In August 2003, the EEOC's Phoenix office filed this suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona against PVNF LLC d/b/a Chuck Daggett Motors alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978. Specifically, the EEOC alleged the defendant created a hostile work environment for pregnant women and all females through verbal abuse, including disparaging remarks and insults directed at all pregnant women, sexist remarks and anti-female remarks. In addition, the EEOC alleged that the defendant denied women payments for insurance premiums and retaliated against women who opposed the unlawful practices.

In April 2004, the parties reached a settlement and entered into a consent decree, which was adopted by the court, that settled the suit regarding pregnancy discrimination claims. The three-year consent decree required defendant to pay $6,500 in compensatory damages, attend training on pregnancy discrimination, expunge records of the discrimination charge, refrain from discrimination and retaliation, review and update pregnancy discrimination polices, and report to the EEOC among other things.

The sexism claims proceeded to trial, following cross motions for summary judgment, in May 2005. Following a four-day trial, the defendant moved for and was granted a judgment as a matter of law. The court concluded that certain claims brought by EEOC were “frivolous, unreasonable or without foundation,” entitling PVNF to recover its
attorney’s fees in connection with that portion of the plaintiff's claim related to disparate
treatment.

The EEOC unsuccessfully moved to amend the judgment and for a new trial before filing an appeal in December 2005. On May 14, 2007, the Tenth Circuit reversed in part and remanded the case for a new trial because it found that a reasonable jury could determine that the complainants were subjected to a hostile work environment. 487 F.3d 790. It allowed the judgment as a matter of law for the defendant to stand on the issue of whether a particular complainant was constructively discharged. A few days before the new trial, the parties entered into a settlement agreement, which dealt only with attorneys fees and litigation costs. The EEOC moved to dismiss the case, which the court granted.

As the consent decree was set to last for three years, this case presumably closed in April 2007 as there is no further enforcement activity on the docket.

Tony Friedman - 08/25/2007
Rachel Barr - 04/08/2018


compress summary