magistrate's Findings of Fact except those contained

in paragraph forty. With respect to Plaintiff's Objections, except for those relating to

Plaintiff's hostile work environment claim as discussed below, the Court finds Plaintiff's

arguments unpersuasive.

PLAINTIFF'S THEORIES FOR RECOVERY

1. Claim One - Lower Merit Pay Increase

The one percent merit pay increase awarded to Plaintiff Serrano

in January, 1998, was due to the racial animus of his work

supervisors.

 Plaintiff Serrano objects to the judge's finding that the 1% merit increase received by

Caucasian co-worker and supervisor Dennis Kasl was comparable to that received by

Plaintiff, contending that one's supervisor cannot be regarded as a "similarly situated"

employee for Title VII purposes. While that statement is generally true, the evidence here

established that the merit increases were awarded by budget unit or "org." All of the

employees within an org were compared by their evaluation scores, regardless of their

Case 2:97-cv-01734-RGS Document 354 Filed 04/11/07 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 -

position. This procedure was used with respect to all employees within the same org for the

purpose of determining entitlement to merit increases.

 The analysis of the Magistrate Judge with respect to this claim is based upon the

appropriate legal standard and the Judge's findings of fact are fairly supported by testimony

presented to the Court. In view of the foregoing, the Court will adopt the findings and

conclusion of the Magistrate Judge with respect to this claim.

2. Claim Two - Failure to Promote

Although Plaintiff assumed added duties in the

Traffic Operations warehouse in October 1977,

replacing a Grade 15 storekeeper in those duties, 

Traffic Operations Manager Victor Ausbun's refusal 

to promote or reclassify his Grade 11 warehouse 

worker position to Grade 15 storekeeper until 

March, 1999, when he was finally promoted to 

that position, was based on racial prejudice.

Plaintiff contends that his claim with respect to achieving a Grade 15 level of

employment should have been analyzed as a "disparate treatment" claim as well as a "failure

to Promote" claim. Plaintiff's assertion that he "asked to be made a Grade 15 Storekeeper

and did not limit his request to a promotion" supports a conclusion that he understood that

some process, such as reclassification, was available to achieve Grade 15 status other than

awaiting the occurrence of a Grade 15 vacancy. The fact remains that there were no

available Grade 15 Storekeeper positions at the time that Plaintiff made his request.

Furthermore, the Magistrate Judge in considering Plaintiff's request to be made a Grade 15

employee included the following in her Report and Recommendation: 

[T]he crux of plaintiff's claim is not that he was rejected for an

open position, but rather, that his boss, Victor Ausbun, in spite

of the fact that no opening for a Grade 15 storekeeper was then

available, failed to take the affirmative step of reclassifying his

position to that of a Grade 15 storekeeper. However plaintiff

cites no authority to support an allegation that an employer

violates Title VII if . . . he fails to take affirmative steps . . . to

reclassify a position from a lower pay grade to a higher one.

. . . .

 . . . He also alleges Ausbun did not inform him he could seek

reclassification. However, testimony at trial reveals that ADOT

Case 2:97-cv-01734-RGS Document 354 Filed 04/11/07 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 -

personnel literature available to all employees explains how employees

can seek reclassification of their jobs to a higher pay grade.

The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge made appropriate finding of fact with

respect to this issue and that the legal analysis was fair and correct as presented. The Court

does not find that a separate analysis of the claim under a "disparate treatment" theory would

have altered the Magistrate's conclusion under the facts as found by the Judge and set forth

in her Report and Recommendation. 

3. Claim Three - Hostile Work Environment

The conduct of Victor Ausbun and Dennis Kasl,

including verbal abuse by Dennis Kasl and 

offensive language by Victor Ausbun, created a 

hostile work environment in and of itself, resulting 

in severe mental and emotional distress, justifying

damages for violation of Plaintiff's federal constitutional

rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Plaintiff's final claim contends that discriminatory and hostile conduct of his

supervisors Victor Ausbun and Dennis Kasl created a hostile work environment entitling him

to damages under the Civil Rights Act. Plaintiff's working environment involved two

supervisors and just a few fellow employees. During the period of time from late 1997

(November or December) until late February 1998, supervisor Ausbun addressed Plaintiff

using the terms "boy" and "pimp" on several occasions. In addition, Plaintiff's immediate

supervisor, Dennis Kasl, often raised his voice and verbally abused Plaintiff. Plaintiff

testified that he was offended by being repeatedly called a "pimp" by Mr. Ausbun. Plaintiff

further testified that as a result of the harassment he received from his supervisors, he "felt

bad" and was upset to the point that he did not want to come to work. In view of the facts

set forth above concerning the content, frequency and duration of the offensive conduct and

the testimony of Plaintiff concerning its effect on him, the Court finds and concludes that for

an unacceptable period of time, Mr. Serrano's workplace was permeated with discriminatory

ridicule and insult thereby creating a racially hostile work environment entitling Plaintiff to

damages for violation of his civil rights.

Case 2:97-cv-01734-RGS Document 354 Filed 04/11/07 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 -

CONCLUSION

The claims of Henry Serrano and the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate

Judge having been reviewed,

IT IS ORDERED adopting the Report and Recommendation in part. [Doc. # 222] 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED with respect to Plaintiff's Claim One and Claim Two,

the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's findings of fact and conclusions of law as written and

as modified and supplemented herein.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED with respect to Plaintiff's Claim Three, the Court

declines to adopt the Magistrate Judge's findings of fact contained in paragraph forty and the

conclusions of law relating thereto and further finds that Plaintiff is entitled to recover the

sum of $18,000.00 from Defendants as damages for emotional distress endured in violation

of his federal constitutional rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988, awarding Plaintiff's

attorneys the sum of $6,000.00 as attorney's fees with respect to this claim.

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 354 Filed 04/11/07 Page 6 of 6