IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
VICTORIA DIVISION

UNITED STATES COURTS
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
ENTERED
JUL - 7 2004

ELVA GRIFFIN, ANITA HERRIGES, §

ANIYERITZA VELAZQUEZ, AND LYNN §

STOEBNER,

§

Plaintiffs,

§

§

§

vs.

§

§

FORMOSA PLASTICS

§

CORPORATION, TEXAS, FORMOSA §

PLASTICS CORPORATION, U.S.A.,

§

u.s. CONTRACTORS, INC. and U.S.

§

CONTRACTORS, LTD.,

§

Defendants, §

§

AND

§

§

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

§

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

§

Plaintiff,

§

§

vs.

§

§

U.S. CONTRACTORS, LTD.,

§

Defendant. §

Mich... N. Milby, a.rk of Court
CONSOLIDATED CASE NO. V-03-77 JURY TRIAL REQUESTED

PLAINTIFFS' FOURTH AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

TO THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT:

NOW COME, ELVA GRIFFIN, ANITA HERRIGES, ANIYERITZA VELAZQUEZ AND

LYNN STOEBNER, PETITIONERS, and for cause of action against Defendants, FORMOSA

PLASTICS CORPORATION, TEXAS; FORMOSA PLASTICS CORPORATION, U.S.A.; U.S.

CONTRACTORS, INC.; and U.S. CONTRACTORS, LTD., and would show unto the Court as

follows:

EXH IBIT Ii. _ ~~~~i4Sciba\Gnffin, Elva vs US Contractors\Pleadings\06-29-04 4th Amd Petltion.doc

1

I. 1. Plaintiff, Elva Griffin is an individual and currently resides in Aransas Pass, San Patricio County, Texas. 2. Plaintiff, Anita Herriges is an individual and currently resides in Bay City, Matagorda County, Texas. 3. Plaintiff, Aniyeritza Velazquez is an individual and currently resides in Port Lavaca, Calhoun County, Texas. 4. Plaintiff, Lynn Stoebner is an individual and currently resides in Inez, Calhoun County, Texas. 5. Defendant, FORMOSA PLASTICS CORPORATION, TEXAS, is a Delaware corporation authorized to do and doing business in the State of Texas with its principal place of business in Texas. Service is not necessary at this time. 6. Defendant, FORMOSA PLASTICS CORPORATION, U.S.A., is a Delaware corporation authorized to do and doing business in the State of Texas with its principal place of business in Texas. Service is not necessary at this time. 7. Defendant U. S. CONTRACTORS, INC., is a Texas corporation authorized to do and doing business in the State of Texas with its principal place of business in Texas. Service is not necessary at this time.
8. Defendant U.S. CONTRACTORS, Lm., is a Texas corporation authorized to do and
doing business in the State of Texas with its principal place of business in Texas. Service is not necessary at this time.
9. For clarity, both Formosa Plastics Corporation, Texas, and Formosa Plastics Corporation, U.S.A., will hereinafter be referred to collectively as "Formosa." Also for clarity, both

W.\W_Sciba\Griffin, Elva vs US Contractors\Pleadmgs\06-29-04 4th Amd Petition.doc

2

6/28/04

u.s. Contractors, Inc., and U.S. Contractors, Ltd., will hereinafter be referred to collectively as "U.S.
Contractors. " II.
Violations of the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act and Title VII A. ELVA GRIFFIN
10. On or about December 20, 2000, Elva Griffin was hired as a boilermaker making $14.30 per hour working approximately 40 hours per week. From the first day she was on the job, Joe Frank Rodriguez made some comments to her. These comments included comments like (1) You are such a beautiful woman what are you doing out here, you should be at home, (2) Do you have a husband or a lover, (3) You are a beautiful woman for being a big woman, (4) Don't worry you will lose a lot of weight on this job, and (5) that there were no journeymen women on this job site and that he was surprised that they hired her.
11. On or about January 26, 2000 she was promoted to foreman and given a raise to $14.49 per hour working approximately 40 hours per week. When she was promoted she was told she was going to have to prove herselfto Formosa because she was a female. She was also told she would have to work extra hard to show she could do the job. Even after her promotion, Mr. Rodriguez's inappropriate conduct continued. In mid February, Mr. Rodriguez grabbed her butt and made comments about her big butt. A couple days later, she was wearing a v-neck t-shirt and he commented that her breasts were so big that they would jump out of her shirt.
12. In February she complained to Ron Hare about the problems she was having with Joe Frank Rodriguez. On or about March 7th, she was informed by Joe Frank Rodriguez that she was being bumped down for Cody O'Neill. She told Joe Frank Rodriguez and Speedy Wells that it was discrimination.

W:\W_Sciba\Griffm, Elva vs US Contractors\Pleadings\06-29-04 4th Arnd Petition.doc

3

6128/04

13. Sometime around March 12th or 14th, she complained to Speedy Wells again and told him that she was being treated differently because she was a woman. She also told him that she was being sexually harassed by Formosa and US Contractors employees.
14. Speedy Wells did not ask for any specifics. He asked ifshe thought he should call the people from Houston and she said yes if he thought it was important. He then told her she could write up a report if she wanted. She said that she believed that she would be retaliated against for talking to him.
15. On or about March 25th she was terminated. The reason given was reduction of force.
16. While employed at US Contractors, Ms. Griffin was discriminated against because of her sex and because of her complaints of sexual discriminationlharassment. In addition, she was wrongfully terminated because ofher sex and because she made complaints ofsexual discrimination and/or sexual harassment.
17. Ms. Griffin specifically alleges she was subject to a sexually hostile work environment in that:
a. She was a member of a protected class in that she was female; b. She was subjected to unwelcome harassment; c. The harassment was based on her membership in the protected class; d. The harassment affected the terms, conditions and privileges of her
employment; and e. The employer knew or should have known of the harassment but failed to take
prompt remedial action. 18. Ms. Griffin further alleges that she was illegally retaliated against in that: a. She engaged in activity protected under The Texas Commission on Human

W:\W_Sciba\Griffin, Elva vs US Contractors\pleadings\06-29-04 4th Amd Petition.doc

4

6/28/04

Rights Act and Title VII; b. She was demoted and discharged; and c. A causal link exists between the protected activity and the adverse employment
action. 19. Finally, Ms. Griffin asserts she was discriminated against and discharged because she was female in that: a. She was qualified for the positions from which she was demoted and
discharged; b. Her employer's articulated reasons for adverse actions were a pretext for
discrimination; c. Other male employees who were similarly situated were treated differently; d. Male employees were hired for jobs Ms. Griffin was qualified to perform shortly near
the time of her termination. B. ANITAHERRIGES
20. Anita Herriges went to work for US Contractors in July of2000. She was hired for firewatch making $9.99 per hour. She worked there approximately seven weeks and then was laid off. In October 2000, she was hired as a pipefitter helper making $9.99 per hour. On or about December 15,2000 she was given a raise to boilermaker and made $12.55 per hour. On or about AprilS, 2000 she was terminated. The reason given was reduction of force. Five weeks before her termination she trained a new hire by the name of Larry Carter. Mr. Carter was trained to do the same job as Ms. Herriges.
21. Prior to being terminated, Ms. Herriges had never been written up for any reason at all and had received good evaluations. At the time she was terminated, Larry Carter was not fired even though she had more experience and seniority. Since her termination several other male employees have been hired as boilermaker and boilermaker helpers.

W:\W_Sciba\Griffin, Elva vs US Contractors\Pleadings\06-29-04 4th Amd Petition.doc

5

6128/04

22. Ms. Herriges was discriminated against and wrongfully terminated because she is female in that:
a. She was qualified for the positions from which she was discharged; b. Her employer's articulated reasons for adverse actions were a pretext for
discrimination; c. Other male employees who were similarly situated were treated differently;
d. Male employees were hired for jobs Ms. Herriges was qualified to perform near the time of her termination.
C. ANIYERITZA VELAZQUEZ 23. Annie Velazquez began working for US Contractors in September of 2000. She
worked for the major equipment unit and firewatch making $8.73 per hour at approximately 40-60 hours per week. She was laid off in November and then rehired in November as a parking attendant. At this job she worked 20 hours per week making $9.99 per hour. Later, in November of2000, she was hired to Olefins II as a boilermaker helper. She made $9.99 per hour working approximately 40 hours per week.
24. Joe Benitez, a general foreman for US Contractors, would make comments to her while she was in the field. He told her that she should go sweep and pick up trash because that was woman's work. Other workers would look at her while she was working and would make comments like "look at her a __." Severo Lopez, a Formosa employee, would make advances towards her, ask her to come to his house and ask her out on several occasions. They made comments and harassed her on a daily basis in front of Mr. Benitez. Mr. Benitez would do nothing to stop it. She complained to him that she was being discriminated against, but he still would not let her do certain jobs because there were too many men. He told her she should be at home making tortillas. He

us W:\W_Sciba\Griffin, Elva vs Contractors\Pleadings\06-29-04 4th Arnd Petition.doc

6

6/28/04

would tell her she could go home and clean his house now. 25. While she was there, she asked Joe Benitez what she could do to get a raise. He told
her to bring her tools. She brought her tools, but she still did not get a raise. She then asked what she would have to do to take her boilermaker test. He told her she would have to learn some stuff and that she would have to wait three months to take the test. She then contacted the main office and was told that she could come and take the test any time she felt like it. She went and took the test and passed. She was evaluated and given a raise to $11.36 per hour on March 19th. Other people who passed the boilermaker test were usually started at $12.20 per hour. Male employees at the location where Ms. Velazquez worked were treated differently.
26. On or about March 25th, she was fired. The reason given was reduction in force. Just prior to her termination for reduction in force US Contractors hired three new male employees for her crew. Two worked as boilermakers and one worked as a boilermaker helper.
27. Ms. Velazquez was subjected to harassment and discrimination because ofher sex on a daily basis. She was finally wrongfully terminated because of her sex. After her termination, her job responsibilities were fulfilled by male employees hired around the time she was fired.
28. Ms. Velazquez specifically alleges she was subject to a sexually hostile work environment in that:
a. She was a member of a protected class in that she was female; b. She was subjected to unwelcome harassment; c. The harassment was based on her membership in the protected class; d. The harassment affected the terms, conditions and privileges ofher employment; and e. The employer knew or should have known of the harassment but failed to take
prompt remedial action.

W \W_Sclba\Griffin, Elva vs US Contractors\pleadings\06-29-04 4th Amd Petition.doc

7

6/28/04

29. Ms. Velazquez further shows she was discriminated against and discharged because she was female in that:
a. She was qualified for the positions from which she was demoted and discharged; b. Her employer's articulated reasons for adverse actions were a pretext for
discrimination; c. Other male employees who were similarly situated were treated differently; d. Male employees were hired for jobs Ms. Velazquez was qualified to perform
near the time of her termination. 30. Ms. Velazquez further alleges that she was illegally retaliated against in that: a. She engaged in activity protected under The Texas Commission on Human
Rights Act and Title VII; b. She was demoted and discharged; and c. A causal link exists between the protected activity and the adverse employment
action.
D. LYNNSTOEBNER
31. Lynn Stoebner was wrongfully terminated for making a complaint of sexual harassment/discrimination. In January 2001, Lynn Stoebner was hired as an expeditor/runner making $9.99 per hour at approximately 40 hours per week. In February, she was given a raise to $11.36 per hour. Early in February Ms. Stoebner made an oral complaint about Joe Frank Rodriguez digging through her purse and harassing her because she was female.
32. On or about March 27, Lynn Stoebner and a friend of hers named Abby Martinez went to Speedy Wells to complain about a Formosa employee named Severo Lopez. They told Speedy Wells that Severo Lopez and Joe Frank Rodriguez picked on the women that were out there. They complained that he was following them around and they felt he was harassing them because they were female. On or about March 30th, they went to human resources at Formosa. On or about

W:\W_Sciba\Griffin, Elva vs US Contractors\Pleadings\06-29-04 4th Arnd Petition.doc

8

6/28/04

April 4th Lynn Stoebner was terminated. The reason given was reduction of force.
33. Ms. Stoebner specifically alleges that she was illegally retaliated against in that:
a. She engaged in activity protected under The Texas Commission on Human Rights Act and Title VII;
b. She was demoted and discharged; and
c. A causal link exists between the protected activity and the adverse employment action.
34. Ms. Stoebner further alleges she was subject to a sexually hostile work environment
in that:
a. She was a member of a protected class in that she was female;
b. She was subjected to unwelcome harassment;
c. The harassment was based on her membership in the protected class;
d. The harassment affected the terms, conditions and privileges of her employment; and
e. The employer knew or should have known of the harassment but failed to take prompt remedial action.
35. Finally, Ms. Stoebner asserts she was discriminated against and discharged because
she was female in that:
a. She was qualified for the positions from which she was demoted and discharged;
b. Her employer's articulated reasons for adverse actions were a pretext for discrimination;
c. Other male employees who were similarly situated were treated differently;
d. Male employees were hired for jobs Ms. Stoebner was qualified to perform near the time of her termination.

