On September 26, 2002, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a complaint on behalf of two female employees in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, the Plaintiff sought injunctive and monetary relief, arguing that the female employees had suffered sexual harassment and had been subjected to a hostile work environment by two managers and a supervisor, who had made offensive comments, sexual questions, sexual suggestions and unwelcoming touching. According to the Plaintiff, the Defendants did not exercise reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct the sexual harassment.

The Defendants answered the complaint on December 23, 2002, denying Plaintiff's allegations of unlawful employment practices, alleging that the Plaintiff failed to state a claim that would support injunctive relief and that the injunctive relief sought by the Plaintiff was not in accord with the injunctive relief prescribed under Title VII, besides being overly broad. Therefore, the Defendants requested that the Court dismiss Plaintiff's complaint with prejudice.

On January 13, 2003, the Plaintiff filed a motion to strike Defendants' answer, arguing it was untimely filed and filed without leave of the Court. Parties then discussed if the default should be set aside or not, until the Judge Leslie C. Smith granted Defendant's motion to set aside the default.

On June 16, 2003, the judge ordered the action be consolidated with EEOC v. Bell Gas, Inc., et al., CIV 02-1212 BB/KBM. That lawsuit involved a claim of retaliation related to one of the employees, against one of the Defendants and other two companies. District Judge Bruce D. Black found these actions involved common questions of law or fact, hence, granted the motion to consolidate the actions at least for discovery purposes, to avoid unnecessary costs or delay.

One of the employees entered into a consent decree with the Defendants, which was approved by Chief District Judge James A. Parker on January 14, 2004. The Defendants agreed to pay $20,000.00 to the employee. As a result, this individual employee's claims were dismissed with prejudice. The settlement expressly did not preclude the EEOC from prosecuting the remaining claims related to the other employee against the Defendants.

After that, the consolidation order was rescinded on March 26, 2004, by a decision issued by District Judge Bruce D. Black on Case No. 02-1212.

On July 20, 2004, District Judge Bruce D. Black issued a Memorandum, Opinion and Order, denying the Defendants' motions for summary judgment, which had been filed in both actions.

The remaining employee and the Defendants settled on both actions. On September 22, 2004, District Judge William P. Johnson approved the consent decree in which the Defendants agreed to pay $ 36,000.00 to the remaining employee. On the same day, District Judge Bruce D. Black approved the consent decree filed on Case No. 02-1213, by which the Defendants agreed to pay $10,000.00 to the employee. In both, one of the Defendants recognized it was already the subject of a consent decree in another lawsuit (CIV-02-1090 WPJ/ACT) and agreed that it was obligated to undertake the policies and training provided in that consent decree. As a result, all claims asserted by the EEOC against the Defendants were dismissed with prejudice. The Court retained jurisdiction for the purpose of enforcement of the consent decrees during their two years term.

The consent decrees ran the two years without any further litigation. The cases are now closed.

Daniele de Oliveira Nunes - 09/26/2018


compress summary