Input:
1

2

' i

J 3
~ j 4

& ,~

5

~ 6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

10

11 EaUALEM OYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSI
12 Plalnttff,
13
v
14
15 LAIDLAW I' ., and LAIDLAW E UCATION SERVICES dba
16 LAIDLAW T NSIT, INC.

CIVIL ACTION NO JURY TRIAL DEMAND

17

18

Defendant.

19 NATURE OF THE ACTION
20 This i ,an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil
21 Rights Act 0 '1991 to correct unlawful employment praclices on the baSIS of sex and to
22 proVide app~ priate relief to Sheryl Everson ("Ms. Everson"). The Equal Employment
23 Opportunity ommisslon alleges that defendant subjected Ms. Everson to disparate
24 treatment on the baSIS of her sex, female Plaintiff seeks monetary relief, including
25 pecuniary a nonpecuniary compensatory and pUnitive damages and Injunctive relief, on
26 behalf of Ms. Everson.
27

I1111111111 I".1111 III 11111 I11111 111I \1\III 111111111 III II 1111
I111111 11I1 ,1111111 III III 11111111
~C~V~O=2~-O~46~8~Ul~~~::~~~____-~
LAloLAWllDU tRVICES COMPLAINT·PAGE 1

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Seattle District OffIce Federal Office BUilding
909 First Avenue Sulls 400 Seattle, Washington 98104-1061
Telephone (206) 220·6683 Fax (20B) 220-6911 TOO (206) 220-6882

1

2

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3

1. ,Jurisdiction of this Court is Invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§451 , 1331, 1337,

4 1343 and 1 " 5. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to sections 706(f)(1) and

5 (3) of Title I of the CIVil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C sections 2000e-

6 5(f)(1) and ( ) ("Title VII"), and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 USC

7 §1981a.

8

2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the

9 JUrisdiction the United States District Court for the District of Washington at Seattle.

10

PARTIES

11

~.

Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity CommiSSion (the "Commission"),

12 is the agen of the United States of America charged with the administration,

13 interpretatlo and enforcement of Title VII, and IS expressly authonzed to bring this action

14 by Section 6(f)(1) of Title VII, 42 U S.C. §2000e-5(f)(1).

15

4. At all relevant times, defendant Laidlaw Inc., and Laidlaw Education Services

16 dba Laidlaw Transit Inc.("Laldlaw") has been a corporation continuously dOing business in

17 the State of ashlngton and has continuously had at least 15 employees.

18

5. At all relevant times, defendant Laidlaw has continuously been an employer

19 engaged in n Industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701 (b), (g) and

20 (h) of Title V I, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e-(b), (g) and (h).

,'I

21

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

22

6 More than thirty days prior to the institution of thiS lawsUit, Ms Everson filed a

23 charge with he CommiSSion alleging violations of Title VII by defendant Laidlaw All

24 conditions cedent to the Institution of this lawsUit have been fulfilled

25

7. Since on or about March 2, 2001, defendant Laidlaw engaged In unlawful

26 employment practices at ItS Seattle, Washington facility In Violation of §§ 703(a) of Title VII,

27 42 U S.C. § 2000e-2(a) Defendant Laidlaw affected the terms and conditions of Ms

LAIDLAW BDU, ERVlCES COMPLAINT - PAGE 2
j

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Se.ttle District OffIee Federal Office Building
909 F'I~ Avenue, SUite 400 Seattle Wasrnngton 96104·1061
Telephone (206) 2206883 Fax (206) 220·6911 TOD (206) 220-6882

1

ployment by subjecting her to disparate treatment In the terms and conditions

2 of herempi ment because of her sex, female

3

! 8. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraph 7 above has been to

4 depnve Ms. verson of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect her

5

!employee because of her sex, female.

6

9. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 7 above

7 were Inten' , al.

8

10. The unlawful employment practices complained of In paragraph 7 above

9 were done th malice or with reckless Indifference to Ms. Everson's federally protected

10 rights

11

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

12

Whe 'fore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court

13

A. Grant a permanent Injunction enjoIning defendant, ItS officers, successors,

14 agents, assi ns, and all persons In active concert or partiCipation With It, from engaging In

15 anyempldy, ent practices which discriminate on the basis of sex.

16

B Order defendant to Institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs

17 which prov equal employment opportunities for all employees, and which eradicate the

18 effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices.

19

C. Order defendant to make whole Ms. Everson by prOViding appropriate back

20

dgment interest, in amounts to be determined at tnal, and other affirmative

21 relief naces ry to eradicate the effects of ItS unlawful employment practices

22

D. Order defendant to make whole Ms. Everson by providing compensation for

23 past and fu re pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices

24 deSCribed In paragraph 7 above, including past and future out-of-pocket expenses, in

25 amounts to determined at trial.

26

E. Order defendant to make whole Ms Everson by proViding compensation for

27 past and fut I"e nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in

"
LAIDLAWEDU ERVICES COMPLAINT-PAGE 3
, I

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION SHIUe District OffIce Federal Office BUilding
909 First Avenue SUlle 400 Seame, washmgtc!\ 98104-1Q61
Telephone (206) 220-6883 Fax (2oa) 220-6911
TOO (206) 220-6882

•

1 paragraph ' bove, Including without limitation emotional pain, suffering, and loss of

2 enjoyment life, in amounts to be determined at trial.

3

F. Order defendant to pay Ms Everson punitive damages for its malicious and

4 reckless 00 uct described in paragraph 7 above, In amounts to be determined at trial.

5

G. I Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the

6 public Inter

7

H. Award the Commission its costs of this action.

8

9

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

10

mmission requests a JUry trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint.

11 12

b DAT D this j.jj' day of ({}a rc

,2002.

13

14

GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS

15

Associate General Counsel

16 KATHRYN LSON Supervisory" nal Attorney
17 CARMEN F ORES
18 Tnal Attorn

19

20 EQUAL EM LOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
21 COMMISSI N
Seattle Dlst Office 22 909 First Av nue, Suite 400
Seattle, Wa Ington 98104
23 Telephone ( 06) 220-6893

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Office of the General Counsel
1801 "L" Street, N W WaShington, D.C 20507

24

Attorneys for Plaintiff

25

26

27

I
LAIDLAW'EDU, ERVICES COMPLAINT-PAGE 4
-~'--~

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Seattle District OffIce Federal Office BUilding
909 First Avenue, Suite 400 SeaIUe, Washington 98104·1061
Telephone (206) 220-6883 Fax (206) 220-6911 TOO (206) 220-6882

 1

2 cl!L FILED

3

_ _\.~ODGED

ENTERED RECEIVED

4

MAY 3 1 2~02 MR

5

AT SEATILE

CLERK U 5 DISTRICT COUR.T

WESTERN. DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

6

BY

DU'UIY

Honorable Thomas S Zllly
1111\\11 III III 1111 11111111III \\1 \\11 I\I \\1 1111 I\I \I 1111 I1111\11111111111 11\1 I111111111111111111
CV 02-00468 #00000011

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

9

AT SEATTLE

10 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
11
Plamtiff,
12
v.
13
LAIDLAW, INC, and LAIDLAW 14 EDUCATION SERVICES dba LAIDLAW
TRANSIT, INC,
15
Defendant.
16

NO C02-468Z
COMPLAINT BY PLAINTIFF IN INTERVENTION SHERYL EVERSON
JURY TRIAL DEMAND

17 SHERYL EVERSON,

18

Plaintiff in Intervention.

19

20

Plaintiff in Intervention, Sheryl Everson, alleges as follows:

21

JURISDICTION & VENUE

22

1 This Court has Jurisdiction over the subject matter of tills

23 complaint in intervention pursuant to 28 U.S.c. §§ 1331, 1337, 1343, 1345, and 1367.

24

2. Venue IS proper before this court pursuant to 28 U.S C. § 1391.

25

26

\

COMPLAINT BY PLAINTIFF IN

INTERVENTION SHERYL EVERSON

-1

Cause No C02-468Z

MUNDT MACGREGOR LLP

ATTOR.NE'r~

AT

lA\\

999 ThIrd Avenue SUIte 4200 Seattle, \Vashmgton 98104-4082 Telephone ~2061624-59S0

1

PARTIES

2

3. Tlus matter was commenced by plaintiff, the Equal

3 Employment Opporturuty Comrrusslon ("EEOC").

4

4 Plamtiff in Intervention, Sheryl Everson, is a resIdent of the

5 State of Washmgton

6

5 At all relevant times, defendant Laidlaw Inc, and Laidlaw

7 Education Services dba LaIdlaw Transit Inc. ("Laidlaw") has been a corporation

8 continuously doing business in the State of Washington and has contInuously had at

9 least 15 employees.

10

6. The EEOC has alleged that Laidlaw subjected Ms. Everson to

11 disparate and unlawful treatInent on the basIS of her sex, female. As the aggrieved

12 person m the unlawful practices alleged by the EEOC, Ms. Everson IS entitled to 13 mtervene m thIS action under 42 U.S.c. § 2000e-5(f)(I) Ms. Everson has satISfIed all

14 reqUIrements concerrung exhaustion of administrative remedIes and all conditions

15 precedent to the institution of her claims

16

7 Paragraphs 1 through 10 of the Complaint flIed by the EEOC are

17 mcorporated by reference as If fully set forth herein.

18

LAIDLAW'S WRONGFUL CONDUCT

19

8. At all relevant times, Ms. Everson worked as a bus dnver for

20 Laidlaw.

21

9. Peter McCue worked for LaIdlaw as a District Manager. Mr.

22 McCue has a hIstory of dlscrnninating against female employees.

23

10 Laidlaw, through the actions and omissions of Mr. McCue and

24 otherwise, subjected Ms. Everson to disparate treatInent with respect to the terms

25 and conditions of her employment, including derual of her bids to dnve on

26 mountain trIPS, on the basis of her sex, female.

