In August 2001, the Denver District Office brought this suit against Milgard Manufacturing, Inc., a producer of windows and sliding doors, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado alleging discrimination on the basis of race, African-American, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. We do not have a copy of the complaint; therefore, the exact allegations involved are unknown. However, it appears from the EEOC's litigation settlement report that the complaint alleged the defendant engaged in racially discriminatory practices by not hiring black applicants. The human resources assistant who complained about the discriminatory practices was also allegedly harassed, criticized and forced to resign her employment in retaliation for her complaints. These actions were in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The charging party intervened in the suit in April 2002.

After some discovery and a stay of proceedings of unknown duration starting in December 2003, the parties settled in May 2004 through a consent decree. We do not have a copy of the consent decree; therefore the exact conditions of the decree are unknown. However, it appears from the EEOC's litigation settlement report that the three-year decree required the defendant to retain a Consent Decree Monitor who will evaluate and report to EEOC on defendant's compliance with the decree. The defendant must report to the EEOC every six months on the race and ethnicity of applicants and hires, and shall engage in recruitment and outreach efforts at the area high school and the Urban League to increase the number of blacks in its applicant pool. The defendant must pay a total of $3.35 million, including relief to the class of black applicants denied positions, compensation for a consent decree monitor, and relief to the human resources assistant.

The decree was amended by agreement a number of times. First, after some kind of dispute among the parties, the provisions governing claimants were changed, and what seems like a small amount of additional money added into their damages. (This was approved in August 2005.) Then the decree was extended, by consent, three different times. In May 2007, the term was extended from May 2007 to May 2008. A year later, it was extended till the end of 2008, and then in April 2009, it was extended till June 30, 2009. There have been some ongoing enforcement that led to these extensions, but the docket does not set out any details.

Keri Livingston - 09/27/2007


compress summary