On September 30, 2005, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) brought this lawsuit against Qwest Communications in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. The complaint alleged discriminatory discipline and termination of two employees based on national origin in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and discriminatory discipline and termination of one employee based on association with the other two employees in violation of Title VII. The EEOC sought injunctive and monetary relief on behalf of the three employees.

The court granted the three complainants motions to intervene in December 2005. Two of the intervenor-plaintiffs alleged race and national origin discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII, violation of 42 USC ß1981, race and national origin discrimination and retaliation in violation of Oregon law, intentional infliction of emotional distress, reckless infliction of emotional distress, and wrongful discharge. The third intervenor-plaintiff alleged association disparate treatment and retaliation in violation of Title VII, violation of 42 USC § 1981, race and national origin discrimination and retaliation in violation of Oregon law, intentional infliction of emotional distress, reckless infliction of emotional distress, and wrongful discharge.

On May 22, 2008, Judge Michael R. Hogan granted in part and denied in part a request by the defendant for summary judgment. The court granted most of the request expect for a few claims. The hostile work environment and discriminatory discharge claims remained (though these claims were dismissed as to one of the intervenor-plaintiffs).

On December 29, 2008, the parties’ began settlement discussions that resulted in a consent decree. On February 4, 2009, the court approved the parties’ consent decree. This decree called for the defendant to provide anti-discrimination training, report to the EEOC that the training was completed, and post a notice of this lawsuit’s resolution to be visible by all its employees. This decree had a duration of six months.

The case docket indicates no record of non-compliance. Furthermore, the duration of the consent decree has lapsed. Therefore, this case is presumably closed.

Daisy Manning - 06/02/2008
Sean Whetstone - 07/06/2018


compress summary