On June 30, 2008, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission brought this action in the District Court of Colorado (Judge Edward W. Nottingham), alleging that defendant Oldcastle engaged in unlawful discriminatory employment practices. Such discriminatory practices included statements reflecting gender bias, failure to respond to complaints of sexual harassment by employees, and the termination of employees who complained of such practices. Plaintiff sought relief under 42 U.S.C. §2000e and 42 U.S.C. § 1981a. Plaintiff sought damages for the affected parties in the form of backpay, front pay, future pecuniary losses, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other nonpecuniary losses. Plaintiff also sought a permanent injunction enjoining defendant from engaging in any employment policy or practice which discriminates against women, or retaliates against employees who report gender discrimination.
On October 20, 2008, the District Court of Colorado (Judge Edward W. Nottingham) granted a Motion to Intervene by individuals who were previously employed by the Defendant, terminated by the defendant and who had filed a Charge of Discrimination.
On October 20, 2008, the Intervenor Plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging denial of equal employment. This discrimination included gender discrimination in violation of section 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(a), denial of equal employment for individuals engaging in protected activity under §704 of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-4(a), and discrimination against a "qualified individual with a disability" as defined by the ADA. Intervenor Plaintiffs then filed an Amended Complaint in Intervention on October 31, 2008.
On February 9, 2010, the parties reached an agreement and the EEOC filed a Motion to Enter Consent Decree on February 16, 2010. Under the terms of the consent decree, Defendant was permanently enjoined from discriminating against any employee or applicant because of sex, or from retaliating against any employee, applicant, or class member for his or her participation in the EEOC process. Defendant agreed to submit to an EEO training program for new and current employees. Defendant was also to work with a consultant in developing policies to guard against discriminatory decision-making. In addition to these changes in behavior, Defendant was to pay $498,000 to the Intervenor Plaintiffs and their counsel.
On February 23, 2010 the parties stipulated to the dismissal of the Intervenor Plaintiffs, and on February 26, 2010 Judge Christine M. Arguello entered the consent decree.David Priddy - 06/23/2011