COMPLAINT BY PLAINTIFF IN

INTERVENTION SHERYL EVERSON

-2

Cause No C02-468Z

MUNDT MACGREGOR LLP

~TTORN[iS

'\1

L~W

999 TIurd A\enue SUlte4200 Seattle, Washmgton 98104-4082 Tel'phon, (206) 624-5950

1

11 Laidlaw's discrirrunatory conduct was Intentional and/ or

2 occurred WIth malice or with reckless Indifference to Ms. Everson's rights

3

12. As a result of LaIdlaw's conduct, Ms. Everson has suffered

4 damages, including emotional distress, in an amount to be proven at trIal.

5

13. Laidlaw knew, or in the exercise of ordinary care, should have

6 known of Mr McCue's unfItness for the District Manager posItion at the hme of Mr.

7 McCue's hiring and before he engaged in discrimination against Ms. Everson.

8 Laidlaw's hiring and retention of Mr. McCue proximately caused Injury to Ms.

9 Everson.

10

14 Laidlaw's conduct constitutes violations of Title VII, 42 U.S C

11 § 2000e et seq. and the Washington Law AgaInst DISCrimination, RCW Chapter

12 49 60. Laidlaw's conduct also constitutes neghgent Infliction of emotional distress,

13 and negligent hiring and retention.

14

RELIEF REQUESTED

15

WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests the following relief.

16

1. That plaintiff be awarded Judgment for all damages, Including

17 emotional distress damages, caused by LaIdlaw's conduct in an amount to be

18 deterrruned at trial,

19

2. That plainhff be awarded punitive damages,

20

3 That plaintiff be awarded her costs and attorneys' fees.

21

4. That plaintiff be awarded prejudgment and post-judgment

22 Interest at the rate provIded by law; and

23

5. That plaintiff be awarded such other and further relief as the

24 Court may deem just and proper.

25

26

COMPLAINT BY PLAINTIFF IN

INTERVENTION SHERYL EVERSON

-3

Cause No C02-468Z

MUNDT MACGREGOR LLP
999 Tlurd Avenue SUIte 4200 Seattle, Washmgton 98104-4082 T elephane (206) 624-5950

1

DATED tlus tlt!1day of May, 2002.

2

MUNDT MacGREGOR L.L.P.

3

4

~;1~ ByJa Zulauf

5

hNO:;277

JohnH.Chun

6

WSB No. 24767

Attorneys for Plaintiff in Intervention

7

8 \JCT\PLEADINGS\PCOMPLAINTININTERV-3336-00lA DOC
9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

COMPLAINT BY PLAINTIFF IN

INTERVENTION SHERYL EVERSON

-4

Cause No C02-468Z

MUNDT MACGREGOR LLP

ATTORN[YS

AT

LA\~

999 Third Avenue Swte 4200 Seattle, Washmgton 98104-4082 Telephone (206) 6U-5950

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

9

AT SEATTLE

10 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
11
PlaIntIff,
12
v.
13
LAIDLAW, INC., and LAIDLAW 14 EDUCATION SERVICES dba LAIDLAW
TRANSIT, INC.,
15
Defendant.
16

NO C02-468Z
DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY MAIL

17 SHERYL EVERSON,

18

PlaintIff in Intervenhon.

19

20

Sandra K. Lee, makes the following declaration.

21

I am over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the above action.

22

On May 31, 2002, I deposited in the malls of the Uruted States of

23 America a properly stamped and addressed envelope contaInIng a copy of

24 Complaint by Plamtiff in Intervention Sheryl Everson m the above-referenced

25 matter, addressed to

26

DECLARATION OF SERVICE Cause No C02-468Z

-1
MUNDT MACGREGOR. LLP

"TTOR'.J[)S

'IT

LA,W

999 Thlrd Avenue SUite 4200 Seattle, Washll1gron 98104-4082 Telephone ~206) 624-5950

,

1

Ms. Cheryl H. Middleton

ProACT LAW GROUP

2

18550 - 43rd Avenue Northeast

Seattle, Washington 98155

3

4

I declare under penalty of pelJury under the laws of the State of

5 Washington that the foregoing is true and correct.

6

L_I~r

DATED at Seattle, Washington this

day of May, 2002.

7

~L1..L

8

raK. Lee '

9

10 \SKL1,\PLEADINGS\PDECSERVMAIL-3306.()()1A DOC

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

DECLARATION OF SERVICE Cause No C02-468Z

-2
MUNDT MACGREGOR UP

ATTORN[Y~

\T

LA\\

999 ThIrd Avenue SUIte 4200 Seattle, Washmgton 98104-4082 Telephone (206) 624-5950

 11111111111 1/1 11111111/1111 /I 111/111111 III /1111 /I II 1111
111111111111111111111 1/11111111111111111
C\ 02-00468 i1000000-t2
4

t.PR 01 2003

5

6

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

8

AT SEATTLE

9

10

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

11

Plamtiff,

12 v.

13 LAIDLAW INC., and LAIDLAW

14

EDUCAnON SERVICES dba LAIDLAW TRANSIT, INC ,

15

Defendants

16

No C02-468Z ORDER

17
~ 18
K\f\ 19

SHERYL EVERSON, PlamtIff m Intervention

'V 20
( 21 22

INTRODUCTION THIS MATTER comes before the court on a motion for summary Judgment, docket

23 no. ~2, filed by defendants Laidlaw, Inc, and Laidlaw EducatlOnal Services domg business

24 as Laidlaw TranSit (heremafter both taken together as "Laidlaw") Laidlaw alleges that

25 plaintiff Equal Employment Opportumty ConurusslOn and plamtlffm mterventlOn Sheryl

26 Everson fail (I) to set forth a pnma faCie case of employment dlscnmmatlOn by disparate

ORDER -\-

1 treatment on the basIs of sex and (2) to state claims for negligent inflictIOn of emotIOnal

2 distress and negligent hinng. Plaintiffs have filed in oppositIOn, arguing that they have

3 satisfied their pnma faCie case of disparate treatment, but not opposmg defendant's motion to

4 dlSlruss claims of negligent hmng and neghgent mfllctlon of emotional distress. Havmg

5 reviewed the pleadings filed in support of and m oppOSition to the motIOn together with

6 relevant portions of the record, the Court finds and rules as follows.

7 BACKGROUND

8

Plamtiffs filed smt against Laidlaw allegmg claims of employment discrimmation on

9 the baSIS of sex under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U S.C. § 2000e et seq and the

10 Washington Law Agamst DlscrimmatlOn, R.C.W. Chapter 49.60, and claims negligent

11 inflictIOn of emotIOnal distress and negligent hiring.

12

Everson, fonnerly, for sixteen years, an employee of Laidlaw, drove school buses on

13 regular routes and charter buses on special "mountam tripS" Dunng her employment,

14 Everson received posItive Job perfonnance reviews. Chun Decl , docket no 28, at Ex E.

15 Everson's claim of sex discriminatIOn arises from her service as a bus dnver on a mountam

16 trip

17

Dnvmg on a mountain tnp is a deSirable assignment because more pay IS involved It

18 IS also a more challenging assignment Therefore, it IS Laidlaw's pohcy that only those

19 drivers who have received annual trammg are ehgible for mountain trips. Quahfied drivers

20 are put on a "ski qualification" list in order of semonty. Additionally, dnvers compete

21 agalllst one another by submlttlllg bids for each mountain trip In awarding mountalll triPS,

22 Laidlaw looks to semority and schedule accommodation Everson Dec!., docket no. 3 I, at

23 ~ 3

24

25

26

ORDER -2-

1

In February 2001, Laidlaw awarded Everson and two other bus drivers, Greg Mattlcs

2 and Anthony Lombardi, a mountalll trip from Seattle, Washington, to Antelope, Oregon I

3 Before departlllg, the drivers detennilled that their buses were unprepared. Accordlllgly, they

4 Illfonned the bus dispatcher and Distnct Manager Peter McCue that the buses reqUired

5 servlcillg. However, the buses were not serviced before the drivers departed for Antelope

6 Middleton Decl , docket no. 23, at Ex. F, 2-3.

7

During the trip, the dnvers expenenced difficult road conditions, and all three buses

8 suffered mechanical problems. Everson's bus expenenced brake problems, and the brakes

9 caught fire Lombardi's brake pads "glazed over," and Mattlcs's bus overheated and lost Oil.

10 After the drivers arrived III Antelope, Laidlaw delivered three replacement buses for the

11 return trip. Middleton Decl , docket no. 23, at Ex F, 2

12

While in Antelope, Everson telephoned McCue to inqUire about her paycheck.

13 According to Everson, an argument ensued dunng the telephone call after McCue called her

14 "incompetent." Chun Decl, docket no 28, at Exhibit A (Everson DepOSItIon at 148 6-13).

15 Everson contends that after she defended herself, McCue stated:

16

No female will ever stand up to me and get away with it You will never, ever

drive my eqUipment to any mountalll tnp again.

17

Id at 151 10-11. Although McCue admits having a telephone conversatIOn With Everson, he

18

denies having an argument and denies makmg the statements alleged by Everson Chun

19

Decl, docket no 28, at Exhibit B (McCue Deposition at 157:11-158 1).

20

After returnmg to Seattle, McCue Illfonned Everson and Lombardi that because they

21

Illlsused their brakes, they would be Illeliglble for future mountain trips until they received

22

"retramlllg" Id at 161.15-162:21. McCue detennilled that Mattics did not reqUire

23

24

25
I Although Everson and MattIcs had dnven on mountalll tnps pnor to the Antelope trip, 26 It is unclear from the pleadings whether Lombardi had pnor experience dnvlllg buses on
mountam tnps

ORDER -3-

1 "retraimng" because the mechanIcal problems he experienced were unrelated to brake

2 ll11suse. MIddleton Decl , docket no. 23, at ExhIbIt F, 2.

