University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name EEOC v. Moore & Cowart Contractors, Inc. EE-TX-0241
Docket / Court 3:03-cv-00121-KC ( W.D. Tex. )
State/Territory Texas
Case Type(s) Equal Employment
Special Collection EEOC Study -- in sample
Attorney Organization EEOC
Case Summary
In April 2003, the EEOC San Antonio District Office filed this suit against Moore & Cowart Contractors, Inc., a general construction firm, in the U.S. District Court for Western District of Texas. The aggrieved female employee initially filed a claim under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act. ... read more >
In April 2003, the EEOC San Antonio District Office filed this suit against Moore & Cowart Contractors, Inc., a general construction firm, in the U.S. District Court for Western District of Texas. The aggrieved female employee initially filed a claim under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act. This case was then consolidated with the EEOC's suit, which alleged that the defendant violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when it allowed the aggrieved employee to suffer from inappropriate sexual conduct in the form of verbal and physical hazing by her male coworkers, resulting in a hostile work environment. Over the course of approximately one year the parties engaged in two scheduling conferences and a few minor discovery disputes. However, in May 2004 the parties decided to settle the case with a consent judgment.

The consent decree set forth that the jurisdiction of the court would last no more than three years. Moore & Cowart were ordered to pay the aggrieved employee $35,000 without regard to apportionment for specific damage claims. The aforementioned amount was also inclusive of attorney's fees. Further, the court ordered that the defendant's would employees attend 2-4 hours of training to explain how to interact and interface with coworkers appropriately. Also, the court ordered that the defendant must post a notice explaining to employees that it will not discriminate on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin, or religion and that the defendant would not retaliate against employees who engage in bringing such violations to the attention of the defendant. Lastly, the court gave the EEOC compliance authority over the defendant in the form of (a) conducting inspections of the defendant's facilities, (b) interviewing the defendant's employees, and (c) examining and copying relevant documents.

Jason Chester - 05/29/2007


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Affected Gender
Female
Content of Injunction
Discrimination Prohibition
Expungement of Employment Record
Monitoring
Neutral/Positive Reference
Post/Distribute Notice of Rights / EE Law
Provide antidiscrimination training
Retaliation Prohibition
Discrimination-area
Harassment / Hostile Work Environment
Discrimination-basis
Sex discrimination
EEOC-centric
Direct Suit on Merits
General
Disparate Treatment
Plaintiff Type
EEOC Plaintiff
Private Plaintiff
Causes of Action Title VII (including PDA), 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000e
Defendant(s) Moore & Cowart Contractors, Inc.
Moore & Cowart Contractors, Inc.
Plaintiff Description Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, on behalf of one or more workers.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations EEOC
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted No
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Damages
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Settlement
Form of Settlement Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Order Duration 2004 - 2007
Case Closing Year 2004
Case Ongoing No
Case Listing EE-TX-0456 : Anchondo v. Moore & Cowart Contractors, Inc. (W.D. Tex.)
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
Case Studies Megacases, Diversity, and the Elusive Goal of Workplace Reform
Written: Mar. 01, 2008
By: Nancy Levit (University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law)
Citation: 49 B.C. L. Rev. 367 (2008)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Second Generation Employment Discrimination: A Structural Approach
By: Susan Sturm (Columbia Law School)
Citation: 101 Colum. L. Rev. 458 (2001)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

Docket(s)
3:03-cv-00121-KC (W.D. Tex.) 05/21/2004
EE-TX-0241-9000 PDF | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Complaint [] 04/07/2003
EE-TX-0241-0001 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion to Compel 03/10/2004 (W.D. Tex.)
EE-TX-0241-0004 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Consent Decree 05/17/2004
EE-TX-0241-0002 PDF | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Mesa, Richard P. (W.D. Tex.) [Magistrate]
EE-TX-0241-9000
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers None on record
Defendant's Lawyers None on record
Other Lawyers None on record

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -