On September 29, 2006, the Denver Office of the EEOC filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The plaintiffs sued Home Depot U.S.A. Inc. under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The EEOC, representing a former Home Depot employee, asked the court for a permanent injunction enjoining Home Depot from retaliating against employees who complain about discrimination and for monetary relief for the harm caused to the former employee. The EEOC claimed that Home Depot retaliated against the former employee when it terminated her employment five weeks after it issued her a settlement check for a previous suit resolving charges of discrimination.

On July 11, 2008, U.S. District Judge Lewis T. Babcock denied Home Depot's motion for summary judgment. Home Depot argued that the EEOC did not establish a case for retaliation because it did not demonstrate that the former employee had engaged in protected activity beyond her initial charge of discrimination or that there was a causal connection between a protected activity and her termination. Judge Babcock rejected this argument because filing a charge of discrimination is in and of itself a protected activity. Judge Babcock further found that negotiating a settlement agreement against Home Depot further constituted a protected activity, and the agreement was negotiated sufficiently close to her termination to indicate a possible causal relationship. 2008 WL 2744968.

On July 29, 2009, Judge Babcock approved a settlement agreement and dismissed the case. The agreement included injunctive and monetary relief. Specifically, agreement enjoined the defendant from reprisal or retaliation of any employee who complains about violations of Title VII or who serves as a party or witness in a lawsuit under Title VII. It further stipulated that the defendant must require trainings for managerial and supervisory staff and human resources staff. These trainings must address employees rights under Title VII, the defendant's anti-retaliation policy, and penalties for engaging in retaliation. The defendant was also required to submit reports of complaints of retaliation, trainings, and postings of notice. The monetary relief covered lost wages and compensatory damages totaling $84,750. The agreement's effective period was two years, and there is nothing further in the docket - so presumably the matter ended in 2011.

Keri Livingston - 05/28/2008
Gabriela Hybel - 11/06/2016


compress summary