W:\W_Sclba\Gnffin, Elva vs US Contractors\pleadings\06-29-04 4th Amd Petition.doc

9

6/28/04

III. Exhaustion Of Administrative Procedures 36. Plaintiffs ELVA GRIFFIN, ANITA HERRIGES, ANIYERITZA VELAZQUEZ AND LYNN STOEBNER timely filed Charges ofDiscrimination with the Texas Commission on Human Rights and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on July 9, 2001, July 9,2001, July 16, 2001, and July 16,2001, respectively (Attached hereto Exhibits "A", "B", "C", and "D"). 37. Plaintiffs filed their Original Petition on July 3, 2003, and filed their amended pleading bringing a civil action under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act within sixty (60) days of requesting their Notice of Right to Sue from the Texas Commission on Human Rights as well as within two (2) years from the date they filed their original charges of discrimination. 38. All other conditions precedent have been performed or have occurred.
IV. Plaintiffs Join EEOC in its claim under Title VII 39. Plaintiffs join/intervene in the claims filed by the EEOC in this cause to prosecute their personal claims for sexual harassment and retaliatory discharge in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. Plaintiffs have the right to intervene in this lawsuit under Title VII and Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(1). More than thirty days prior to the institution ofthis lawsuit, Elva Griffin, Anita Herriges, Lynn Stoebner and Aniyeritza Velazquez filed charges with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant U.S. Contractors. 40. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 41. Since at least June 2001, Defendant U.S. Contractors has engaged in unlawful employment practices at a project site in Calhoun County, Texas, in violation of Section 703 (a)(1) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(a)(1) by:

W:\W_Sciba\Griffin, Elva vs US Contractors\pleadings\06-29-04 4th Amd Petition.doc

10

6/28/04

a. subjecting Elva Griffin, Lynn Stoebner, and Aniyeritza Velazquez to sexual harassment from male supervisors, co-workers, and other males on the job site;
b. disparately discharging Elva Griffin, Anita Herriges, Lynn Stoebner, and Aniyeritza Velazquez based on their sex; and
c. discharging Elva Griffin, Lynn Stoebner, and Aniyeritza Velazquez after they complained about sex discrimination.

42. Since at least June 2001, Defendant U.S. Contractors has engaged in unlawful employment practices at a project site in Calhoun County, Texas, in violation of Section 704 (a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-3(a) by:
a. subjecting Elva Griffin to a retaliatory demotion; and b. discharging Elva Griffin, Lynn Stoebner, and Aniyeritza Velazquez, after they
complained about sex discrimination, or for otherwise participating in a protected activity under Title VII. 43. The effect of the practices complained of in the paragraphs above has been to deprive Elva Griffin, Anita Herriges, Lynn Stoebner, and Aniyeritza Velazquez of equal employment opportunities and to otherwise adversely affect their status as employees, because of their sex and retaliation. 44. The unlawful employment practices complained of in the paragraphs above were and are done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Elva Griffin, Anita Herriges, Lynn Stoebner, and Aniyeritza Velazquez.
v.
Damages 45. As a direct and proximate result ofthe Defendant's aforementioned acts, omissions and conduct, Plaintiffs suffered a loss of earning capacity in the past which will in all likelihood continue in the future for an indefinite period of time. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's aforementioned acts, omissions and conduct, Plaintiffs have had and continue to suffer

w:\W_Sciba\Griffin, Elva vs US Contractors\Pleadings\06-29-04 4th Amd Petition.doc

11

6/28/04

humiliation, shame, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, loss of self-confidence, anxiety, sleeplessness, worry, fear, severe mental anguish and emotional distress; and in all likelihood Plaintiffs will continue to suffer in such manner for an indefinite period oftime in the future. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's aforementioned acts, omissions and conduct, Plaintiffs ELVA GRIFFIN and ANlYERITZA VELAZQUEZ have incurred medical and psychological bills in the past and in all likelihood will incur medical or psychological bills in the future.
VI. Equal Pay Act 46. Plaintiff Aniyeritza Velzquez brings this claim under The Equal Pay Act. Aniyeritza Velazquez would show that she was paid less than men who were hired to work in the same capacity she was hired to work. There was no justification for this discrepancy in pay.
VII. Tortuous Interference With Employment Contract 47. Plaintiffs began working for U.S. Contractors at various times in the year 2000. Throughout their employment with U.S. Contractors, the Plaintiffs worked at the Formosa Plastics Plant near Point Comfort, Texas. The Plaintiffs were well qualified for their respective jobs and performed the job tasks as required by their employer. The Plaintiffs were each given raises and/or additional responsibilities during their employment. Each of the Plaintiffs was fired between the dates of March 25,2001, and April 5, 2001. These terminations were proximately caused by the Formosa's tortuous interference with the Plaintiffs' contracts of employment.
VIII. 48. The Defendants Formosa, tortuously interfered with each ofthe Plaintiffs' contracts of employment. The Plaintiffs had an ongoing employment relationship with U. S. Contractors. Formosa interfered with this contract by pressuring U.S. Contractors to terminate the female

W:\W_Sciba\Griffm, Elva vs US Contractors\Pleadings\06-29-04 4th Amd Petition.doc

12

6/28/04

employees that were working at the Formosa Plastics plant near Point Comfort, Texas. Defendants Fomorsa further interfered with the Plaintiffs' employment contracts by engaging in conduct that made performance of Plaintiffs' job responsibilities more burdensome. Formosa's acts were done without legal justification. Defendants Formosa had actual knowledge ofthe Plaintiffs' employment and willfully and intentionally committed these acts which were calculated to cause damage to the Plaintiffs in their employment. The above-described conduct proximately caused the Plaintiffs' terminations and other damages.
IX. 49. As a result of the above-described conduct the Plaintiffs have suffered extensive damages. The Plaintiffs have suffered a loss ofearning capacity in the past and will, in reasonable probability, continue to suffer from a loss of earning capacity in the future. Furthermore, Defendants' conduct has caused Plaintiffs to suffer from mental anguish and emotional distress and they will, in reasonable probability, continue to suffer these damages in the future. For these damages Plaintiffs seek an amount in excess of the jurisdictional limits of the Court.
X.
50. In the above-described conduct, the Defendants acted with malice. Specifically (1) the Defendants acted with a specific intent to cause substantial injury to the Plaintiffs, and (2) the Defendants' conduct, when viewed objectively from the standpoint of the Defendants at the time it occurred, involved an extreme degree of risk, considering the probability and magnitude of the potential harm to the Plaintiffs, and the Defendants proceeded with conscious indifference to the rights, safety, or welfare ofthe Plaintiffs despite the Defendants' actual, subjective awareness ofthe risk involved. The Plaintiffs therefore seek punitive damages in accordance with Chapter 41 ofthe Civil Practice and Remedies Code in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional limits of the Court.

W\W_Sciba\Griffin, Elva vs US Contractors\Pleadings\06-29-04 4th Amd Petition.doc

13

6/28/04

XI. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 51. During the Plaintiffs' employment with U.S. Contractors the Defendants and their employees made statements and engaged in other conduct that was outrageous and beyond all possible bounds of decency, causing Plaintiffs extreme emotional distress. Plaintiffs are entitled to compensation for such distress.
XII. 52. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' acts and omissions alleged in this petition, Plaintiffs suffered extreme and severe emotional distress that resulted in physical manifestations.
XIII. AssaultlBattery and Negligent Hiring and Supervision 53. In February of 2001, Joe Frank Rodriguez intentionally grabbed Elva Griffin's buttocks and made a lewd comment. This touching was unwelcome and offensive to Mrs. Griffin. As a result of this conduct Mrs. Griffin has endured shame, embarrassment, mental anguish and emotional distress for which she now seeks damages in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional limits ofthe Court. 54. At the time Defendant Joe Frank Rodriguez was hired by Defendant U. S. Contractors, Defendant Joe Frank Rodriguez had a history of being convicted of a sex-related crime and sentenced to prison. U. S. Contractors was negligent in employing and supervising Mr. Rodriguez. The Defendant U. S. Contractors has a duty to its employees to protect them and to provide a safe work environment. Defendant U. S. Contractors knew or should have known, prior to Defendant Joe Frank Rodriguez'S assault on Elva Griffin and other outrageous conduct, that he was unfit for a position that required him to work with and around women. Defendant

W·\W_Sciba\Griffm, Elva vs US Contractors\P\eadings\06-29-04 4th Amd Petition.doc

14

6/28/04

u.s. Contractors was negligent, reckless and grossly negligent in screening, hiring, retaining, and
supervising Joe Frank Rodriguez as an employee. XlV.
55. As a result of the above-described conduct the Plaintiffs have suffered extensive damages. The Plaintiffs have suffered a loss of earning capacity in the past and will, in reasonable probability, continue to suffer from a loss of earning capacity in the future. Furthermore, Defendants' conduct has caused Plaintiffs to suffer from mental anguish and emotional distress and they will, in reasonable probability, continue to suffer these damages in the future. For these damages Plaintiffs seek an amount in excess of the jurisdictional limits of the Court.
xv.
56. In the above-described conduct, the Defendants acted with malice. Specifically (1) the Defendants acted with a specific intent to cause substantial injury to Plaintiffs, and (2) the Defendants' conduct, when viewed objectively from the standpoint ofthe Defendants at the time it occurred, involved an extreme degree of risk, considering the probability and magnitude of the potential harm to the Plaintiffs, and the Defendants proceeded with conscious indifference to the rights, safety, or welfare ofthe Plaintiffs despite the Defendants' actual, subjective awareness ofthe risk involved. The Plaintiffs therefore seek punitive damages in accordance with Chapter 41 ofthe Civil Practice and Remedies Code in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional limits of the Court.
XVI. Attorneys' Fees 57. Plaintiffs have obtained the undersigned attorneys to represent them in this matter and have agreed to pay reasonable and necessary attorneys' fees. Plaintiffs request the Court to enter Judgment against Defendants for reasonable and necessary attorneys' fees incurred in this matter,

W \W_Sciba\Gnffin, Elva vs US Contractors\Pleadings\06-29-04 4th Amd Petition.doc

15

6/29/04

including but not limited to attorneys' fees for the preparation of trial ofthis case and all post-trial

and Appellant procedures which may result therefrom.

58. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs praythatthe Defendants be duly cited to appear and answer

herein; that upon a final trial of this cause, Plaintiffs will recover:

a.. judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, for Plaintiffs' damages as set forth above, in an amount in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Court;

b. attorneys' fees;

c. exemplary damages;

d. interest on said judgment at the legal rate from date ofjudgment;

e. pre-judgment interest as allowed by law;

f. costs of Court; and

g. such other and further relief to which Plaintiffs may be entitled.

OF COUNSEL: COLE, COLE & EASLEY, P.C. 302 West Forrest Street P.O. Drawer 510 Victoria, Texas 77902-0510 Telephone: (361) 575-0551 Facsimile: (361) 575-0986

Respect~
~CffiA,ill
Federal I.D. 19044
State Bar No. 00792824

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
By my signature above, I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document is being forwarded to all counsel of record by certified mail, return receipt requested and/or via facsimile before 5:00 p.m. on this the 29th day of June, 2004.

W:\W_Sciba\Gnffin, Elva vs US Contraclors\Pleadings\06-29-04 4th Arnd Petition.doc

16

6/29/04

 </s> IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
VICTORIA DIVISION

ELVA GRIFFIN, ANITA HERRIGES, §

ANIYERITZA VELAZQUEZ, AND LYNN §

STOEBNER,

§

Plaintiffs,

§

§

§

VI.

§

§

FORMOSA PLASTICS

§

CORPORATION, TEXAS, FORMOSA §

PLASTICS CORPORATION, U.S.A.,

§

GLENN DOBBS, MITCH McBRIDE,

§

SEVERO LOPEZ, JOE FRANK

§

RODRIGUEZ, U.S. CONTRACTORS, §

INC., AND U.S. CONTRACTORS, LTD., §

Defendants, §

§

AND

§

§

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

§

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

§

Plaintiff,

§

§

VI.

§

§

u.S. CONTRACfORS, LTD.,

§

Defendant. §

CONSOLIDATED CASE NO. V-03-77 JURy TRIAL REQUESTED

PLAINTIFFS' TruRO AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

TO THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT:

NOW COME, ELVA GRIFFIN, ANITA HERRIGES, ANIYERITZA VELAZQUEZ AND

LYNN STOEBNER, PETITIONERS, and for cause of action against Defendants, FORMOSA

PLASTICS CORPORATION, TEXAS; FORMOSA PLASTICS CORPORATION, U.S.A.; GLENN

DOBBS, MITCH McBRIDE, JOE FRANK. RODRIGUEZ, U.S. CONTRACTORS, INC., AND U.S.

CONTRACTORS, LTD., and would show unto the Court as follows:

EXHIBIT A ~;~~iba\Griflin. us Elva vs Contnctors\Pleadings\03-19-04 3rd Amd Petition.doc

1

I.
1. Plaintiff, Elva Griffin is an individual and currently resides in Aransas Pass, San Patricio County, Texas.
2. Plaintiff, Anita Herriges is an individual and currently resides in Bay City, Matagorda County, Texas.
3. Plaintiff, Aniyeritza Velazquez is an individual and currently resides in Port Lavaca, Calhoun County. Texas.
4. Plaintiff, Lynn Stoebner is an individual and currently resides in Inez, Calhoun
County, Texas. 5. Defendant, FORMOSA PLASTICS CORPORATION, TEXAS, is a Delaware
corporation authorized to do and doing business in the State of Texas with its principal place of business in Texas. Service is not necessary at this time.
6. Defendant, FORMOSA PLASTICS CORPORATION, U.S.A., is a Delaware corporation authorized to do and doing business in the State of Texas with its principal place of business in Texas. Service is not necessary at this time.
7. Defendant GLENN DOBBS is an individual and currently resides at Route 3, Box 44S, Hallettsville, Lavaca County, Texas. Service is not necessary at this time. At all relevant times Defendant GLENN DOBBS was employed by Defendant Formosa and was acting within the course and scope of his employment and as an agent for the Formosa Defendants.
8. Defendant MITCH McBRIDE is an individual and currently resides at Box 843, Point Comfort, Calhoun County, Texas. Service is not necessary at this time. At all relevant times Defendant MITCH McBRIDE was employed by Defendant Formosa and was acting within the course and scope of his employment and as an agent for the Formosa Defendants.

W:\W_Sc:iba\Griffin, Elva vs us Conlractors\Pleadings\03-19-04 3rd Amd Petition.doc:

2

311912004

9. Defendant JOE FRANK RODRIGUEZ is an individual and currently resides at 244 Bonorden Road, Port Lavaca, Calhoun County, Texas. Service is not necessary at this time. At all relevant times Defendant JOE FRANK RODRIGUEZ was employed by U.S. Contractors.
10. Defendant U.S. CONTRACTORS, INC., is a Texas corporation authorized to do and doing business in the State of Texas with its principal place of business in Texas. Service is not necessary at this time.
11. Defendant U.S. CONTRACTORS, LTD., is a Texas corporation authorized to do and doing business in the State of Texas with its principal place of business in Texas. Service is not necessary at this time.
12. For clarity, both Fonnosa Plastics Corporation, Texas, and Formosa Plastics Corporation, U.S.A., will hereinafter be referred to collectively as "Fonnosa." Also for clarity, both U.S. Contractors, Inc., and U.S. Contractors, Ltd., will hereinafter be referred to collectively as "U.S. Contractors."
II. Violations of tbe Texas Commission on Human Rigbts Act and Title VII A. ELVA GRIFFIN 13. On or about December 20, 2000, Elva Griffin was hired as a boilermaker making $14.30 per hour working approximately 40 hours per week. From the first day she was on the job, Joe Frank Rodriguez made some comments to her. These comments included comments like (1) You are such a beautiful woman what are you doing out here, you should be at home, (2) Do you have a husband or a lover, (3) You are a beautiful woman for being a big woman, (4) Don't worry you wiUlose a lot of weight on this job, and (5) that there were no journeymen women on this job site and that he was surprised that they hired her.

W:\W_Sciba\Griffin, Elva VI US Contractors\Plcadings\03.19-04 3rd A1nd Petition.doc

3

311912004

14. On or about January 26, 2000 she was promoted to foreman and given a raise to $14.49 per hour working approximately 40 hours per week. When she was promoted she was told she was going to have to prove herselfto Formosa because she was a female. She was also told she would have to work extra hard to show she could do the job. Even after her promotion, Mr. Rodriguez's inappropriate conduct continued. In mid February, Mr. Rodriguez grabbed her butt and made comments about her big butt. A couple days later, she was wearing a v-neck t-shirt and he commented that her breasts were so big that they would jump out of her shirt.
15. In February she complained to Ron Hare about the problems she was having with Joe Frank Rodriguez. On or about March 7th, she was informed by Joe Frank Rodriguez that she was being bumped down for Cody O'Neill. She told Joe Frank Rodriguez and Speedy Wells that it was discrimination.
16. Sometime around March 12th or 14th, she complained to Speedy Wells again and told him that she was being treated differently because she was a woman. She also told him that she was being sexually harassed by Formosa and US Contractors employees.
17. Speedy Wells did not ask for any specifics. He asked ifshe thought he should call the people from Houston and she said yes if he thought it was important. He then told her she could write up a report if she wanted. She said that she believed that she would be retaliated against for talking to him.
18. On or about March 25th she was terminated. The reason given was reduction of force.
19. While employed at US Contractors, Ms. Griffin was discriminated against because of her sex and because of her complaints of sexual discriminationlharassment. In addition, she was wrongfully terminated because ofher sex and because she made complaints ofsexual discrimination

W:\W_Sciba\Griffin, Elva vs US Contractors\P\eadings\OJ-l9-04 Jrd Amd Petition.doc

4

311912004

and/or sexual harassment.
20. Ms. Griffin specifically alleges she was subject to a sexually hostile work
environment in that:
a. She was a member of a protected class in that she was female;
b. She was subjected to unwelcome harassment;
c. The harassment was based on her membership in the protected class;
d. The harassment affected the terms, conditions and privileges of her employment; and
e. The employer knew or should have known of the harassment but failed to take prompt remedial action.
21. Ms. Griffin further alleges that she was illegally retaliated against in that:
a. She engaged in activity protected under The Texas Commission on Human Rights Act and Title VII;
b. She was demoted and discharged; and
c. A causal link exists between the protected activity and the adverse employment action.
22. Finally, Ms. Griffin asserts she was discriminated against and discharged because she
was female in that:
a. She was qualified for the positions from which she was demoted and discharged;
b. Her employer's articulated reasons for adverse actions were a pretext for discrimination;
c. Other male employees who were similarly situated were treated differently;
d. Male employees were hired for jobs Ms. Griffin was qualified to perform shortly near the time of her termination.
B. ANITA IlERRIGES
23. Anita Herriges went to work for US Contractors in July of2000. She was hired for

W:\W_Sclba\Griftin, Elva vs US Coo1ractorS\P\cadings\03-194t 3rd Amd Petition.doc

5

3fl9n.OO4

firewatch making $9.99 per hour. She worked there approximately seven weeks and then was laid

off. In October 2000, she was hired as a pipefitter helper making $9.99 per hour. On or about

December 15,2000 she was given a raise to boilermaker and made $12.55 per hour. On or about

AprilS, 2000 she was terminated. The reason given was reduction offorce. Five weeks before her

termination she trained a new hire by the name of Larry Carter. Mr. Carter was trained to do the

same job as Ms. Herriges.

24. Prior to being terminated, Ms. Herriges had never been written up for any reason at all

and had received good evaluations. At the time she was terminated, Larry Carter was not fired even

though she had more experience and seniority. Since her termination several other male employees

have been hired as boilermaker and boilermaker helpers.

25. Ms. Herriges was discriminated against and wrongfully terminated because she is

female in that:

a.

She was qualified for the positions from which she was discharged;

b. Her employer's articulated reasons for adverse actions were a pretext for discrimination;

c. Other male employees who were similarly situated were treated differently;

d. Male employees were hired for jobs Ms. Herriges was qualified to perform near the time ofher termination.
c. ANIYERITZA VELAZQUEZ
26. Annie Velazquez began working for US Contractors in September of 2000. She worked for the major equipment unit and firewatch making $8.73 per hour at approximately 40-60 hoW'S per week. She was laid offin November and then rehired in November as a parking attendant. At this job she worked 20 hours per week making $9.99 per hour. Later, in November of2000, she

W \W_Sciba\Griftin, Elva vs us Contractors\Pleadings\03-19-04 3rd Amd Petltlon.doc

6

3/1912004

was hired to Olefins n as a boilermaker helper. She made $9.99 per hour working approximately 40
hours per week. 27. Joe Benitez, a general foreman for US Contractors, would make comments to her
while she was in the field. He told her that she should go sweep and pick up trash because that was woman's work. Other workers would look at her while she was working and would make comments like "look at her a __." Severo Lopez, a Formosa employee, would make advances towards her, ask her to come to his house and ask her out on several occasions. They made comments and harassed her on a daily basis in front of Mr. Benitez. Mr. Benitez would do nothing to stop it. She complained to him that she was being discriminated against, but he still would not let her do certain jobs because there were too many men. He told her she should be at home making tortillas. He would tell her she could go home and clean his house now.
28. While she was there, she asked Joe Benitez what she could do to get a raise. He told her to bring her tools. She brought her tools, but she still did not get a raise. She then asked what she would have to do to take her boilermaker test. He told her she would have to learn some stuff and that she would have to wait three months to take the test. She then contacted the main office and was told that she could come and take the test any time she felt like it. She went and took the test and passed. She was evaluated and given a raise to $11.36 per hour on March 19th. Other people who passed the boilermaker test were usually started at $12.20 per hour. Male employees at the location where Ms. Velazquez worked were treated differently.
29. On or about March 25th, she was fired. The reason given was reduction in force. Just prior to her termination for reduction in force US Contractors hired three new male employees for her crew. Two worked as boilermakers and one worked as a boilermaker helper.
30. Ms. Velazquez was subjected to harassment and discrimination because ofher sex on

W:\W_Sciba\Griffin, Elva vs us C001ractors\Plcadings\03·19-04 3rd Amd Petition doc

7

3/1912004

a daily basis. She was finally wrongfully terminated because of her sex. After her termination, her job responsibilities were fulfilled by male employees hired around the time she was fired.
31. Ms. Velazquez specifically alleges she was subject to a sexually hostile work environment in that:
a. She was a member of a protected class in that she was female;
b. She was subjected to unwelcome harassment;
c. The harassment was based on her membership in the protected class;
d. The harassment affected the terms, conditions and privileges ofher employment; and e. The employer knew or should have known ofthe harassment hut failed to take
prompt remedial action. 32. Ms. Velazquez further shows she was discriminated against and discharged because she was female in that:
a. She was qualified for the positions from which she was demoted and discharged;
h. Her employer's articulated reasons for adverse actions were a pretext for discrimination;
c. Other male employees who were similarly situated were treated differently; d. Male employees were hired for jobs Ms. Velazquez was qualified to perform
near the time ofher termination. 33. Ms. Velazquez further alleges that she was illegally retaliated against in that:
a. She engaged in activity protected under The Texas Commission on Human Rights Act and Title Vll;
h. She was demoted and discharged; and c. A causal link exists between the protected activity and the adverse employment
action.

W \W_Sclba\Grift'm, Elva vs us Contractors\P1eadiugsI,03-19-04 3n1 Amd Petition.doc

8

3J19nOO4

D. LYNN STOEBNER
34. Lynn Stoebner was wrongfully terminated for making a complaint of sexual harassment/discrimination. In January 2001, Lynn Stoebner was hired as an expeditor/runner making $9.99 per hour at approximately 40 hours per week. In February, she was given a raise to $11.36 per hour. Early in February Ms. Stoebner made an oral complaint about Joe Frank Rodriguez
digging through her purse and harassing her because she was female. 35. On or about March 27, Lynn Stoebner and a friend of hers named Abby Martinez
went to Speedy Wells to complain about a Formosa employee named Severo Lopez. They told Speedy Wells that Severo Lopez and Joe Frank Rodriguez picked on the women that were out there. They complained that he was following them around and they felt he was harassing them because they were female. On or about March 30th, they went to human resources at Formosa. On or about April 4th Lynn Stoebner was terminated. The reason given was reduction of force.
36. Ms. Stoebner specifically alleges that she was illegally retaliated against in that: a. She engaged in activity protected under The Texas Commission on Human
Rights Act and Title VII; b. She was demoted and discharged; and c. A causal link exists between the protected activity and the adverse employment
action.
37. Ms. Stoebner further alleges she was subject to a sexually hostile work environment in that:
a. She was a member of a protected class in that she was female; b. She was subjected to unwelcome harassment; c. The harassment was based on her membership in the protected class; d. The harassment affected the terms, conditions and privileges of her

W'\W_Sciba\Griftin, Elva VI us CoaUBCtors\Pleadinp\03-19-04 3rd Amd Petition.doc

9

3/1912004

employment; and e. The employer knew or should have known of the harassment but failed to take
prompt remedial action. 38. Finally, Ms. Stoebner asserts she was discriminated against and discharged because
she was female in that:
a She was qualified for the positions from which she was demoted and
discharged;
b. Her employer's articulated reasons for adverse actions were a pretext for discrimination;
c. Other male employees who were similarly situated were treated differently;
d. Male employees were hired for jobs Ms. Stoebner was qualified to perform near the time of her termination.
III. Exhaustion Of Administrative Procedures
39. Plaintiffs ELVA GRIFFIN, ANITA HERRIGES, ANIYERITZA VELAZQUEZ AND
LYNN STOEBNER timely filed Charges ofDiscrimination with the Texas Commission on Human Rights and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on July 9, 2001, July 9, 2001, July 16,
2001, and July 16,2001, respectively (Attached hereto Exhibits "A", "B", "C", and "D").
40. Plaintiffs filed their Original Petition on July 3, 2003, and filed their amended
pleading bringing a civil action under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act within sixty (60) days of requesting their Notice of Right to Sue from the Texas Commission on Human Rights as well as within two (2) years from the date they filed their original charges of discrimination.
41. All other conditions precedent have been performed or have occurred.
IV. Plaintiffs Join EEOC in its claim under Title VII 42. Plaintiffs join/intervene in the claims filed by the EEOC in this cause to prosecute

W·\W_Sc:iba\Griffin. Elva vs US Contractors\Pleadings\03-19~ 3rd Amd Petition.doc

10

3/23/2004

their personal claims for sexual harassment and retaliatory discharge in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. Plaintiffs have the right to intervene in this lawsuit under Title VII and Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(1). More than
thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Elva Griffin, Anita Herriges, Lynn Stoebner and
Aniyeritza Velazquez filed charges with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant U.S. Contractors.
43. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 44. Since at least June 2001, Defendant U.S. Contractors has engaged in unlawful employment practices at a project site in Calhoun County, Texas, in violation of Section 703 (a)(I) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(a)(I) by:
a. subjecting Elva Griffin, Lynn Stoebner, and Aniyeritza Velazquez to sexual
harassment from male supervisors, co-workers, and other males on the job site;
b. disparately discharging Elva Griffin, Anita Herriges, Lynn Stoebner, and
Aniyeritza Velazquez based on their sex; and
c. discharging Elva Griffin, Lynn Stoebner, and Aniyeritza Velazquez after they
complained about sex discrimination.

45. Since at least June 2001, Defendant U.S. Contractors has engaged in unlawful employment practices at a project site in Calhoun County, Texas, in violation of Section 704 (a)
of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-3(a) by:
a. subjecting Elva Griffin to a retaliatory demotion; and
b. discharging Elva Griffin, Lynn Stoebner, and Aniyeritza Velazquez, after they
complained about sex discrimination, or for otherwise participating in a protected activity under Title VII.
46. The effect of the practices complained of in the paragraphs above has been to
deprive Elva Griffin, Anita Herriges, Lynn Stoebner, and Aniyeritza Velazquez of equal

W:\W_SClbalGriffin. Elva vs US Contractors\PJeadmgs\D3·J9-04 3nf Amd Petition.doc

11

4/512004

employment opportunities and to otherwise adversely affect their status as employees, because
oftheir sex and retaliation. 47. The unlawful employment practices complained of in the paragraphs above were
and are done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Elva
Griffin, Anita Herriges, Lynn Stoebner, and Aniyeritza Velazquez.
V. Damages 48. As a direct and proximate result ofthe Defendant's aforementioned acts, omissions and conduct, Plaintiffs suffered a loss of earning capacity in the past which will in all likelihood continue in the future for an indefinite period of time. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's aforementioned acts, omissions and conduct, Plaintiffs have had and continue to suffer humiliation, shame, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, loss of self-confidence, anxiety, sleeplessness, worry, fear, severe mental anguish and emotional distress; and in all likelihood Plaintiffs will continue to suffer in such manner for an indefinite period oftime in the future. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's aforementioned acts, omissions and conduct, Plaintiffs ELVA GRIFFIN and ANIYERITZA VELAZQUEZ have incurred medical and psychological bills in the past and in all likelihood will incur medical or psychological bills in the future.
VI. Equal Pay Act
49. PlaintiffAniyeritza Velzquez brings this claim under The Equal Pay Act.
Aniyeritza Velazquez would show that she was paid less than men who were hired to work in
the same capacity she was hired to work. There was no justification for this discrepancy in pay.
VII. Tortuous Interference With Employment Contract 50. Plaintiffs began working for U.S. Contractors at various times in the year 2000.
'Throughout their employment with U.S. Contractors, the Plaintiffs worked at the Formosa Plastics

W'\W_Sc:iba\Gnffin, Elva vs US Contractors\Plcadings\o3-19-04 3rd Amd Petition.doc

12

3/3112004

Plant near Point Comfort, Texas. The Plaintiffs were well qualified for their respective jobs and performed the job tasks as required by their employer. The Plaintiffs were each given raises and/or additional responsibilities during their employment. Each of the Plaintiffs was fired between the dates of March 25, 2001, and April 5,2001. These terminations were proximately caused by the Defendants' tortuous interference with the Plaintiffs' contracts ofemployment.
VIII.
51. The Defendants tortuously interfered with each of the Plaintiffs' contracts of employment. The Plaintiffs had an ongoing employment relationship with U. S. Contractors. The Defendants interfered with this contract by pressuring U.S. Contractors to terminate the female employees that were working at the Formosa Plastics plant near Point Comfort, Texas. The Defendants further interfered with the Plaintiffs' employment contracts by engaging in conduct that made perfonnance ofPlaintiffs' job responsibilities more burdensome. The Defendants' acts were
done without legal justification. The Defendants had actual knowledge ofthe Plaintiffs' employment
and willfully and intentionally committed these acts which were calculated to cause damage to the Plaintiffs in their employment. The above-described conduct proximately caused the Plaintiffs' terminations and other damages.
IX. 52. As a result of the above-described conduct the Plaintiffs have suffered extensive damages. The Plaintiffs have suffered a loss ofearning capacity in the past and will, in reasonable probability, continue to suffer from a loss of earning capacity in the future. Furthermore, Defendants' conduct has caused Plaintiffs to suffer from mental anguish and emotional distress and they will, in reasonable probability, continue to suffer these damages in the future. For these damages Plaintiffs seek an amount in excess ofthe jurisdictional limits of the Court.

W.\W_Sciba\Griffin, Elva vs US Contractors\PIeading!\03-19-04 3rd Amd Petition.doc

13

313112004

x.
53. In the above-described conduct, the Defendants acted with malice. Specifically (1 ) the Defendants acted with a specific intent to cause substantial injury to the Plaintiffs, and (2) the Defendants' conduct, when viewed objectively from the standpoint ofthe Defendants at the time it occurred, involved an extreme degree of risk, considering the probability and magnitude of the potential harm to the Plaintiffs, and the Defendants proceeded with conscious indifference to the rights, safety, or welfare ofthe Plaintiffs despite the Defendants' actual, subjective awareness ofthe risk involved. The Plaintiffs therefore seek punitive damages in accordance with Chapter 41 ofthe Civil Practice and Remedies Code in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional limits of the Court.
XI. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 54. During the Plaintiffs' employment with U.S. Contractors the Defendants and their employees made statements and engaged in other conduct that was outrageous and beyond all possible bounds of decency, causing Plaintiffs extreme emotional distress. Plaintiffs are entitled to compensation for such distress.
XII. 55. As a direct and proximate result ofDefendants' acts and omissions alleged in this petition, Plaintiffs suffered extreme and severe emotional distress that resulted in physical manifestations.
XIII. AssaultIBattery 56. In February of 2001, Joe Frank Rodriguez intentionally grabbed Elva Griffin's buttocks and made a lewd comment. This touching was unwelcome and offensive to Mrs. Griffin. As a result of this conduct Mrs. Griffin has endured shame, embarrassment, mental anguish and

W:\W_Sciba\GrifliD. Elva VB US ContnlCtors\PIeadings\OJ-I9-04 3rd Amd Petition.doc

14

313112004

emotional distress for which she now seeks damages in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional
limits ofthe Court. XIV.
57. In the above-described conduct, Joe Frank Rodriguez acted with malice. Specifically (1) Joe Frank Rodriguez acted with a specific intent to cause substantial injury to Plaintiff Elva Griffin, and (2) Joe Frank Rodriguez's conduct, when viewed objectively from the standpoint ofJoe Frank Rodriguez at the time it occurred, involved an extreme degree of risk, considering the probability and magnitude ofthe potential hann to Plaintiff Elva Griffin, and Joe Frank Rodriguez proceeded with conscious indifference to the rights, safety, or welfare of Plaintiff Elva Griffin despite Joe Frank Rodriguez's actual, subjective awareness ofthe risk involved. The Plaintiff Elva Griffin therefore seeks punitive damages in accordance with Chapter 41 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code in an amount in excess ofthe jurisdictional limits ofthe Court.
xv.
Negligent Hiring and Supervision 58. At the time Defendant Joe Frank. Rodriguez was hired by Defendant U. S. Contractors, Defendant Joe Frank Rodriguez had a history of being convicted ofa sex-related crime and sentenced to prison. U. S. Contractors was negligent in employing and supervising Mr. Rodriguez. The Defendant U. S. Contractors has a duty to its employees to protect them and to provide a safe work environment. Defendant U. S. Contractors knew or should have known, prior to Defendant Joe Frank. Rodriguez's assault on Elva Griffm and other outrageous conduct, that he was unfit for a position that required him to work with and around women. Defendant U.S. Contractors was negligent, reckless and grossly negligent in screening, hiring, retaining, and supervising Defendant Joe Frank Rodriguez as an employee.

W:\W_SClba\Griftin, Elva vs US Contractors\PJeadings\03-19-04 3rd Amd Petition. doc

15

3/3112004

XVI. 59. As a result of the above-described conduct the Plaintiffs have suffered extensive damages. The Plaintiffs have suffered a loss ofearning capacity in the past and will, in reasonable probability, continue to suffer from a loss of earning capacity in the future. Furthermore, Defendants' conduct has caused Plaintiffs to suffer from mental anguish and emotional distress and they will, in reasonable probability, continue to suffer these damages in the future. For these damages Plaintiffs seek an amount in excess of the jurisdictional limits of the Court.
XVII. 60. In the above-described conduct, the Defendants acted with malice. Specifically (1) the Defendants acted with a specific intent to cause substantial injury to Plaintiffs, and (2) the Defendants' conduct, when viewed objectively from the standpoint of the Defendants at the time it occurred, involved an extreme degree of risk, considering the probability and magnitude of the potential hann to the Plaintiffs, and the Defendants proceeded with conscious indifference to the rights, safety, or welfare ofthe Plaintiffs despite the Defendants' actual, subjective awareness ofthe risk involved. The Plaintiffs therefore seek punitive damages in accordance with Chapter 41 ofthe Civil Practice and Remedies Code in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional limits of the Court.
XVIII. Attomeys' Fees 61. Plaintiffs have obtained the undersigned attorneys to represent them in this matter and have agreed to pay reasonable and necessary attorneys' fees. Plaintiffs request the Court to enter Judgment against Defendants for reasonable and necessary attorneys' fees incurred in this matter, including but not limited to attorneys' fees for the preparation of trial of this case and all post-trial and Appellant procedures which may result therefrom.

W:\W_Sciba\Gritrm, Elva vs US Contractors\P1eadings\03-19-04 3rd Amd Petition.doc

16

313112004

62. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that the Defendants be duly cited to appear and answer

herein; that upon a final trial of this cause, Plaintiffs will recover:

a.. judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, for Plaintiffs' damages as set forth above, in an amount in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Court;

b. attorneys' fees;

c. exemplary damages;

d. interest on said judgment at the legal rate from date ofjudgment;

e. pre-judgment interest as allowed by law;

f. costs of Court; and

g. such other and further reliefto which Plaintiffs may be entitled.

OF COUNSEL: COLE, COLE & EASLEY, P.C. 302 West Forrest Street
P.O. Drawer 510
Victoria, Texas 77902-0510 Telephone: (361) 575-0551 Facsimile: (361) 575-0986

Respectfully submitted,
£4£{t;$e
Federal I.D. 19044
State Bar No. 00792824

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
By my signature above, I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document is being forwarded to all counsel of record by certified mail, return receipt requested and/or via facsimile before 5:00 p.m. on this the.5:lli.. day of April, 2004.

PLAINTIFFS HEREBY RESPECTFULLY DEMAND A TRIAL BY JURY.

W:\W_Sciba\Griffin, Elva vs US Contractors\PIeadinS'\O)·19-M 3rd Amd Petition.doc

17

313112004

EXHIBIT "A" TO PLAINTIFFS' THIRD AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

DISCRIMINATION
lh1s for. 11 aff.cted ~y the Privacy Act of 1874: See Privacy Act State.ent
I 1
Commission on Human Rights State or local~, ifany

CHARGE NUMBER
and EEOC

COUNT\'

0 DRACE

COLOR

fX] SEX

0 RELIGION 0 NATIONAL OR lOIN

0 o IX) RETALIATION

AOE

DISABILITY OOTHER/ap.clt;y)

DATE DISCRIMINATION TOOK PLACE

EARLIESr

LATEST

12/20/2000 03/25/2001

ACTION

THE PARTICULARS ARE fIr addJUtmal I/MO. J.I lJ.ftlH. aUaoh .llera abNet.)):
From on or around December 20, 2000 to on or around March 25, 2001, I was subjected to sexual and sexist comments from male Respondent officials.

On or around February 15, 2001, I was subjected to unwelcome touching of a sexual nature from one of these officials.

On or around February 16,2001, I complained to upper management about sexual and sexist harassment.

On March 7, 2001, I was bumped down/ demoted from Foreman.

On or around March 13, 2001, I again complained to upper management about the sexual and sexist harassment.

On March 25. 2001, I was discharged. I was told that I was discharged due tc 2 reduction in force. Males in my position were not d1scharged in
the reduction in force.

I believe that I have been discriminated against because of my sex, female, and in retaliation for protest1ng harassment. both in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.

t - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I I w.nt thil cnarge flltd with both the EEOC and the st.t. or NM)T~Y . (Whln n.ceslary Tor State and Loc.l Requlr...ntl)
local ",el\cy. if any. I will aclow111 tM agencies if 1 CM• •Y addrea. or telephone nUiber and cooperate fully with th.. 1n the I ....r or afTl~ that I have re.d the above charge and that
It 1s true to the best of my knowledge, lnfonaatlon .nd blllef,

I d.d.... und.r p.nalty of per1ury that the forepint 11 tMlt and correct.

SIGNATURE OF'COUPLAlNANT

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS DATE
(Ionth, day .nd ye.r)

EXHIBIT "B" TO PLAINTIFFS' THIRD AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

o C

DISCRIMINATION

GENCY

Thls for. is affectld by the Privacy Act of 1974; SI' Privacy Act Stat••ant bafora

00

FEPA EEOC

360Al1271

on Human Rights Stale or localAgency. ifQ1Z)'

and EEOC

0 0 0 DRACE

COLOR

IX! SEX

RELIGION

NATIONAL ORIGIN

o 0 o 0 RETAlIATION

AGE

DISABILITY

OTHER f3JHrc1l)rJ

DATE DISCRIMINATION TOOK PLACE

EARlJE3'1'

LArES'I'

04/05/2001 04/05/2001

On April 5. 2001. I was discharged from my pos1tion as boilermaker. I was told that I was discharged due to a reduction in force. yet a male holding the same position as I. who was hired after I was. was not discharged in the reduction in force. Males were hired in the position of boilermaker after I was discharged.
I believe that I have been discriminated against because of my sex. female. in violation of Title VII of the Civ1l Rights Act of 1964', as amended.

I want thls chargl fU.d wUh both the EEOC and til' Stata or NOTARY· (WIIln Mcnsary for state and Local Rlqulr...ntl)
local Aglncy, 11 any. I w111 advlse tilt a"nela' 1f I changl . y t - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I address or t.l.phon. nu.b,r and coop,rat, tUlly wlth til.. 1n the I sw.ar or attl~ that I hav. r.ad the aboY. charge and that
lt ls true to the blst of .y knowleoge, lnfor.atlon and blilef,

I d.clarl under p.nalty of p.rJury that till forego1ng 11 true and correct.

SIGNATURE OF COMPLAINANT

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS DATE
(Manth, day and Ylar)

EXHIBIT "e" TO PLAINTIFFS' THIRD AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

DISCRlMINATION
Thla for. 1. afflctld by the prlv.cy Act of 1974; See prlvlcy Act Stat••ent before
Commission on Human Rights
State or local Agmcy, iforry

NCY
FEPA EEOC

CHARGE NUMBER

o DRACE

0 COLOR

IX) SEX 0 RELIGIOII 0 NATIONAL ORIGIN

00 RETALIATION 0 AGE

00 DISABILITY

OTHER (Sptlt:lt;y)

Equal Pay

DATE DISCRIMIIiATION TOOK PLACE

EARIJESf'

LA1'Uf'

12/27/2000 03/25/2001
CONTINUING TION

From on or about December 27. 2000 to on or about March 25. 2001. I was subjected sexual and sexist comments.
Although! complaIned to the General Foreman that I felt that I was being d1scr1minated against. the comments still continued and the General Foreman would still not let me do certain jobs because there were too many men.
On March 19. 2001, I took and passed the boilermaker test and was given a raise to $11.36 per hour. Other employees who passed the boilermaker test were usually started at $12.20 per hour. Male employees would receive raises without having to take the boilermaker test.
On March 25. 2001. I was discharged. I was told that I was dIscharged due to a reduc'tion in force. After my t.ermiuat.ion. my job responsibIlities were fulfilled by male em~lcyees hired around the time that I was discharged.
I believe that I have been discriminated against because of my sex. female. and for havlng complalned to management about their practices which I considered to be dlscriminatory. in violation of the Equal Pay Act. and Title VII of the Clvll Rights ,Act of 1964. as amended.

- V l - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - f I wlnt tll1l ch.rge tUed w!tll bOtll tile EEOC and tile Statl or NOTARY. (Wh.n ".c....ry for St.te and local Requlr_nts)
local ",aney. lt .ny. I wUl .dYl.. the .genUI. 11 I cll.ntl ldelr••• or tel.phon. nu.b.r .nd coop.r.tl fully w1th tu. 1n til. I ....r or .ffl~ th.t I IIav. r.ld til' above eharge and t"at
It IS true to the b.st of .y knowI.dg., 1nforMat10n and b.lilt.

I d.cl.r. und.r penalty of p.rJury tllat the for.golno 1. tru. alld correct.

SIGNATURE OF COMPLAINANT

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS DATE
(Month, day Ind y.ar)

EXHIBIT "D" TO PLAINTIFFS' THIRD AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

DISCRIMINATION
Thl. for. 1. affletld by thl Privacy Act of
Commission on Human Rights State or local~. ifrmy

ENey FEPA EEOC

CHARGE NUMBER
360Al

and EEOC eft J 6

0 0 DRACE

COLOR

IX] SEX

RELIGIOII OIlATIONAL ORIGIN

00 0 o RETALIATION

AGE

0 DISABILITY

oTHER (S/HIdt)')

DATE DISCRIMINATION TOOK PLACE

EARLIE3T

LAr&1I'l'

02/01/2001 04/04/2001

ION

In or around February 2001. I made an oral complaint about Joe Frank Rodriguez digging through my purse and harassing me because I was a female.
On March 27. 2001. I. and a friend of mine. complained to Speedy Wells that Severo Lopez and Joe Frank Rodriguez picked on the women that were out there. On March 30. 2001, I complained to the Human Resources department.
On April 4. 2001, I was discharged. I was told that I was discharged due to a reduction in force. Male employees were hIred for jobs I was qualified to perform near the time of my termination.
I believe that I have been discriminated against because of my sex, female, and for having comp1a1ned about be1ng d1scriminated against, in violation of T1t1e VII of the C1v11 R1ghts Act of 196 1;, as aomended.

1 ..nt thl. charlll 111la wlth bOtll till EEOC and til' 8tatl or NOTARY - (Wllln Mc....ry for Statl and local Rlqulr_ntl)

local Agency, lf any. 1.111 advl" the aglncl.. 11 I Change . y l - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I

addre•• or tellphOn. nUlblr and cooplratl fully .1th till. 1n thl I ...ar or af'l~ that I haVI rlla the &bo~1 charge Ind thlt

of

lt 1s true to thl blst of .y knowlldgl, ln10~tlon and blllif.

I dlelarl unCltr plnalty Of plrlury tbat the forego1ng 1. true and correct.

SIGNATURE OF COUPLAINANT

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS DATE
(Month, day and Ylar)

 </s> o

o

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICI' COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICI' OF TEXAS ~SJ:l.fi7~

VICI'ORIA DIVISION

EN1BIED

ELVA GRIFFIN, ANITA HERRIGES,

§

DEC 27 2004

ANIYERITZA VELAZQUEZ, AND LYNN §

STOEBNER,

§

I'IaIntlff.. §

VB.

§

.lhtN..."a.talc:.t

§

FORMOSA PLASTICS

§

§

CORPORATION, TEXAS, FORMOSA

§

PLASTICS CORPORATION, U.s.A.,

§

U.s. CONTRACI'ORS, INC, AND

§

U.s. CONTRACI'ORS, LID.,

§

Defendants, § CONSOLIDATED CASE NO. V-4)3-77

§

AND

§

§

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

§

OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

§

Plalntlff, §

§

Vs.

§

§

U.s. CONTRACI'ORS, LID.,

§

Defendant. §

CONSENT DECREE

A. The parties to this Consent Decree ("Decree") are the Plaintiffs, Elva Griffin, Anita

Herriges, Aniyeritza Velazquez, Lynn Stoebner, Amy Shipp and Avelina (Abby) Garza ("Griffin,

Herriges, Velazquez, Stoebner, Shipp and Garza"), Plaintiff, United States Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission ("EEOC'), and Defendant. U.S. Contractors. Ltd. ("USC"). This Deoee

rw>lves the allegations raised by the EEOC and Griffin , Herriges, Velazquez. Stoebner, Shipp and

Garza in the above-referenced Civil Action No. V-03-77.

o

o

B. The EEOC, Griffin, Heniges, Velazquez, Stoebner, Shipp, Garza and USC wish to settle this action, without the risks, uncertainties and expenses of continued litigation. under the tenns in the Decree.
C. This Decree resolves all issues raised in the EEOC's Complaint, including those claims brought on behalf of the class members Gana and Shipp, and the Complaints of Griffin, Heniges, Velazquez, and Stoebner. The EEOC, Griffin, Herriges, Velazquez, Stoebner, Shipp and Garza waive further litigation of aU issues raised in the above-referenced complaints. The EEOC expressly reserves its right, however, to process and litigate any charges which may now be pending or may in the future be filed against Defendant USC.
D. USC denies it discriminated against or engaged in any unlawful employment practices against Griffin, Heniges. Velazquez, Stoebner, Shipp and Garza andlor a class of similarly situated females, as alleged in the Complaints. IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED as follows:
1. This Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this action and the parties. venue is proper. and aU administrative prerequisites to the EEOC' s filing of this action have been met. The parties stipulate to the Court's jurisdiction.
SCOPE OF CONSENT DECREE 2. The duration of this Decree shall be three (3) years from the date of its filing with the Court. This Court shall retain jurisdiction of this action during the period of this Decree and may enter further orders or modifications as may be appropriate. Should any disputes under this Decree remain unresolved after this three-year period, the term of the Decree shall be automatically

2

---- --- -

- _ - _.. - - - - - - - - - - - -

o

0

extended, and the Court will retain jurisdiction of this matter to enforce the Decree, until such time

as all disputes have been resolved.

INJUNCTION

3. Defendant USC shall provide its employees with a place of employment fnee of

discrimination on the bases of sex andlor retaliation.

4. Defendant USC is enjoined from retaliating in any manner whatsoever against any

employee, past, present or future, for opposing any employment practice made unlawful by Title W ,

or for complaining of harassment or other unlawful discrimination, filing a discrimination charge.

giving testimony or assistance, or participating in any lawful manner in any investigation,

proceeding. hearing or action under Title Vll.

5. Defendant USC is enjoined from discriminating against any employee, past, present

or future. on the basis of sex. female, and from engaging in any other act or practice which has the

purpose or effect of unlawfully discriminating against any past, present, or future employee on the

basis of sex. including engaging in sexual harassment which can create or foster a hostile work

environment.

SEXUAL HARASSMENT POuey

6. Defendant USC agrees to modify its policy prohibiting sexual harassment to broaden

the scope of management personnel to whom complaints ofsexual harassment may be submitted and

which includes an affirmative statement prohibiting retaliation against those who submit sexual

harassment complaints. The adopted policy is attached to this Decree as Exhibit uA."

3

o

o

MONETARYRElJEF

7 . Defendant USC. in settlement of this dispute. shall pay to each Class Member the sum

of money as set out by theirname. for a total of $530.000.00. in a check. within ten days of the filing

date of this Decree. Such payment shall be mailed directly to each Class Member at the following

addresses:

a. Elva Griffin
clo Mr. William L. Sciba. ill Cole. Cole & Easley. P.C. Attorney at Law 302 West Forrest Victoria. Texas 77902

$124.000.00

b. Anita Herriges clo Mr. William L. Sciba. ill Cole. Cole & Easley. P.C. Attorney at Law 302 West Forrest Victoria, Texas 77902

$76.000.00

c. Lynn Stoebner clo Mr. William L. Sciba. ill Cole. Cole & Easley. P.C. Attorney at Law 302 West Forrest Victoria, Texas 77902

$76.000.00

d. Aniyeritza Velazquez clo Mr. William L. Sciba. ill Cole. Cole & Easley. P.C. Attorney at Law 302 West Forrest Victoria. Texas 77902

$124.000.00

e. Amy Shipp 811 South Highway 35. Apt. 311 ROCkport. Texas 78382

$90.000.00

4

-- -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - -

c

o

f. Avelina (Abby) Garza 1114 Houston Street Livingston. Texas 77351-2433

$40.000.00

A copy of each check and accompanying transmittal papers shall be contemporaneously

forwarded to Robert B. Marwin. Regional Attorney. EEOC. 5410 Fredericksburg Road, Suite 200.

San Antonio, Texas 78229.

TRAINING

8. Within 90 days of the entry of this Decree. USC shall provide to the EEOC evidence
that all of its employees at the Fonnosa Plastics Olefins n facility have reviewed materials

explaining that it is unlawful to do any of the following: (a) to have a hostile work environment on

the basis of sex; (b) to demote or terminate an employee because of their sex; and (c) to retaliate

against an employee because he or she complains of harassment or discrimination. These materials
will identify what activities and conduct is protected under Title vn, and will explain the damaging

effects which sex discrimination and retaliation have on its victims, their families, their co-workers,

and the workplace environment. The EEOC shall approve the materials to be used, prior to this

review.

9. Within ninety (90) days from the entry of this Decree. USC will provide two (2)
hours of training to all officers, managers. and supervisory personnel of use at the Fonnosa Plastics

Olefins II facility. This training will be administered by the Law Offices of BAKER &

HOSTETI.ER. L.L.P. and it shall explain the law relating to employment provisions of Title YD.

including sex-based discrimination , hostile work environment, sexual harassment and retaliation.

5

o

o

10. Within ten (10) days after the completion of the training or review session, USC shall certify to EEOC, in writing. that the required training or review session has taken place and that required personnel attended. Such certification shan include:
a. The date, location and duration of the training or review session; b. A copy of the registry of attendance which shall include the name and position OTtilie
of each person in attendance; and
c. Training materials.
POSTING REOUIREMENT II. Within ten (10) business days afterentry ofthis Decree, USC shall post copies ofthe Notice attached as Exhibit "B" to this Decree at its Port Lavaca, Texas employment office in a conspicuous location easily accessible to and commonly frequented by employees. The Notice shall remain posted for the duration of this Decree. USC shall ensure that the posting is not altered. defaced or covered by any other material.
MISCEllANEOUS PROVISIONS 12. USC shall bear the costs associated with administering and implementing the provisions of this Decree. 13. Except as provided in paragraph 12 of this Decree, the parties to this Decree shall bear their own costs and attorney>s fees. Funhennore, the parties agree that pursuant to Section 706(k) of Title YD, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k), there is no "prevailing party" in this action or proceeding. 14. The terms of this Decree shall be binding upon the EEOC, Griffin , Herriges, Velazquez, Stoebner. Shipp. Garza. USC and their agents, officers, employees, servants, successors, and assigns, as to the issues resolved herein.
6

o

o

15. When this Decree requires the submission by USC of docwnents or other materials to

EEOC, such documents or other materials shall be mailed to Robert B. Harwin. Regional Attorney,

5410 Fredericksburg Road, Suite 200, San Antonio, Texas 78229.

The Clerk shall furnish a copy hereof to each attorney of record.

v. Lle... SOORDEREDANDENTEREDthis..2;2.~ of

~,2004.

•

~i1ttP~
Attomey-in-Charge State Bar No. 15603520 Federal!.D. No. 10221
C. DEANS HERMS, JR. State Bar No. 24002265 Federal I.D. No. 27461
BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP. 1000 Louisiana, Suite 2000 Houston, Texas 77002-5009 Telephone: (713)646-1339 Telecopier: (713)751-1717

Respectfully Submitted, ERIC S. DREIBAND General Counsel JAMES L. LEE Deputy General Counsel GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel
ROBERT B. HARWIN Regional Attorney District of Columbia Bar No. 076083
rvisory Trial Att ey xas State Bar No. 19708300 Federal!.D. No. 14850

ATIORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS, U.s. CONTRACTORS, LTD.

7

DAVID C. RIVELA Attomey-in-Charge Texas State Bar No. 00797324
Federal I.D. No. 32914
.JENNIFER RANDAll..
Trial Attorney Colorado State Bar No. 033240 Federal J.D. No. 36033
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION San Antonio District Office 5410 Fredericksburg Road, Suite 200 San Antonio, Texas 78229-3555 Telephone: (210) 281-7619 Telecopier: (210) 281-7669
ATIORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF EEOC

AMYSIDPP 811 South Highway 35, Apt. 311 Rockpnrt, Texas 78382
AVELINA (ABBY) GARZA 1114 Houston Street Livingston, Texas 77351-2433

WIIl1AM L. SCIBA
Attorney-in-Charge State Bar No. 00792824
Federal I.D. 19044
COLE, COLE & EASLEY, P.C. 302 West Forrest Street P.O. Drawer 510 Victoria, Texas 77902-0510 Telephone: (361)575-0551 Telecopier: (361)575-0986
ATIORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS, ELVA GRIFFIN, ANITA HERRIGES, ANIYERITZA VELAZQUEZ AND LYNN STOEBNER

8

" OIC-tl-U

~ rorE!OC

o

o UI-211-un

JENNlFIlR RANDAlL

Trial AItomoy

Colarado Stato B..- No. 033240

_0Fodcnl LD. No. 36033

EQuAL EMPLoYMENT OPPoR1tlNnY

OOMMlSSlON

San

PiJtriot Office

5410 Frederictsburs Road. Sui,. 200

SID _ 0, Taa 78229-3555

Tolopbone: (210)281 -7619

TeIecopio<: (210) 281-7669

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFI' EIWC

AMYSlDPP 811 SOUlhHigllway35, Api. 311
RDckport, T.,... 78382
AVELINA (ABBY)Cl
11141louo1on S1reet Liw,pI<>n, Tex., 173S I-2433

WILLIAM L. SClBA AUorney-iD-CbIrp SlatcB..-No.00792824 Fodonl LD. 19044
COLE, COLE &: EASLEY, P.C. 302WestF_Stree, P.O. Dm_510 VlC:IXlria, T..... 77902-051 0 Tolepbon.: (361)575-0551
Tolecop;or: (361)575-0986
A1TORNEYFORPLAJNnIIIIS, ELYA GRIFJIIN, ANITA BIIlUtICES, AN1YElUT2.A VEUZQUUAND LYNN STOEIIl'IEIl

o Fr t riECC
AVEUNA(ABB~IGARZA
11141!ouston _ LiviDptan, T.... 77351·2433

T-211 P.OI2/Q13 F-Tir
JENNIFER RANDALL Trial Attorney Colornlo State Bar No, 033240
Fodera! !D. No, 36033
EQUAL llMPLOYIdllNT QJ>PQRTIIlffi"Y COMMISSION
San Antonio District Office 5410 Frcdcrickob1ll, Road. Sui.. 200 San Antonio, T"".. 78229·3555 Telephone: (210) 281· 7619
Tclecopicr. (210) 281·7669
AlTORNEYS FOR PLAlNTlPF EEOC
WIU.IAM L. SCIBA Attomey-in--Charge Stale Bar No, 00792824
l'edtnal to, 19044
COLE, COLE & .E.ASLEY, P,C, 302 West Fonwt StrOOt P,O. Dra_ 510 Victoria, Tmw 77902-0510 Telepbouc: (361)575 ·0551 Telecopier: (361)575-0986
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINJ."II'l'S, ELVA CRDFIN, ANITABERlUCES, ANIYERlTZA VELAZQUJ:Z AND LYNN STOI!DNER

 </s> IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS VICTORIA DIVISION

UNITED STATES COURTS
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AlfiD
JAN 2 1 2004
Michael N. Milby, Clerk of Court

ELVA GRIFFIN, ANITA HERRIGES, ANIYERITZA VELAZQUEZ, AND LYNN STOEBNER,
Plaintiffs,
FORMOSA PLASTICS CORPORATION, TEXAS, FORMOSA PLASTICS CORPORATION, U.S.A., GLENN DOBBS, MITCH McBRIDE, SEVERO LOPEZ, JOE FRANK RODRIGUEZ, U.S. CONTRACTORS, INC., AND U.S. CONTRACTORS, LTD.,
Defendants,
AND
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
vs.
U.S. CONTRACTORS, LTD.,
Defendant.