3

In its wntten pohcy for retraInIng, LaIdlaw dISCIplInes Its drivers who have a

4 "preventable aCCIdent or mishap" by requmng addItIOnal traInIng Chun Decl., docket no 28,

5 at Ex. J. McCue, however, testified that "retraInIng" Everson was not a dlsciphnary actIOn.

6 Chun Decl., docket no. 28, at ExhIbIt B (McCue Dep. at 167:lO-13)

7

Everson demes that she misused her brakes and alleges that a mechanic In Antelope

8 told her that the front brakes on her bus overheated because a "slack adjuster pin" was

9 ll11SSIng. Chun Dec!., docket no 28, at Exhibit A (Everson Dep at 126:8-25). After the

10 Antelope trIP, Everson pursued retraInIng but LaIdlaw faIled to follow its wntten pohcy and

11 never provided Everson retralmng

12

After the Antelope trIp, It IS unclear from the pleadIngs whether LombardI was able to

13 bId on mountaIn trIps Everson, however, bid on and was demed at least eight mountaIn

14 trips. !d. at 51 :20-54 17.

15

Everson contends that after the Antelope trip, LaIdlaw's contInued demal of her bId

16 for mountaIn trIpS demonstrates (1) that McCue followed through WIth hIs telephone

17 statement that she would not "get away WIth it" and "wIll never ... drIve my eqUIpment to

18 any mountaIn tnp agaIn" and (2) that, In its actions toward her, LaIdlaw dlscnll11nated on the

19 basis of sex.

20 DISCUSSION

21

A. Sex Discrimination

22

In order to overcome a motIon for summary Judgment In a sex discnmmation claIm

23 ansing from employment, a plamtiff must establish a prima faCie case of disparate treatment

24 under Title VII that gIves rise to an inference ofunlawful dIscrimInatIOn. Cordova v State Fann

25 Ins. Compames, 124 F 3d 1145, 1148 (9th Clr. 1997) Aprlmafacle case can be shown In one

26

ORDER -4-

1 oftwo ways' either through direct eVidence ofdlscnminatory mtent, or by satisfying the factors

2 set forth m McDonnell Douglas Corp. V Green, 411 U.S 792,802 (1973)

3

If the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the employer to rebut

4 the presumptIOn by producmg eVidence of a legltlllate, nondiscnmmatory reason for the

5 challenged actIOn. Id If the employer carnes thiS burden ofproduction, the plamtIffmust then

6 demonstrate that the proffered nondiscnmmatory reason IS merely a pretext for dlscnmmatlOn.

7 Lyons v. England, 307 F 3d 1092, 1112 (9th Cir. 2002).

8

1. Prima Facie Case

9

a McDonnell Douglas Factors

10

Everson may prove herprimafacie case through circumstantial eVidence, by showing that

11 (I) she belongs to a protected class, (2) she was performmg accordmg to her employer's

12 legitimate expectations, (3) she suffered an adverse employment action, and (4) slllilarly situated

13 male employees were treated more favorably. McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802; Godwin

14 v. Hunt Wesson. Inc., 150 F 3d 1217, 1220 (9th Clr 1998). Washington courts also follow the

15 McDonnell Douglas burden-shlftmg approach m analyzmg discnmmation claims. Marquis V

16 City of Spokane, 130 Wash.2d 97, 106 (1996)

17

In the present case, It is undisputed that Everson IS m a protected class, that she was

18 qualified and expenenced m dnving buses on mountain trips, and that, after the Antelope tnp,

19 she was derued mountam trips

20

The parties dispute whether Everson was treated less favorably than a similarly situated

21 male employee. Where a plamtIff seeks to establish the rrurumal prima faCie case by makmg

22 reference to the disparate treatment of other employees, those employees must have a Situation

23 sufficiently similar to plamtIfl's to support at least a mmimal mference that the difference of

24 treatment may be attributable to dlscnmmatlOn. Aragon v Republic Silver State Disposal. Inc.,

25 292 F 3d 654,660 (9th Clr. 2002) (cltmg McGuinness v Lmcoln Hall, 263 F.3d 49,53-54 (2nd

26 Clr 2001»

ORDER -5-

1

Laidlaw asserts that Everson was not treated less favorably than Lombardi, a Similarly

2 situated employee In ItS View, Everson and Lombardi are Similarly situated, not because oftheir

3 dnvmg expenence, but because of the conditIOn of their brakes after the Antelope tnp Chun

4 Dec!., docket no. 28, at Exhibit B (McCue Dep. at 162 19-21). Laidlaw contends that, because

5 both employees misused their brakes, It directed them to undergo retrammg before they would

6 be eligible for future mountam tnps. Id

7

Everson, however, asserts that Laidlaw treated her less favorably than MattIcs, who IS

8 snmlarly situated. She contends that Mathcs, not Lombardi, IS more Similarly situated because

9 MattIcs was a senior bus dnver, Mathcs' bus expenenced mechanical problems dunng the

10 Antelope tnp, and MattIcs bid on mountain tnps after the Antelope tnp Everson alleges that,

11 after the Antelope trip, she was treated less favorably than MattIcs During the SaIne time, both

12 Everson and MattIcs bid on mountam triPS, but Laidlaw awarded Mathcs tnps whIle persisting

13 in denyIng Everson tnps Chun Dec!, docket no. 28, at Exhibit A (Everson Dep at 54'7-14);

14 Everson Dec! , docket no. 31, at, 10

15

Further, Everson contends that Lombardi's employment situation is dissimilar to hers

16 because Lombardi had "slgmficantly less" expenence dnvmg on mountam trips than did

17 Everson ChunDecl., docket no 28, at ExhIbit C (Royal Dep. at 123 12-16) AlthoughEverson

18 admits that she and Lombardi expenenced brake problems, she contends that their brake

19 problems were different Everson asserts that her brake problems arose from the loss ofa slack

20 adjuster pin and that Lombardi's brake problems occurred because hIs brake pads were "glazed

21 over." Everson Decl., docket no. 31, at " 6, 7, Middleton Dec! , docket no. 23, at Ex F, 2.

22 Fmally, Everson argues that there remams a genuine Issue of material fact, namely, whether

23 Lombardi bid on mountam tnps after the Antelope tnp.

24

Because Everson has put forth sufficient circumstantial eVidence that gives rise to an

25 inference that she was treated less favorably than a similarly situated employee, she has met her

26 minlmalpnmafacleburdenunderMcDonnellDouglas WallIsv J R SlmplotCo ,26F 3d885,

ORDER -6-

1 889 (9th Clr 1994) (reqUIsIte degree of proof necessary to establIsh a prima facie case of

2 dlscnmmatlOn IS mInImal; plamtIff need only offer admIssible circumstantial eVIdence whIch

3 gIves nse to an inference of unlawful dlscrimmatlOn)

4

b. Direct EVIdence

5

AddItIonally, Everson contends that she has met her prima facie burden by dIrect

6 evidence. DIrect evidence of dIscnmmation is evidence that, "IfbelIeved, proves the fact of a

7 discrimmatory anImus WIthout mference or presumptIOn" Godwm, 150 F.3d at 1221 "SexIst"

8 statements constImte "dIrect evidence" of dlscnmmation. !d.

9

In the present case, McCue's alleged statement that "no female will ever stand up to me

10 and get away wIth It" IS dIrect evidence that suggests the eXIstence of bIas and reqUIres no

11 inference to find a dlscnminatory animus !d (findIng dIrect eVIdence when declSlon-maker who

12 derued plaintiff a POSItIon said that he "did not want to deal WIth another female"), Lindhal v.

13 AIr France, 930 F.2d 1434,1439 (9th Clr. 1991) (finding dIrect evidence when employer stated

14 that female candIdates get "nervous" and "upset")

15

In addItIOn, not only dId McCue dIrect the alleged statement to Everson, but hIS statement

16 IS allegedly tIed to LaIdlaw's denIal of mountam trips McCue's alleged statement, therefore,

17 IS not a "stray remark" that was "uttered m an ambivalentmamIer." Godwm, 150 F.3d at 1221;

18 cf NesbIt v Pepsico, Inc, 994 F 2d 703,705 (9th Clr. 1993) (findmg supefV1sor's comment,

19 "[w]e do not lIke grey hair" was weak circumstantIal eVIdence ofa discrimmatory anImus when

20 it was uttered m an ambIvalent manner and not tIed directly to employee's tennination).

21

Accordmgly, Everson has met her minImal prima faCie burden by settmg forth dIrect

22 eVIdence of a dlscnmmatory anImus

23

2. Laidlaw's Non-Discriminatory Reason

24

Because Everson has establIshed a prima faCie case, the burden shIfts to LaIdlaw to

25 artIculate a non-dlscnmmatoryreason for the employment actIOn. McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S

26 at 802 Laidlaw asserts that the condItIon of the brakes on buses dnven by Everson and

ORDER -7-

1 Lombardi mdlcated misuse, whereas the condition of the brakes on the bus dnven by Mattics,

2 who did not experience brake problems, did not mdlcate misuse. Laidlaw detenmned that the

3 condition of brakes served as the basIs for requmng retrammg of Everson and Lombardi before

4 It would penmt them to dnve on future mountam trips.

5

Smce Laidlaw has offered a non-dlscnminatory reason for denymg Everson mountain

6 trips, the burden shifts back to Everson to raise a genume Issue of fact whether Laidlaw's

7 proffered reason IS pretext for discrirnmation. Lyons, 307 F 3d at 1112.

8

3. Pretext

9

In evaluating whether the employer's articulated reason is pretextual, the same eVidence

10 that the plamtlff introduced to estabhsh her prima facie case IS considered. Sischo-Nownelad

11

F 2d 1104, 1111 (9th Clr. 1991) A plaintiffcan prove

12 pretext by relymg on additIOnal evidence in two ways' (1) mdlrectly, by showmg that the

13 employer's proffered explanatIOn is "unworthy of credence" because it IS internally mconslstent

14 or otherwise not behevable, or (2) directly, by showmg that unlawful discrinunatlOn more likely

15 motivated the employer. Godwm, 150 F 3d at 1220-22.

16

In the present case, Everson asserts that McCue's determmatlon that she misused her

17 brakes IS pretext for discrimmatlon and that McCue's actions were tantamount to sex

18 ruscriminatlon She sub1ll1ts circumstantial and direct eVidence ofpretext for dlscnmination, m

19 addition to the eVidence presented in her prima faCIe case.

20

Everson submits rurect eVidence to show an atmosphere ofsex ruscnmmatlOn at Laidlaw

21 ansmg from sex-based comments made by McCue to other female employees For example, m

22 her declaratIOn, Lyn Faunce states that over a two year penod, McCue made statements to her

23 that "[wJomen hke you can't keep their mouths shut," "[wJomen like you need to shut your trap,"

24 [wJomen never learn to hsten," and "[yJou' re a woman; you're not smart enough to understand"

25 Faunce Decl , docket no. 32, at ~ 3 In addition, Jo A1ll1e Royal, a branch manager at Laidlaw,

26

ORDER -8-

1 once overheard McCue refer to someone as "that bitch" Chun Decl , docket no. 28, at Exhibit

2 C (Royal Dep at 72.22-733) 2

3

Everson contends that McCue's own testimony reveals the dismgenuous nature of

4 McCue's determmatlOn that she misused her brakes and IS, therefore, pretext for Laidlaw's

5 dlscnminatorytreatlnent For example, McCue testified that he assumed Everson rode her brakes

6 mstead of pumpmg them but cannot recall anyone tellmg him how Everson used her brakes on

7 the Antelope trip. Chun Decl., docket no. 28, at Exhibit B (McCue Dep. at 140.7-13). McCue

8 testified that he never made a wntten record of his determinatIOn that Everson misused her

9 brakes, even though It was mconslstent with his pnor procedure !d. at 162:13-163.3. Further,

10 McCue testified that that he lacks mechamcal expertise With buses and that he planned to

11 examme Everson's bus, but never did so. fd at 135:3-5,159:26-160.20-24. Fmally, Everson

12 contends that, although McCue testified that he reviewed a "repair order" of Everson's bus that

13 showed the brakes were "burned up" and the "slack adjuster busted," Laidlaw has failed to

14 produce the alleged "repair order" despite outstanding discovery requests. !d at 13920-24.3

15

When direct or circumstantial evidence consists of more than the McDonnell Douglas

16 presumptIOn, a factual question will almost always eXist with respect to any claim of a

17 nondiscnmillatory reason. Sischo-NowneJad, 934 F 2d at 1111. Viewmg the evidence III the

18 hght most favorable to Everson, the Court finds that there remam genume Issues ofmatenal fact

19 that preclude summary Judgment.

20

B. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress and Negligent Hiring and Retention

21

Plamtlffs concede that they have no cause of action against Laidlaw under negligent

22 mflictlOn of emotional distress and neghgent hiring and retentIOn Accordmgly, the Court

23

24

25

2 Everson also submits declarations of former employees who offer direct eVidence of

raCially-based comments made by McCue.

26

3 Everson contends that Laidlaw has also failed to produce any documents relatlllg to the

condition ofthe brakes on the bus dnven by Lombardi

ORDER -9-

1 DISMISSES those claims m the Complamt ofPlaintiff-m-interventlOn Everson, docket no. II,

2 at ~~ 12, 13, and the second sentence m ~ 14.

3 CONCLUSION

4

For the foregomg reasons, Laldlaws motion for summaryjudgement IS GRANTED m part

5 and DENIED in part

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7

DATED this \ ~ day of Apnl, 2003.

8

9

10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER -10-

 II 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
11111111111111111111111111111111111
02-CV-00468-0RD

STATES DISTRICT COURT District of Washington

3

4

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

5

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

COMMISSION

6

v.

7

CASE NUMBER: C02-468Z

8

LAIDLAW, INC.

9

10

o Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a

11

trial by jury. The issues have been tried and the jury

has rendered its verdict.

12

13

Decision by Court. This action came to trial or

hearing before the Court. The issues have been tried

14

or heard and a decision has been rendered.

15

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED THAT

16

The Court enters findings of facts and conclusions of

17

law on the record and finds liability in favor of

plaintiff Everson and EEOC on plaintiffs' claims under

18

federal and state law.

19

The Court finds for defendant Laidlaw Transit, Inc.,

dba Laidlaw Education Services, a wholly owned

20

subsidiary of Laidlaw Transportation Corp. on the

issues of punitive damages and injunctive relief.

21

Plaintiff Everson is awarded judgment for $3,029.78

22

economic damages, and $30,000 in non-economic damages

with costs and attorneys' fees.

23

24

BRUCE RIFKIN, Clerk

25

26

July 22. 2003

Date

27

28

~~
By ~C~as~e4y--o'n-d-o-n------- Deput Clerk

 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Western District of Washington

2

3

4

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

5

COMMISSION

AMENDED JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

6

v.

CASE NUMBER: C02-468Z

7

LAIDLAW, INC.

8

+),

9

.)- Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a

trial by jury. The issues have been tried and the jury

10

has rendered its verdict.

11

+),

.X- Decision by Court. This action came to trial or

12

hearing before the Court. The issues have been tried

or heard and a decision has been rendered.

13

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED THAT

14

15

The Court enters findings of facts and conclusions of

law on the record and finds liability in favor of

16

plaintiff Everson and EEOC on plaintiffs’ claims under

federal and state law.

17

The Court finds for defendant Laidlaw Transit, Inc.,

18

dba Laidlaw Education Services, a wholly owned

subsidiary of Laidlaw Transportation Corp. on the

19

issues of punitive damages and injunctive relief.

20

Plaintiff Everson is awarded judgment for $3,029.78

economic damages, and $30,000 in non-economic damages

21

with costs and attorneys’ fees.

22

Plaintiff Everson is awarded $9,115 to offset the

additional federal income tax consequences arising from

23

the damages award.

24 BRUCE RIFKIN, Clerk
25

26

June 15, 2004

27

Date

28

/s/ Casey Condon By ______________________
Casey Condon Deputy Clerk

 Case 2:02-cv-00468-TSZ Document 147 Filed 08/11/05 Page 1 of 2

Case 2:02-cv-00468-TSZ Document 147 Filed 08/11/05 Page 2 of 2

 WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.4 - Docket Report

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?742143574623348-L_...

CLOSED, JURYDEMAND
U.S. District Court United States District Court for the Western District of Washington (Seattle)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:02-cv-00468-TSZ

EEOC v. Laidlaw Inc, et al Assigned to: Hon. Thomas S. Zilly Demand: $0 Case in other court: 03-35805
03-35817 03-35774, CCA Cause: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

Date Filed: 03/01/2002 Date Terminated: 07/22/2003 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by A Luis Lucero, Jr EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION SEATTLE DISTRICT OFFICE 909 FIRST AVE STE 400 SEATTLE, WA 98104-1061 206-220-6883 Email: LUIS.LUCERO@EEOC.GOV LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Carmen Flores EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION SEATTLE DISTRICT OFFICE 909 FIRST AVE STE 400 SEATTLE, WA 98104-1061 206-220-6883 Email: carmen.flores@eeoc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Sheryl Everson

represented by Jay H Zulauf HALL ZANZIG ZULAUF CLAFLIN MCEACHERN 1200 5TH AVE STE 1414 SEATTLE, WA 98101 206-292-5900 Fax: FAX 292-5901

1 of 14

4/26/2007 12:10 PM

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.4 - Docket Report

Intervenor Plaintiff Loraine M Everson
Intervenor Plaintiff Sheryl Everson

V. Defendant Laidlaw Inc

Defendant
Laidlaw Education Services doing business as Laidlaw Transit Inc

Date Filed

#

2 of 14

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?742143574623348-L_...
Email: jzulauf@hallzan.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John H Chun SUMMIT LAW GROUP 315 5TH AVE S STE 1000 SEATTLE, WA 98104 206-676-7000 Email: johnc@summitlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Jay H Zulauf (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John H Chun (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Cheryl Hintz Middleton PROACT LAW GROUP 18550 43RD AVE NE SEATTLE, WA 98155-4211 206-362-5763 Email: cmiddleton@proactlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Cheryl Hintz Middleton (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Docket Text
4/26/2007 12:10 PM

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.4 - Docket Report

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?742143574623348-L_...

03/01/2002 03/02/2002 03/11/2002 03/14/2002 03/21/2002 03/21/2002 04/24/2002 05/02/2002
05/02/2002 05/28/2002 05/31/2002 05/31/2002 06/13/2002 06/19/2002 07/13/2002

1 COMPLAINT and JURY TRIAL DEMANDED (Summons(es) issued) Receipt # fee waived (USA) (PM) (Entered: 03/05/2002)
2 PRAECIPE: by plaintiff EEOC re: amended cover sheet (CL) (Entered: 03/06/2002)
3 RETURN OF SERVICE of summons and complaint executed upon defendant Laidlaw Inc on 3/4/02 (CL) (Entered: 03/11/2002)
4 ORDER RE: INITIAL DISCLOSURES, JOINT STATUS REPORT AND EARLY SETTLEMENT. Joint Status Report due 4/24/02 (cc: counsel, Judge) (RY) (Entered: 03/14/2002)
5 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendant Laidlaw Inc, defendant Laidlaw Education by Cheryl Hintz Middleton (MH) (Entered: 03/22/2002)
6 ANSWER and Affirmative Defenses to complaint [1-1] by defendant Laidlaw Inc, defendant Laidlaw Education (MH) (Entered: 03/22/2002)
7 JOINT STATUS REPORT and discovery plan filed by all parties. Est. Trial Days: 10 (AF) (Entered: 04/26/2002)
8 ORDER REGARDING SCHEDULING Other Pretrial Matters by Judge Zilly: Jury trial set for 6/9/03 ; Deadline to Join Additional Parties is 5/30/02 ; Disclosure of expert testimony due: 12/11/02 ; Discovery Motion filing ddl 1/10/03 ; Discovery deadline set for 2/9/03 ; Dispositive Motions to be filed by 3/11/03 ; Settlement conf. per CR 39.1(c)(2) by 4/10/03 ; 39.1 designation effective 5/10/03 ; Motions in Limine du 5/12/03 ; Agreed Pretrial Order set for 5/28/03 ; Pretrial Conference set for 3:30 5/30/03 ; Trial briefs and exhibits to be submitted by 6/4/03 ; Proposed Voir dire/jury instructions 6/4/03 ; Length of Trial: 10 days (cc: counsel, Judge) (AF) (Entered: 05/02/2002)
9 MINUTE ORDER DESIGNATING CASE FOR MEDIATION by Judge Thomas S. Zilly; mediation shall be completed no later than 30 days prior to the trial date (cc: counsel, Judge) (AF) (Entered: 05/02/2002)
LODGED ORDER: AGREED MOTION AND {PROPOSED} ORDER ALLOWING SHERYL EVERSON TO INTERVENE AS PLAINTIFF (LS) (Entered: 05/29/2002)
10 ORDER ALLOWING SHERYL EVERSON TO INTERVENE AS PLTF by Judge Thomas S. Zilly (cc: counsel, Judge) (CL) (Entered: 05/31/2002)
11 COMPLAINT: Intervention by intervenor-plaintiff Sheryl Everson (CL) (Entered: 06/03/2002)
12 NOTICE of Unavailability of counsel Cheryl Hintz Middleton for defendant Laidlaw Education from 6/29/02 to 7/13/02, 8/5/02 to 8/9/02, 8/14/02 to 8/23/02 (CL) (Entered: 06/14/2002)
13 ANSWER, DEFENSES AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES to complaint [11-1] by defendant Laidlaw Inc, defendant Laidlaw Education (CL) (Entered: 06/20/2002)
14 AMENDED NOTICE of Unavailability of counsel Carmen Flores for plaintiff EEOC from 7/15/02 to 7/19/02 and from 8/21/02 to 8/30/02 (AF) (Entered:

3 of 14

4/26/2007 12:10 PM

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.4 - Docket Report

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?742143574623348-L_...

08/14/2002 08/16/2002 01/09/2003 01/09/2003 01/09/2003 01/21/2003
01/21/2003
01/21/2003
01/23/2003 01/23/2003
01/23/2003 01/23/2003
01/23/2003
01/24/2003 01/24/2003
02/01/2003

07/16/2002)
LODGED STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER (CL) (Entered: 08/15/2002)
15 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER by Judge Thomas S. Zilly (cc: counsel, Judge) (AF) (Entered: 08/16/2002)
16 MOTION by plaintiff to compel responses to first set of discovery requests to dft NOTED FOR 1/24/03. (FILED UNDER SEAL) (CL) (Entered: 01/10/2003)
17 DECLARATION of Mark A. Wilner by plaintiff (FILED UNDER SEAL) (CL) (Entered: 01/10/2003)
LODGED ORDER: re: motion to compel responses to first set of discovery requests to dft [16-1]. (FILED UNDER SEAL) (CL) (Entered: 01/10/2003)
18 MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION/RESPONSE by defendants to motion to compel responses to first set of discovery requests to dft [16-1]. (FILED UNDER SEAL) (CL) (Entered: 01/22/2003)
18 MOTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT by defendants to strike portions of Everson's memorandum to compel and exhibits NOTED FOR 1/24/03. (FILED UNDER SEAL) (CL) (Entered: 01/22/2003)
19 DECLARATION of Cheryl Hintz Middleton by defendants in opposition to motion to compel responses to first set of discovery requests to dft [16-1]. (FILED UNDER SEAL) (CL) (Entered: 01/22/2003)
20 REPLY by plaintiff Sheryl Everson re: [16-1]. (FILED UNDER SEAL) (CL) (Entered: 01/27/2003)
21 DECLARATION of Mark A. Wilner by plaintiff Sheryl Everson re motion to compel responses to first set of discovery requests to dft [16-1]. (FILED UNDER SEAL) (CL) (Entered: 01/27/2003)
LODGED ORDER: re: motion to compel responses to first set of discovery requests to dft [16-1]. (FILED UNDER SEAL) (CL) (Entered: 01/27/2003)
22 MOTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT by defendant for summary judgment of dismissal and request for atty fees. NOTED FOR 2/14/03. (FILED UNDER SEAL) (CL) Modified on 01/27/2003 (Entered: 01/27/2003)
23 DECLARATION of Cheryl Hintz Middleton by defendant re motion for summary judgment of dismissal and request for atty fees. [22-1](FILED UNDER SEAL) (CL) (Entered: 01/27/2003)
24 PRAECIPE: by defendant re: attaching exhibits D & E declaration [23-1] (CL) (Entered: 01/27/2003)
LODGED ORDER: re: motion for summary judgment of dismissal and request for atty fees. [22-1] (FILED UNDER SEAL (CL) Modified on 02/11/2003 (Entered: 01/27/2003)
25 NOTICE of Unavailability of counsel Cheryl Hintz Middleton for defendant Laidlaw Inc from 2/15/03 to 2/24/03 (CL) (Entered: 02/04/2003)

4 of 14

4/26/2007 12:10 PM

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.4 - Docket Report

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?742143574623348-L_...

02/03/2003
02/10/2003 02/10/2003
02/10/2003 02/10/2003 02/10/2003 02/10/2003 02/10/2003 02/10/2003 02/10/2003 02/13/2003
02/13/2003
03/05/2003 03/17/2003 03/17/2003
03/27/2003 03/27/2003 03/27/2003

26 ORDER by Judge Thomas S. Zilly GRANTING motion to compel responses to first set of discovery requests to dft [16-1] (cc: counsel, Judge). (FILED UNDER SEAL) (CL) (Entered: 02/04/2003)
LODGED STIPULATION AND ORDER (CL) (Entered: 02/11/2003)
27 MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION/RESPONSE by plaintiffs to motion for summary judgment of dismissal and request for atty fees. [22-1]. (FILED UNDER SEAL) (CL) Modified on 02/11/2003 (Entered: 02/11/2003)
28 DECLARATION of John H. Chun by plaintiffs (FILED UNDER SEAL) (CL) Modified on 02/11/2003 (Entered: 02/11/2003)
29 DECLARATION of Jennyfer Schaubel by plaintiffs (CL) Modified on 02/11/2003 (Entered: 02/11/2003)
30 DECLARATION of Carmen Flores by plaintiffs (CL) Modified on 02/11/2003 (Entered: 02/11/2003)
31 DECLARATION of Sheryl Everson by plaintiffs (CL) Modified on 02/11/2003 (Entered: 02/11/2003)
32 DECLARATION of Lyn Faunce by plaintiffs (CL) Modified on 02/11/2003 (Entered: 02/11/2003)
LODGED ORDER: re: motion for summary judgment of dismissal and request for atty fees. [22-1] (CL) Modified on 02/11/2003 (Entered: 02/11/2003)
33 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by plaintiffs of motion response [27-1],. etc. (CL) Modified on 02/11/2003 (Entered: 02/11/2003)
34 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Thomas S. Zilly. Pursuant to the Stipulation of the parties, it is hereby ORDERED: discovery ddl extended 4/15/03 (cc: counsel, Judge) (CL) (Entered: 02/13/2003)
35 REPLY by defendants TO RESPONSE to motion for summary judgment of dismissal and request for atty fees. [22-1]. (FILED UNDER SEAL) (CL) (Entered: 02/14/2003)
36 NOTICE by Judge Martinez OF Settlement Conference set for 9:00 4/3/03; brief due 4/1/03 (cc: all counsel) (VK) (Entered: 03/06/2003)
37 LETTER (dated 2/5/03) by plaintiff EEOC re: refering this case to Mag. Judge RS Martinez. (CL) (Entered: 03/18/2003)
38 ORDER by Judge Thomas S. Zilly. Case referred to Magistrate Judge Ricardo S. Martinez to contact one or more settlement conferences. (cc: counsel, Judge, Cc, RSM, In-Crt.) (CL) (Entered: 03/18/2003)
39 MOTION by intervenor-plaintiff for Rule 37 relief NOTED FOR 4/11/03 (VK) (Entered: 03/28/2003)
40 DECLARATION of Mark A. Wilner by intervenor-plaintiff re motion for Rule 37 relief [39-1] (VK) (Entered: 03/28/2003)
LODGED ORDER: re: motion for Rule 37 relief [39-1] (VK) (Entered: 03/28/2003)

5 of 14

4/26/2007 12:10 PM

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.4 - Docket Report

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?742143574623348-L_...

03/27/2003 03/27/2003 04/01/2003
04/08/2003 04/08/2003
04/10/2003 04/10/2003 04/14/2003 04/24/2003
04/30/2003 05/09/2003 05/12/2003 05/12/2003 05/13/2003 05/13/2003 05/13/2003 05/19/2003
05/19/2003

(proposed alternative) LODGED ORDER: re: motion for Rule 37 relief [39-1] (VK) (Entered: 03/28/2003)
41 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by intervenor-plaintiff motion for Rule 37 relief [39-1] etc. (VK) (Entered: 03/28/2003)
42 ORDER by Judge Thomas S. Zilly GRANTING AND DENYING IN PART dft Laidlaw's motion for summary judgment of dismissal and request for atty fees. [22-1] (cc: counsel, Judge) (CL) (Entered: 04/02/2003)
43 MEMORANDUM by defendants in opposition to motion for Rule 37 relief [39-1]. (FILED UNDER SEAL) (CL) (Entered: 04/09/2003)
44 DECLARATION of Cheryl Hintz Middleton by defendant in opposition to motion for Rule 37 relief [39-1]. (FILED UNDER SEAL) (CL) (Entered: 04/09/2003)
LODGED STIPULATION AND ORDER (CL) (Entered: 04/11/2003)
45 REPLY by intervenor-plaintiff TO RESPONSE to motion for Rule 37 relief [39-1] (CL) (Entered: 04/11/2003)
46 STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Thomas S. Zilly: discovery ddl extended to 5/15/03 (cc: counsel, Judge) (LS) (Entered: 04/15/2003)
47 ORDER by Judge Thomas S. Zilly GRANTING pltf's motion for Rule 37 relief [39-1]. Pltf in intervention is awarded reasonable attys' fees in an amount of $500.00 to be paid w/in (10) days of this Order. (cc: counsel, Judge) (CL) (Entered: 04/24/2003)
48 LETTER by intervenor-plaintiff re: order [47-1] and request for an earlier status conference. (CL) (Entered: 05/02/2003)
49 LETTER by Mag. Judge RS Martinez re settlement conference is scheduled at 9:00am on 5/21/03. (CL) (Entered: 05/12/2003)
50 MOTION by plaintiff in limine re unrelated union grievances of Sheryl Everson NOTED FOR 5/30/03 (VK) (Entered: 05/13/2003)
LODGED ORDER: re: motion in limine re unrelated union grievances of Sheryl Everson [50-1] (VK) (Entered: 05/13/2003)
51 MOTIONS by defendants in limine NOTED FOR 5/30/03. (FILED UNDER SEAL) (CL) Modified on 05/15/2003 (Entered: 05/15/2003)
52 DECLARATION of Cheryl Hintz Middleton by defendant re motion in limine [51-1]. (FILED UNDER SEAL) (CL) (Entered: 05/15/2003)
LODGED ORDER: re: motion in limine [51-1]. (FILED UNDER SEAL) (CL) (Entered: 05/15/2003)
53 NOTICE of Unavailability of counsel Cheryl Hintz Middleton for defendant Laidlaw Inc from 6/27/03 to 7/5/03, from 7/24/03 to 8/8/03, from 8/25/03 to 9/3/03. (CL) (Entered: 05/20/2003)
54 RESPONSE by defendants to motion in limine re unrelated union grievances of Sheryl Everson [50-1] (CL) (Entered: 05/20/2003)

6 of 14

4/26/2007 12:10 PM

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.4 - Docket Report

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?742143574623348-L_...

05/19/2003 05/19/2003 05/19/2003 05/19/2003 05/22/2003 05/23/2003 05/23/2003 05/23/2003 05/23/2003 05/28/2003 05/28/2003 05/30/2003
06/03/2003
06/04/2003 06/04/2003 06/05/2003 06/05/2003 06/06/2003

55 RESPONSE by plaintiff Sheryl Everson to motions in limine [51-1]. (FILED UNDER SEAL) (CL) (Entered: 05/20/2003)
56 DECLARATION of John H. Chun by plaintiff Sheryl Everson in opposition to motion in limine [51-1]. (FILED UNDER SEAL) (CL) (Entered: 05/20/2003)
LODGED ORDER: re: denying motions in limine [51-1]. (FILED UNDER SEAL) (CL) Modified on 05/20/2003 (Entered: 05/20/2003)
57 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by plaintiff of motion response [55-1], etc. (CL) (Entered: 05/20/2003)
58 REPLY by plaintiffs TO RESPONSE to motion in limine re unrelated union grievances of Sheryl Everson [50-1] (CL) (Entered: 05/23/2003)
59 REPLY by defendants TO RESPONSE to motion in limine [51-1]. (FILED UNDER SEAL) (CL) (Entered: 05/27/2003)
60 DECLARATION of Cheryl Hintz Middleton by defendants re motion in limine [51-1]. (FILED UNDER SEAL) (CL) (Entered: 05/27/2003)
LODGED ORDER: re: motion in limine [51-1](FILED UNDER SEAL)(CL) Modified on 05/27/2003 (Entered: 05/27/2003)
61 MINUTE ORDER by Judge Thomas S. Zilly pretrial conf moved to 11:00 5/30/03 (cc: counsel, Judge) (CL) (Entered: 05/27/2003)
62 PRAECIPE: by defendant to attach enclosed pages to re: declaration [60-1] (CL) (Entered: 05/30/2003)
LODGED PRETRIAL ORDER (CL) (Entered: 05/30/2003)
68 MINUTES: TSZ; Dep Clerk: CC; CR: N/A; Counsel Present: Flores, Healy, Chun, Wilner, Middleton, Wereschj-Doornick; pretrial conf held 11:00 5/30/03 , jury trial set for 9:00 6/11/03 ; Court UNSEALS Motions in Limine; GRANTING motion in limine [51-1] with the exception of exhibit 100, GRANTING motion in limine re unrelated union grievances of Sheryl Everson [50-1] (LS) (Entered: 06/11/2003)
69 MINUTES OF PRETRIAL CONFERENCE: TSZ; Dep Clerk: CC; CR: N/A; Counsel Present: Flores, Healy, Chun, Wilner, Middleton, Weresch-Doornink; parties stipulate to trial without jury; court signs Pretrial Order; Proposed findings of fact and conslusions of law are due 1st day of trial (LS) (Entered: 06/11/2003)
63 ORDER by Judge Thomas S. Zilly GRANTING IN PART dfts' motion in limine [51-1] (cc: counsel, Judge) (CL) (Entered: 06/05/2003)
64 TRIAL BRIEF submitted by plaintiff EEOC (CL) (Entered: 06/05/2003)
65 PRE-TRIAL ORDER approved by Judge Thomas S. Zilly : (cc: counsel, Judge) (CL) (Entered: 06/06/2003)
66 TRIAL BRIEF submitted by defendants (CL) (Entered: 06/06/2003)
67 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA of Jan Gaiter,Glenn Sterley,Jan Wallace on 6/4/03 (RS) (Entered: 06/09/2003)

7 of 14

4/26/2007 12:10 PM

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.4 - Docket Report

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?742143574623348-L_...

06/10/2003 06/10/2003 06/10/2003 06/11/2003 06/11/2003 06/11/2003 06/12/2003 06/13/2003 06/19/2003
06/20/2003
07/22/2003

70 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OF SUBPOENA of Jennifer Davis on 6/5/03 (LS) (Entered: 06/11/2003)
71 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OF SUBPOENA of Bonita Johnson on 6/5/03 (LS) (Entered: 06/11/2003)
72 LAIDLAW'S CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by defendant Laidlaw Education, defendant Laidlaw Inc (LS) (Entered: 06/11/2003)
LODGED Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (LS) (Entered: 06/11/2003)
LODGED ORDER: findings of fact and conclusions (RS) (Entered: 06/12/2003)
73 MINUTES: TSZ; Dep Clerk: Elva McGregor; CR: Sue Palmerton ; first day of trial. Opening statements; testimony for pltfs; witnesses testify; exhibits admitted (RS) (Entered: 06/12/2003)
74 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA of Cheryl Middleton on 6/7/03 (KERR) (Entered: 06/16/2003)
75 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE OF DEPOSITION SUBPOENA of Connie Puryear, agent for National Registered Agents, Inc. on 6/9/03 (LS) (Entered: 06/17/2003)
76 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Thomas S. Zilly - held on 6/19/03.Dep Clerk: C. Condon; CR: Sue Palmerton; Counsel: Flores/Healy/Chun/Wilner/Middleton/Doornink ;Bench Trial Day 3; witnesses sworn and testified; exhibits admitted; court to resume at 9:00 a.m. 6/20/03 (LS, ) (Entered: 06/27/2003)
77 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Thomas S. Zilly - Dep Clerk: KC; CR: Sue Palmerton; Pla Counsel: Carmen Flores, Teri Healy, John Chun, Mark Wilner; Def Counsel: Cheryl Middleton, Eileen Weresch Doornink.COURT TRIAL - Day 4. Henry Kevin Mest resumes the stand.Ron English is sworn and testifies. The following exhibits are admitted: 59 and A-41,A-77,A-78,A-79. The Court hears closing argument from counsel.The Court enters findings of fact and conclusions of law on the record and finds liability in favor of plaintiff Everson and EEOC on plaintiffs' claims under federal and state law.The Court finds for defendant Laidlaw Transit,Inc., dba Laidlaw Education Services, a wholly owned subsidiary of Laidlaw Transportation Corp. on the issues of punitive damages and injunctive relief.Plaintiff Everson is awarded judgment for $3,029.78 economic damages, and $30,000 in non-economic damages together with costs and attorneys' fees. (CC, ) (Entered: 07/17/2003)
78 JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE/DECISION BY THE COURT. IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: Jgm in favor of pltf Everson and EEOC on pltfs' claims under federal and state law. The Court finds for dfts Laidlaw Transit, Inc., on the issues of punitive damages and injunctive relief. Pltf Everson is awarded jgm for $3,029.78 economic damages, and $30,000 in non-economic damages with costs and attys' fees. Signed by Judge Thomas S. Zilly. (CL, ) (Entered: 07/24/2003)

8 of 14

4/26/2007 12:10 PM

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.4 - Docket Report

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?742143574623348-L_...

08/07/2003 08/07/2003 08/07/2003 08/07/2003 08/07/2003 08/07/2003 08/07/2003 08/07/2003 08/07/2003 08/19/2003
08/19/2003 08/19/2003
08/20/2003

79 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs by Intervenor Plaintiff Sheryl Everson. Noting Date 8/22/2003. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Chun, John) (Entered: 08/07/2003)
80 MOTION to Amend Judgment To Offset Adverse Tax Consequences by Intervenor Plaintiff Sheryl Everson. Noting Date 8/22/2003. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Chun, John) (Entered: 08/07/2003)
81 DECLARATION of John H. Chun re 79 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs by Intervenor Plaintiff Sheryl Everson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibits A M)(Chun, John) (Entered: 08/07/2003)
82 DECLARATION re 79 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs by Intervenor Plaintiff Sheryl Everson. (Chun, John) (Entered: 08/07/2003)
83 DECLARATION of Lonnie Avery re 80 MOTION to Amend Judgment To Offset Adverse Tax Consequences by Intervenor Plaintiff Sheryl Everson. (Chun, John) (Entered: 08/07/2003)
84 CERTIFICATE of Service re 79 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs, 80 MOTION to Amend Judgment To Offset Adverse Tax Consequences, 81 Declaration, 82 Declaration, 83 Declaration by Intervenor Plaintiff Sheryl Everson. (Chun, John) (Entered: 08/07/2003)
85 BILL OF COSTS by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Noting Date 8/18/2003. (SH, ) (Entered: 08/14/2003)
87 DECLARATION of Teri Healy filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 85 BILL OF COSTS. (SH, ) (Entered: 08/14/2003)
88 DECLARATION of Carmen Flores filed by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission re 85 BILL OF COSTS. (SH, ) (Entered: 08/14/2003)
96 MEMORANDUM/RESPONSE to Motion and Motion to Strike Declaration of Lonnie Avery filed by Defendants Laidlaw Education Services, Laidlaw Inc in opposition to 80 PLAINTIFF IN INTERVENTION'S MOTION to Amend Judgment To Offset Adverse Tax Consequences (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Temp4, ) (Entered: 08/22/2003)
97 MEMORANDUM/RESPONSE to Motion filed by Defendants Laidlaw Education Services, Laidlaw Inc in opposition to 79 PLAINTIFF IN INTERVENTION'S MOTION for Attorneys' Fees and Costs (Temp4, ) (Entered: 08/22/2003)
98 DECLARATION of Cheryl Hintz Middleton and Exhibit A-D filed by Defendants Laidlaw Education Services, Laidlaw Inc in support of 97 Memorandum/Response in Opposition to Plaintiff in Intervention's Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit E-G)(Temp4, ) (Entered: 08/22/2003)
99 RESPONSE by Defendant Laidlaw Inc re 85 BILL OF COSTS by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (Attachments: # 1 proposed order# 2 proposed order (granting in part)# 3 certif of svc)(RS, ) (Entered: 08/25/2003)

9 of 14

4/26/2007 12:10 PM

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.4 - Docket Report

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?742143574623348-L_...

08/20/2003 08/21/2003 08/21/2003
08/21/2003 08/21/2003 08/21/2003 08/21/2003 08/21/2003 08/22/2003 08/22/2003 08/22/2003 08/28/2003 09/04/2003 09/12/2003 09/22/2003

100 DECLARATION of Cheryl Hintz Middleton re 99 Response by Defendant Laidlaw Inc. (RS, ) (Entered: 08/25/2003)
89 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Intervenor Plaintiff Sheryl Everson re 80 MOTION to Amend Judgment To Offset Adverse Tax Consequences (Chun, John) (Entered: 08/21/2003)
90 DECLARATION of Mark A. Wilner re 89 Reply to Response to Motion To Amend Judgment To Offset Adverse Tax Consequences by Intervenor Plaintiff Sheryl Everson. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - B# 2 Exhibit C - D)(Chun, John) (Entered: 08/21/2003)
91 REPLY to Response to Motion filed by Intervenor Plaintiff Sheryl Everson re 79 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs (Chun, John) (Entered: 08/21/2003)
92 DECLARATION of John H. Chun re 91 Reply to Response to Motion For Attorneys' Fees and Costs by Intervenor Plaintiff Sheryl Everson. (Chun, John) (Entered: 08/21/2003)
93 DECLARATION of Carmen Flores re 92 Declaration, 91 Reply to Response to Motion For Attorneys' Fees and Costs by Intervenor Plaintiff Sheryl Everson. (Chun, John) (Entered: 08/21/2003)
94 DECLARATION of Stephen P. Connor re 79 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs, 91 Reply to Response to Motion For Attorneys Fees and Costs by Intervenor Plaintiff Sheryl Everson. (Chun, John) (Entered: 08/21/2003)
95 CERTIFICATE of Service re 92 Declaration, 93 Declaration, 94 Declaration, 89 Reply to Response to Motion, 90 Declaration, 91 Reply to Response to Motion by Intervenor Plaintiff Sheryl Everson. (Chun, John) (Entered: 08/21/2003)
85MOTION BILL OF COSTS by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission REFERRED to Clerk of Court Bruce Rifkin (CL, ) (Entered: 08/22/2003)
101 REPLY by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in support of application for costs. (Attachments: # 1 certif of svc)(RS, ) (Entered: 08/25/2003)
102 SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION of Carmen Flores re 101 Reply by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (RS, ) (Entered: 08/25/2003)
103 ORDER granting 85 Motion for Bill of Costs - Costs taxed against defendants Laidlaw and on behalf of plaintiff EEOC in the amount of $1,035.54 by Clerk U.S. District Court Bruce Rifkin. (Rifkin, Bruce) (Entered: 08/28/2003)
104 ORDER deferring ruling on pltf in intervention's mtn 80 to Amend Judgment. Signed by Judge Thomas S. Zilly. (CL, ) (Entered: 09/05/2003)
105 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 79 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs filed by Sheryl Everson by Judge Thomas S. Zilly. (RS, ) (Entered: 09/15/2003)
106 NOTICE OF APPEAL (03-35774)as to 42 Order, [77] Minute Entry, 78 Judgment, by Defendants Laidlaw Education Services, Laidlaw Inc. (ZG, ) Modified on 9/24/2003 (ZG, ). Modified on 9/29/2003 (ZG, ). (Entered: 09/23/2003)

10 of 14

4/26/2007 12:10 PM

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.4 - Docket Report

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?742143574623348-L_...

09/22/2003
09/23/2003
09/23/2003 09/23/2003 09/25/2003 10/02/2003
10/06/2003 10/06/2003 10/06/2003 10/06/2003
10/06/2003
10/06/2003 10/08/2003 10/14/2003 10/14/2003 10/23/2003

Appeal Fees received: fee in the amount of $ 105.00 (receipt # 603910) re 106 Notice of Appeal filed by Laidlaw Inc, Laidlaw Education Services (ZG, ) (Entered: 09/23/2003)
Civil Appeals Docketing Statement, by Defendants Laidlaw Education Services, Laidlaw Inc, forwarded to the Mediator's Office in Seattle. (ZG, ) (Entered: 09/23/2003)
APPEAL NOTIFICATION packet sent to US Court of Appeals re 106 Notice of Appeal (ZG, ) (Entered: 09/24/2003)
108 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Defendants Laidlaw Education Services, Laidlaw Inc re 106 Notice of Appeal. (ZG, ) (Entered: 09/30/2003)
USCA Case Number CCA for 106 Notice of Appeal filed by Laidlaw Inc, Laidlaw Education Services. (ZG, ) (Entered: 09/29/2003)
109 NOTICE OF CROSS-APPEAL (03-35805) as to 78 Judgment, by Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (cc: CCA, counsel) (SA, ) Modified on 10/21/2003 (SA, ). (Entered: 10/06/2003)
Appeal Fees NOT received: (fee waived) re 109 Notice of Appeal filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (SA, ) (Entered: 10/06/2003)
110 APPEAL NOTIFICATION packet sent to US Court of Appeals re 109 Notice of Appeal (Attachments: # 1(SA, ) (Entered: 10/06/2003)
111 CERTIFICATE of Service by Intervenor Plaintiff Sheryl Everson. (Chun, John) (Entered: 10/06/2003)
112 NOTICE OF CROSS-APPEAL (03-35817)as to [77] Minute Entry 78 Judgment, 105 Order, Terminate Motions by Intervenor Plaintiff Sheryl Everson. (SA, ) Modified on 10/8/2003 (SA, ). Modified on 10/21/2003 (SA, ). (Entered: 10/08/2003)
Appeal Fees received: fee in the amount of $ 105.00 (receipt # 603960) re 112 Notice of Appeal filed by Intervenor Plaintiff Sheryl Everson (SA, ) (Entered: 10/08/2003)
Civil Appeals Docketing Statement, by Intervenor Plaintiff Sheryl Everson, forwarded to the Mediator's Office in Seattle. (SA, ) (Entered: 10/08/2003)
113 APPEAL NOTIFICATION packet sent to US Court of Appeals re 112 Notice of Cross-Appeal by Intervenor Plt. Everson. (SA, ) (Entered: 10/08/2003)
USCA Case Number 03-35817 for 112 Notice of Appeal filed by Sheryl Everson. (SA, ) (Entered: 10/21/2003)
USCA Case Number 03-35805 for 109 Notice of Appeal filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (SA, ) (Entered: 10/21/2003)
115 TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION FORM by Plaintiff Sheryl Everson (Notice of Cross-Appeal) for proceedings held on 6/11/03 & 6/20/03 Requesting Attorney: Cheryl Hintz Middleton. (SA, ) (Entered: 10/30/2003)

11 of 14

4/26/2007 12:10 PM

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.4 - Docket Report

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?742143574623348-L_...