§ § § § § CONSOLIDATED CASE NO. V-03-77 § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § §

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
NATURE OF THE ACTION
This is an action under Title vn of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended and Title I of
the Civil Rights Act of 1991, to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex, female and retaliation, and to provide appropriate relief to Elva Griffin, Anita Herriges, Lynn Stoebner, Aniyeritza Velazquez and other similarly situated females, who were adversely affected by such practices. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission") alleges that

\C\

corporation doing business in the State ofTexas and Calhoun County, Texas, and has continuously had at least 15 employees.
5. At all relevant times, Defendant U. S. Contractors has continuouslybeen an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 6. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Elva Griffin, Anita Herriges, Lynn Stoebner and Aniyeritza Velazquez filed charges with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant U.S. Contractors. 7. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 8. Since at least June 2001, Defendant U.S. Contractors has engaged in unlawful employment practices at a project site in Calhoun County, Texas, in violation of Section 703(a)(1) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(a)(I) by: a. subjecting Elva Griffin, Lynn Stoebner, Aniyeritza Velazquez and other similarly
situated females, to sexual harassment from male supervisors, co-workers, and other males on the job site; b. disparately discharging Elva Griffin, Anita Herriges, Lynn Stoebner, Aniyeritza Velazquez, and other similarly situated females based on their sex; and c. discharging Elva Griffin, Lynn Stoebner, Aniyeritza Velazquez and other similarly situated females after they complained about sex discrimination. 9. Since at least June 2001, Defendant U.S. Contractors has engaged in unlawful employment practices at a project site in Calhoun County, Texas, in violation of Section 704(a) of

Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint

Page 3

Title VIT, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-3(a) by: a. subjecting Elva Griffin to a retaliatory demotion; and b. discharging Elva Griffin, Anita Herriges, Lynn Stoebner, Aniyeritza Velazquez, and other similarly situated females after they complained about sex discrimination, or for otherwise participating in a protected activity under Title VIT. IO. The effect ofthe practices complained ofin paragraphs eight and nine above has been
to deprive Elva Griffin, Anita Herriges, Lynn Stoebner, Aniyeritza Velazquez and other similarly situated females ofequal employment opportunities and to otherwise adversely affect their status as employees, because of their sex and retaliation.
11. The unlawful employment practices complained ofin paragraphs eight and nine above were and are intentionaL
12. The unlawful employment practices complained ofin paragraphs eight and nine above were and are done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Elva Griffin, Anita Herriges, Lynn Stoebner, Aniyeritza Velazquez and other similarly situated females.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant U.S. Contractors, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in retaliation and from any other employment practice which facilitates, condones, or encourages retaliation, and from any other employment practice which discriminates on the basis ofretaliation; B. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant U.S. Contractors, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from subjecting its

Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint

Page 4

of enjoyment of life, in an amount to be detennined at trial;

G. Order Defendant U. S. Contractors to pay Elva Griffin, Anita Herriges, Lynn Stoebner,

Aniyeritza Velazquez and other similarly situated females punitive damages for its malicious and

reckless conduct described in paragraphs eight and nine above, in an amount to be detennined at

trial;

H. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public

interest; and

I.

Award the Commission its costs of this action.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint.