11/01/2003 11/12/2003 12/08/2003 12/09/2003 01/30/2004 01/30/2004
02/02/2004 02/02/2004 02/20/2004 04/01/2004 04/01/2004 04/06/2004 04/09/2004

116 TRANSCRIPT DESINATION by Plaintiffs Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Sheryl Everson, Intervenor Plaintiff Loraine M Everson Requesting Attorney: Carmen Flores. No transcripts to be ordered. (SA, ) (Entered: 11/05/2003)
117 CERTIFICATE OF RECORD Transmitted to USCA re 109 Notice of Cross-Appeal filed by EEOC. (SA, ) (Entered: 11/12/2003)
118 STIPULATION(Agreed mtn) AND ORDER by Judge Thomas S. Zilly. IT IS SO ORDERED: The supersedeas bond in the amount of $275,000.00 is hereby approved and is now posted. Judgment enforcement is hereby stayed. (Attachments: # 1supersedeas bond)(CL, ) (Entered: 12/10/2003)
119 Supersedeas Bond in the amount of $275,000.00 posted by Laidlaw Education Services, Laidlaw Inc. Power of atty attached. (CL, ) (Entered: 12/10/2003)
120 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings filed for the following date(s): 1/30/04 before Judge Thomas S. Zilly, Trial Vol. 1 (re 109 Notice of Appeal, 112 Notice of Appeal, 106 Notice of Appeal) Court Reporter: S. Palmerton. (Attachments: # 1 pgs 51-100# 2 pgs 101-156# 3 pgs 157-214)(ZG, ) (Entered: 02/04/2004)
121 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings filed for the following date(s): 6/12/03 trial Vol. 2 before Judge Thomas S. Zilly, (re 109 Notice of Appeal, 112 Notice of Appeal, 106 Notice of Appeal) Court Reporter: S. Palmerton. (Attachments: # 1 pgs 272-324# 2 pgs 324-377)(ZG, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/4/2004 (ZG, ). (Entered: 02/04/2004)
122 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings filed for the following date(s): 6/19/03 Trial(Vol. 3) before Judge Thomas S. Zilly, (re 109 Notice of Appeal, 112 Notice of Appeal, 106 Notice of Appeal) Court Reporter: S. Palmerton. (ZG, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/9/2004 (ZG, ). (Entered: 02/09/2004)
123 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings filed for the following date(s): 6/20/03 Trial (Vol.4) before Judge Thomas S. Zilly, (re 109 Notice of Appeal, 112 Notice of Appeal, 106 Notice of Appeal) Court Reporter: S. Palmerton. (ZG, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 2/9/2004 (ZG, ). (Entered: 02/09/2004)
124 NOTICE of Unavailability of counsel Cheryl Hintz Middleton for Defendants Laidlaw Education Services, Laidlaw Inc from 2/18/2004 to 3/1/2004 and from 4/14/2004 to 4/26/2004. (AF, ) (Entered: 02/24/2004)
125 NOTICE by Intervenor Plaintiff Sheryl Everson of Decision in Blaney Case (Chun, John) (Entered: 04/01/2004)
126 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Intervenor Plaintiff Sheryl Everson re 125 Notice-Other. (Chun, John) (Entered: 04/01/2004)
127 MINUTE ORDER is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable Thomas S. Zilly.The Court sets a Status Conference for 4/15/2004 11:00 AM before Hon. Thomas S. Zilly.(CL, ) (Entered: 04/06/2004)
Set/Reset Hearings: At the request of counsel, the status conference set for April 15, 2004 is continued to Wednesday, April 28, 2004 at 1:00 p.m. before Hon. Thomas S. Zilly. (CC) (Entered: 04/09/2004)

12 of 14

4/26/2007 12:10 PM

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.4 - Docket Report

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?742143574623348-L_...

04/09/2004 04/15/2004 04/22/2004 04/23/2004 04/23/2004 04/28/2004
05/04/2004
05/11/2004 05/11/2004 05/11/2004 05/20/2004 05/20/2004 05/21/2004 05/24/2004 05/24/2004

128 SUPPLEMENTAL IN OPPOSITION filed by Defendant Laidlaw Inc re 80 MOTION to Amend Judgment To Offset Adverse Tax Consequences (CL, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 4/22/2004 (LT, ). (Entered: 04/13/2004)
129 Letter from Cheryl Hintz Middleton re filing of Senate Bill 6270 as an attachment to 128 Response to Motion. (LT, ) (Entered: 04/22/2004)
Set/Reset Hearings: The status conference scheduled April 28, 2004 at 1:00 pm is changed to 1:30 pm. (CC) (Entered: 04/22/2004)
130 MEMORANDUM re 128 Response to Motion by Intervenor Plaintiff Sheryl Everson. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Chun, John) (Entered: 04/23/2004)
131 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Intervenor Plaintiff Sheryl Everson re 130 Memorandum. (Chun, John) (Entered: 04/23/2004)
132 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Judge Thomas S. Zilly - Dep Clerk: KC; Pla Counsel: John Chun, Mark Wilner, Carmen Flores; Def Counsel: Cheryl Middleton, Eileen Doornink; Status Conference held on 4/28/2004. The Court hears from counsel re motion to amend judgment to offset adverse tax consequences, docket no. 80. The matter is taken under advisement. (CC) (Entered: 04/29/2004)
133 MINUTE ORDER is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable Thomas S. Zilly. The Court GRANTS (80) Pltf in Intervention's motion to amend jgm to offset adverse tax consequences. The Court DENIES (96) Dft Laidlaw's motion to strike declaration of Lonnie Avery.(CL, ) (Entered: 05/05/2004)
134 DECLARATION filed by Intervenor Plaintiff Sheryl Everson re 80 MOTION to Amend Judgment To Offset Adverse Tax Consequences of Sheryl Everson (Supplemental) (Chun, John) (Entered: 05/11/2004)
135 DECLARATION filed by Intervenor Plaintiff Sheryl Everson re 80 MOTION to Amend Judgment To Offset Adverse Tax Consequences of Lonnie Avery (Supplemental) (Chun, John) (Entered: 05/11/2004)
136 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Intervenor Plaintiff Sheryl Everson. (Chun, John) (Entered: 05/11/2004)
137 REPLY, filed by Intervenor Plaintiff Sheryl Everson, to Response to 80 MOTION to Amend Judgment To Offset Adverse Tax Consequences (Chun, John) (Entered: 05/20/2004)
138 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Intervenor Plaintiff Sheryl Everson. (Chun, John) (Entered: 05/20/2004)
142 RESPONSE by Defendant Laidlaw Inc to Lonny Avery's Supplemental Declaration. (CL, ) (Entered: 06/01/2004)
139 SURREPLY filed by Intervenor Plaintiff Sheryl Everson re 80 MOTION to Amend Judgment To Offset Adverse Tax Consequences (Chun, John) (Entered: 05/24/2004)
140 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Intervenor Plaintiff Sheryl Everson. (Chun, John) (Entered: 05/24/2004)

13 of 14

4/26/2007 12:10 PM

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.4 - Docket Report

https://ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?742143574623348-L_...

05/25/2004 06/15/2004
09/29/2004 10/26/2004
08/10/2005 08/11/2005

141 ORDER Amending Judgment re Additional Federal Income Tax Consequences by Judge Thomas S. Zilly. (CL, ) (Entered: 05/26/2004)
143 AMENDED JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE/DECISION BY COURT. IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED THAT; Pltf Everson is awarded jgm for $3,029.78 economic damages, and $30,000 in non-economic damages with costs and attys' fees. Pltf Everson is awarded $9,115 to offset the additional federal income tax consequences arising from the damages award.(CL, ) (Entered: 06/16/2004)
144 NOTICE by Intervenor Plaintiff Sheryl Everson of Satisfaction of Judgment (Chun, John) (Entered: 09/29/2004)
145 MANDATE of USCA (03-35774, 03-35805, 03-35817) as to 109 Notice of Appeal filed by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,, 112 Notice of Appeal filed by Sheryl Everson,, 106 Notice of Appeal filed by Laidlaw Inc,, Laidlaw Education Services, These appeals are DISMISSED with prejudice pursuan to stipulation of parties. Costs shall be allocated according to the provisions of the stipulation. (SA, ) (Entered: 10/28/2004)
146 STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER RE: EXONERATION AND RELEASE OF SUPERSEDEAS BOND by parties. (Flores, Carmen) (Entered: 08/10/2005)
147 STIPULATION AND ORDER re exoneration and release of Supersedeas Bond by Judge Thomas S. Zilly. (CL, ) (Entered: 08/16/2005)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

04/26/2007 10:12:23

PACER Login:

hs0328

Client Code:

nniles++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Description:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

2:02-cv-00468-TSZ

Billable Pages:

9

Cost: 0.72

14 of 14

4/26/2007 12:10 PM

 UNI'fED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

F I LED
OCT 20 2004
CATHY A. CAmRSON, CiBlK
U.s. COURT OF APPEALs

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff- Appellee,
v.

No. 03-35774
D.C. No. CV-02-00468-TSZ Western District of Washington, Seattle

LAIDLAW INC; et al., Defendants - Appellants,
v. SHERYL EVERSON,

ORDER
.
=~ {11> LMI"IL I
OCl 26 2004

Plaintiff-intervenor - Appellee.

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff - Appellant, v. LAIDLAW INC; et a!.,
Defendants - Appellees.

No. 03-35805
D.C. No. CV-02-00468-TSZ Westein District of Washington, Seattle

111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111111111
02,( :V-U046ll-MAN

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTIJNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LAIDLAW INC; et aI., Defendants - Appellants,
v. SHERYL EVERSON,
Plaintiff-intervenor - Appellant.

No. 03-35817
D.C. No. CV-02-00468-TSZ Western District of Washington, Seattle

The parties have stipulated to the dismissal of these appeals under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b). These appeals are dismissed with prejudice. Costs shall be allocated according to the provisions of the stipulation.
A certified copy of this order sent to the district court shall act as and for the mandate of this court.

pro 10.18

Cathie A. Gottlie Deputy Clerk
Ninth Cir. R 27-7/AdvisoryN
and Ninth Circuit 27-10
2

Output: In March 2002, the Seattle District Office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued Laidlaw Inc., a school bus company, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington for alleged violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The complainant intervened in May 2002, alleging that the defendant violated the Washington Law Against Discrimination and state tort law by discriminating against her on the basis of sex. The defendant moved for summary judgment, which was granted in part and denied in part. The case went to trial in June 2003. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on their federal and state law claims and in favor of the defendant with regard to punitive and injunctive relief. The court awarded $3,029.78 in economic damages and $30,000 in non-economic damages. The parties appealed in September 2004, but the appeals were dismissed in October 2004.