Respectfully submitted,

ERIC S. DREllAND General Counsel

JAMES L. LEE Deputy General Counsel

GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel
~~~
ROBERT B. HARWIN Regional Attorney District of Columbia Bar No. 076083

Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint

ervisory Trial Attorney Texas Bar No. 19708300 Federal LD. No. 14850

Page 6

DAVID C. RIVELA Attorney-in-Charge Texas State Bar No. 00797324 Federal LD. No. 32914
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION San Antonio District Office 5410 Fredericksburg Rd., Ste 200 San Antonio, TX 78229-3555 Telephone: (210) 281-7619 Telecopier: (210) 281-7669
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint

Page 7

.

...
CHAR

DISCRIMINATION

GENCY

J~' lhls form is affected
comDletlna thiS form.

by

the

Privacy

Act

of

1974;

See

Privacy Ac;t

Statement

b.efore

FEPA EEOC

CHARGE NUMBER
/1, ~!
.. 360Al11~ -.l}' 7nll " ..,

Texas Commission on Human Rights· State or local Agency, if any

and EEOC

NAME (Indicate Mr .• Ms .• Mrs.)

HOME TELEPHONE (Include Area Code)

Elva Griffin

(361) . 758-7522

w. STREET ADDRESS

•

CITY, STATE AND ZIP CODE

i02

Forrest Victoria TX 77902

-

bDATE OF BIRTH

1/01/19S9

NAMED IS THE EMPLOYER. LABOR ORGANIZATION. EMPLOYMENT AGENCY APPRENTICESHIP COMMITTEE.

I I STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY WHO DISCRIMINATED AGAINST ME (Ir /IJore than one l1st belo".)

NAIIE

NUMBER OF E~PLOYEES, MEMBERS TELEPHONE (IncllJde Area Code)

U S Contractors Inc
STREET ADDRESS

Cat C (201-500)
CITY, SMTE AND ZIP CODE

, COUNTY

301 Formosa Dr. Point Comfort TX 77978
NAME

OS7
TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include Area Code)

!RT·Ii~fT ADD·~I!?r- - - - - - - - -

..- CITY, STAiE Ar.D ZIP CODE

1- COUNTY

CAUSE OF DISCRIMINATION BASED ON (Check appropriate box(es))

o o o DRACE

COLOR

00 SEX

RELIGION

NATIONAL ORIGIN

o [K) RETALIATION DAGE

D DISABILITY

OTHER (Spectry)

i

DATE DISCRIMINATION TOOK PLACE

EAR['IES'l'

['ATEST

12/20/2000 03/25/2001

0 CONTINUING ACTION

THE PARTICULARS ARE (If additIonal space is needed. attach extra sbeet(s)):
From on or around December 20, 2000 to on or around March 25, 2001, I

was subjected to sexual and sexist comments from male Respondent

officials.

On or around February 15, 2001, I was subjected to unwelcome touching of a sexual nature from one of these officials.

On or around February 16,2001, I complained to upper management about sexual and sexis·t harassment.

On March 7 , 2001, I was bumped down/ demoted from Foreman.

On or around March 13, 2001, I again complained to upper management about the sexual and sexist harassment.

. - . - ,

On March dl..'.. c +v-,~.. 2.

25. 2001, ~ ... - cu..,:)....,. ".... t . . on

I was discharged. I was told that I iu lo ,~ rce. Ma~1 es in my pos ..;.. +v- iou . ... Y,V._<::-l:.:C:-

was

H ,-

O

L
I

.

ddiiss.cc,hhaarrggeeda.

in

I

the reduction in force.

I believe that I have been discriminated against because of my sex,female, and in retaliation for protesting harassment. both in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.

I want th1s charge fHed with both the EEOC and the State or NOTARY· (When necessary for State and Local Requ1rements)
local Agency, 11 any. I will adv1se the agencies 11 I change my ~-----------------------4 address or telephone number and cooperate fully with them 1n the I swear or aff1rm that I have read the above Charge and that
1t 1s true to the best of my knowledge, 1nformat10n and bel1ef.
SIGNATURE OF· COMPLAINANT

c.. ~ar~ ing Party

(S~ignIalt':~~~)~~.-~

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS DATE
(Uonth, day and year)

.--------C-H-A-R-i!tII DISCRIMINATION

GENCY

o is affected by the privacy Act of 1974j See Privacy Act Statement before
form.

00

FEPA EEOC

360Al1271

Texas Commission on Human Rights
State or localAgency, ifany

and EEOC

NAM (Indicate Mr., Ms., Mrs.)

LEPHONE (Include Area Code)

•

CITY, STATE AND P CODE

.- --.-----.-------

o o DRACE

0 COLOR

00 SEX 0 RELIGION 0 NATIONAL ORIGIN

RETALIATION 0 AGE

DISABILITY 0 OTHER (Specit;y)

THE PARTICULARS ARE (Ir adtfi'tional space'is needed, attach extra sheet(s)):

DATE DISCRIMINATION TOOK PLACE

EARLIEST

LATEST

04/05/2001 04/05/2001
o CONTINUING ACTION

On April 5, 2001, I was discharged from my position as boilermaker. I was told that I was discharged due to a reduction in force, yet a male holding the same position as I, who was hired after I was, was not discharged in the reduction in force. Males were hired in the position of boilermaker after I was discharged.

I believe that I have been discriminated against because of my sex, female, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964~ as amended.

I want thls Charge f1led with both the EEOC and the State or NOTARY - (When necessary for State and Local Requlrements)

local Agency. 11 any. I wlll advise the agencles If I change m y t - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - t
address or telephone number and cooperate fully wlth them in the I swear or afflrm that I have read the above charge and that it ls true to the best of my knowledge, information and bellef.

I declare under penalty of perlury that the foregoing ls true and correct.

SIGNATURE OF COMPLAINANT

---~~-- - - - - - - - - - -

~£;~ SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS DATE (Month, day and year) ture

DISCRIMINATION
affected by the Privacy Act of 1974; See Privacy Act Statement before this form.
Texas Commission on Human Rights
State or local Agency, if any
NAME (Indicate Mr., Ms., Mrs.)

ENCY

CHARGE NUMBER

1299
~ and EEOC I (j

, STATE AND ZIP CODE

F EMPLOYEES,

TELEPHONE (Inalude Area

CITY I STA

LEPHONE NUMBER (Include Area Code)

STREET ADDRESS

CITY, ::;TATE Atl;) ZIP CODE

COUNTY

00 0 0 DRACE

0 COLOR

o 0 IKl RETALIATION 0 AGE

SEX

RELIGION

NATIONAL ORIGIN

DISABILITY

OTHER (Speciry)

THE PARTICULARS ARE (If additional space 1s needed, attach extra sheet(s)):

DATE DISCRIMINATION TOOK PLACE

EARLIEST

LATEST

02/01/2001 04/04/2001

ON

In or around February 2001, I made an oral complaint about Joe Frank Rodriguez digging through my purse and harassing me because I was a female.

On March 27, 2001, I, and a friend of mine, complained to Speedy Wells that Severo Lopez and Joe Frank Rodriguez picked on the women that were out there. On March 30, 2001, I complained to the Human Resources department.

On April 4, 2001, I was discharged. I was told that I was discharged due to a reduction in force. Male employees were hired for jobs I was qualified to perform near the time of my termination.

I believe that I have been discriminated against because of my sex,
female, and for having complained about being discriminated against, in
violation of Title VII of th~ Civil Rights An~ of 196 1i, as amended.

I want this charge filed with both the EEOC and the State or NOTARY - (When necessary for State and Local Requirements)

local Agency, 11 any. I will advise the agencies 11 I change m y l - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I

address or telephone number and cooperate fully with them in the I swear or affirm that I have read the above charge and that

of

rdance with their

res.

it is true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

SIGNATURE OF COMPLAINANT

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS DATE
(Month, day and year)

.- oIL] , CHARGA- ., DISCRIMINATION

ENCY

This form is affected by the Privacy Act oT 1974; See Privacy Act Statement before 00 FEPA

completing this form.

EEOC

CHARGE NUMBER
. 360A11300

Texas Commission on Human Rights
State or local Agency, ifany

and EE~ 16_

-k LI NAlIE (Indicate IIr., liS., Mrs.)
Ms. Aniyeri~ Velazauez
STREET ADDRESS

CITY, STATE AND ZIP CODE

HOllE TELEPHONE (Include Area Code)
(361) 553-5810
I( DATE OF BIRTH

409 Bauer Drive. AQt. #2 Port Lavaca TX 77979

04/16/1962

NAMED IS THE EMPLOYER, LABOR ORGANIZATION, EMPLOYMENT AGENCY APPRENTICESHIP COMMITTEE,

I I STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY WHO DISCRIMINATED AGAINST ME (Ir /Dare than one list belo... )

NAME

NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES, MEMBERS TELEPHONE (Include Area Code)

U S Contractors Inc
STREET ADDRESS

Cat D (501 +)
CITY, STATE AND ZIP CODE

I (~61) 552-2147 COUNTY

301 Formosa Drive Point Comfort TX 77978
NAME

057
TelEPHONE NUIABER (Include Area Code)

STREET ADDnESS

CITY, STATE AND ZIP CODE

I COUNTY

CAUSE OF DISCRIMINATION BASED ON (Check appropriate box(es))

DRACE

D COLOR

00 SEX

D RELIGION D NATIONAL ORIGIN

IKl RETALIATION DAGE

IKl D DISABILITY

OTHER (Speci1'y)

Equal Pay

THE PARTICULARS ARE (Ir additional space is needed, attach extra sheet(s)),

DATE DISCRIMINATION TOOK PLACE

EARLIEST

LATEST

12/27/2000 03/25/2001
D CONTINUING ACTION

From on or about December 27, 2000 to on or about March 25, 2001, I was subjected sexual and sexist comments.

Although I complained to the General Foreman that I felt that I was being discriminated against, the comments still continued and the General Foreman would still not let me do certain jobs because there were too many men.

On March 19, 2001, I took and passed the boilermaker test and was given a raise to $11.36 per hour. Other employees who passed the boilermaker test were usually started at $12.20 per hour. Male employees would receive raises without having to take the boilermaker test.

On March 25, 2001, I was discharged. I was told that I was discharged due to a reduct.ion in force. After ray termiuation, my juo responsibilities we:ce fulfIlled by male emplcyees hired around. the time that I was discharged.

I believe that I have been discriminated against because of my sex, female, and for having complained to management about their practices which I considered to be discriminatory, in violation of the Equal Pay Act, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.

I want this Charge filed with both the EEOC and the State or NOTARY· (When necessary for State and Local Requirements)

local Agency, if any. I will advise the agencies if I change my

address or telephone number and cooperate fully With them in thel I swear or affirm that I have read the above Charge and that

processing of my charge in accordance with their procedures.

It lS true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is trus and correct.

SIGNATURE OF COMPLAINANT

Da~ 7.,!/- D I.

~~t~.,"1h (\ "v...,"\

°

t...-:""~- --- 'J-.A

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS DATE
(Month, day and year)

EEOC FORM 5 (Hev. U( /!l!l)

)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

San Antonio District Office

5410 Fredericksburg Road, Suite 200

San Antonio, TX 78229-3555

(210) 281-7600

TTY (210) 281-7610

FAX (210) 281-2512

Charge No.: 360 Al 1272

Elva Griffin clo William L. Sciba, III Cole, Cole & Easley, P.C. 302 West Forrest, P.O. Drawer 510 Victoria, Texas 77902-0510

Charging Party

U.S. Contractors, Inc. 301 Formosa Drive Point Comfort, Texas 77978

Respondent

DETERMINATION

I issue the following determination on the merits of this charge.

Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Title Vll of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (Title Vll), and timeliness, and all other requirements for coverage have been met.

Charging Party alleged that she was discriminated against because of her sex, female, in violation of Title Vll of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, in that she was subjected to sexist and sexual comments from management, as well as inappropriate physical contact. Charging Party further alleged that she complained about the harassment and no action was taken, and instead she was demoted and discharged as a result of her complaints.

Respondent contends that it ha,s no record of Charging Party making any such complaints, and that she was demoted because her work performance deteriorated. Respondent also stated that the Charging Party was laid off as a result of a reduction in workforce, and it retained the best qualified employees, regardless of gender.

Examination of the evidence indicates that the Charging Party complained to Respondent's management about sexist comments and sexual harassment on several occasions. Shortly after her initial complaints, the Charging Party was demoted. A few days after her demotion, Charging Party complained again about the on-going harassment, and less than two weeks later, her employment was terminated. Additionally, the Respondent failed to provide evidence to show that the male employees retained were better qualified than the Charging Party.

Charge No.: 360 Al1272 Page 2 of2
Based on the evidence obtained, there is reasonable cause to believe Respondent discriminated against the Charging Party, and a class of females because of their sex, in that they were subjected to sexist comments, and sexual harassment. There is also reasonable cause to believe Respondent discriminated against the Charging Party and a class of females because of their sex, and because they complained about discrimination, in that their employment was terminated. Evidence further shows that there is reasonable cause to believe that the Charging Party was also retaliated against for having participated in protected activity, in that she was demoted.
Upon finding that there is reason to believe that violations have occurred, the Commission attempts to eliminate the alleged unlawful practices by informal methods of conciliation. Therefore, the Commission now invites the parties to join with it in reaching a just resolution of this matter. The
confidentiality provisions of Title vn and Commission Regulations apply to information obtained
during conciliation.
If the Respondent declines to discuss settlement or when, for any other reason, a settlement acceptable to the office Director is not obtained, the Director will inform the parties and advise them of the court enforcement alternatives available to aggrieved persons and the Commission. A Commission representative will contact each party in the near future to begin conciliation.
Sincerely,
Ie. '2003
I

)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

San Antonio District Office

5410 Fredericksburg Road. Suite 200

San Antonio. TX 78229-3555

(210) 281-7600

TrY (210) 281-7610

FAX (210) 281-2512

Charge No.: 360 Al 1271

Anita Herriges c/o William L. Sciba, ill Cole, Cole & Easley, P.C. 302 West Forrest, P.O. Drawer 510 Victoria, Texas 77902-0510

Charging Party

U.S. Contractors, Inc. 301 Formosa Drive Point Comfort, Texas 77978

Respondent

DETERMINATION

I issue the following determination on the merits of this charge.
vn Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Title of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as
amended (Title Vll), and timeliness, and all other requirements for coverage have been met.

Charging Party alleged that she was discriminated against because of her sex, female, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, in that she was discharged.

Examination of the evidence indicates that the Charging Party was laid off from her position as boiler maker. Respondent stated that the best qualified employees were retained, regardless of gender. However, the Respondent failed to show that the male employees retained were better qualified than the Charging Party.

Based on the evidence obtained, there is reasonable cause to believe Respondent discriminated against the Charging Party, and a class of females because of their sex, in that their employment was terminated.

Upon finding that there is reason to believe that violations have occurred, the Commission attempts to eliminate the alleged unlawful practices by informal methods of conciliation. Therefore, the Commission now invites the parties to join with it in reaching ajust resolution of this matter. The confidentiality provisions of Title VII and Commission Regulations apply to information obtained during conciliation.

)
Charge No.: 360 Al1271 Page 2 of2
If the Respondent declines to discuss settlement or when, for any other reason, a settlement acceptable to the office Director is not obtained, the Director will inform the parties and advise them of the court enforcement alternatives available to aggrieved persons and the Commission. A Commission representative will contact each party in the near future to begin conciliation.
Sincerely,
I~ 2663
I

1&\
~

u.s. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

San Antonio District Office

5410 Fredericksburg Road, Suite 200

San Antonio, TX 78229-3555

(210) 281-7600

TrY (210) 281-7610

FAX (210) 281-2512

Charge No.: 360 Al 1299

Lynn Stoebner clo William L. Sciba, ill Cole, Cole & Easley, P.C. 302 West Forrest, P.O. Drawer 510 Victoria, Texas 77902-0510

Charging Party

U.S. Contractors, Inc. 301 Formosa Drive Point Comfort, Texas 77978

Respondent

DETERMINATION

I issue the following determination on the merits of this charge.
Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Title vn of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as
amended (Title Vll), and timeliness, and all other requirements for coverage have been met.

Charging Party alleged that she was discriminated against because of her sex, female, in violation
of Title vn of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, in that she was subjected to harassment
because of her sex. Charging Party further alleged that she complained about the harassment and
no action was taken, and instead she was discharged as a result of her complaints.

Respondent contends that it has no record of Charging Party making any such complaints, and that she was laid off as a result of a reduction in workforce, and it retained the best qualified employees, regardless of gender.

Examination of the evidence corroborates that the Charging Party complained to Respondent's management about harassment based on her sex. The last time she complained about the harassment was in March of 2001 and less than one week later her employment was terminated. Additionally. Respondent failed to show that the male employees retained were better qualified than the Charging Party.

Based on the evidence obtained, there is reasonable cause to believe Respondent discriminated against the Charging Party, and a class of females because of their sex, in that they were subjected to sex harassment. There is also reasonable cause to believe Respondent discriminated against the Charging Party, and a class of females because of their sex. and because they complained about discrimination, in that their employment was terminated.

Charge No.: 360 Al 1299 Page 2 of2

Upon finding that there is reason to believe that violations have occurred, the Commission attempts to eliminate the alleged unlawful practices by informal methods of conciliation. Therefore, the Commission now invites the parties to join with it in reaching a just resolution of this matter. The
confidentiality provisions of Title vn and Commission Regulations apply to information obtained
during conciliation.
If the Respondent declines to discuss settlement or when, for any other reason, a settlement acceptable to the office Director is not obtained, the Director will inform the parties and advise them of the court enforcement alternatives available to aggrieved persons and the Commission. A Commission representative will contact each party in the near future to begin conciliation.

Q.~
~e

I~

2ex>3

Sincerely,

U.S. EQUAL RMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

San Antonio District Office

5410 Fredericksburg Road. Suite 200

San Antonio. TX 78229-3555 (210) 281-7600
TTY (210) 281-7610 FAX (210) 281-2512

Charge No.: 360 Al 1300

Aniyeritza Velasquez
clo William L. Sciba, ill
C91e, Cole & Easley, P.C. 302 West Forrest, P.O. Drawer 510 Victoria, Texas 77902-0510

Charging Party

U.S. Contractors, Inc. 301 Fonnosa Drive Point Comfort, Texas 77978

Respondent

DETERMINATION

I issue the following determination on the merits of this charge_

Respondent is an employer within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (fitle VIl), and timeliness, and all other requirements for coverage have been met.

Charging Party alleged that she was discriminated against because of her sex, female. in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, in that she was subjected to sexist and sexual comments. Charging Party further alleged that she complained about the harassment and no action was taken. Instead she was not given the same pay raise given to males for passing the boiler maker test, she was not assigned to the same duties as males, and her employment was terminated.

Respondent contends that it has no record of Charging Party making any such complaints, and that she was laid off as a result of a reduction in workforce, and it retained the best qualified employees, regardless of gender.

Examination of the evidence indicates that the Charging Party complained to Respondent's management about sexist comments and sexual harassment. Shortly after her complaints, the Charging Party's employment was terminated. Additionally, the Respondent failed to provide evidence to show that the male employees retained were better qualified than the Charging Party.

Based on the evidence obtained, there is reasonable cause to believe Respondent discriminated against the Charging Party, and a class of females because of their sex, in that they were subjected to sexist comments, and sexual harassment. There is also reasonable cause to believe Respondent discriminated against the Charging Party and a class of females because of their sex, and because they complained about discrimination, in that their employment was terminated.

Charge No.: 360 Al 1300' Page 2 of2
Upon finding that there is reason to believe that violations have occurred, the Commission attempts to eliminate the alleged unlawful practices by informal methods of conciliation. Therefore, the Commission now invites the parties to join with it in reaching ajust resolution of this matter. The
confidentiality provisions of Title vn and Commission Regulations apply to information obtained
during conciliation.
If the Respondent declines to discuss settlement or when, for any other reason, a settlement acceptable to the office Director is not obtained, the Director will infonn the parties and advise them of the court enforcement alternatives available to aggrieved persons and the Commission. A Commission representative will contact each party in the near future to begin conciliation.
Sincerely,

 </s> 1. EEOC Case ID#: EE-TX-0391
2. Docket number/Court of each of the related or consolidated cases: United States District Court for the District of Texas; CV-03-00077 and CV-03-00081.
3. Related or consolidated? Consolidated
4. Docket entry # (or other location) where consolidation or relation appears: Docket entry # in case CV-03-00077 and docket entry #6 in CV-03-00081.
5. Date of consolidation/relation? 08/18/2003.
6. Terms of the consolidation (e.g. “consolidated for purposes of discovery only, trial to be in front of original judge” or “consolidated for purposes of discovery; decision on trial consolidation to be made later”): Lead case CV-03-00077
7. For each case, who are the parties (include charging parties if EEOC is plaintiff) and what is the basic theory of the case? (e.g. sexual harassment, age discrimination) CV-03-00077: plaintiffs are Elva Griffin, Anita Herriges, Anuyerita Velazquez, Lynn Stoebner and EEOC (Consol Plaintiff); defendants are Formosa Plastics Corporation – Texas, Formosa Plastics Corporation – USA, Glenn Dobbs, Mitch McBride, Severo Lopez, Joe Frank Rodriguez, U.S. Contractors, Inc., U.S. Contractors, LTD; movant is Ronald J. Hare. Theory: sex discrimination in violation of Title VII and of TX state law.
CV-03-00081: plaintiff is EEOC; defendant is U.S. Contractors, Inc. Theory: sex discrimination and retaliation for complaining
8. Briefly describe the procedural history of each case prior to their being related or consolidated. CV-03-00077: original complaint not on the docket but the first docket entry is a notice of removal, so maybe originally filed in state court (dated 07/18/2003)? Little activity prior to consolidation.
CV-03-00081 filed on 07/25/2003. Little activity prior to consolidation.
9. After the cases were related/consolidated, what happened? was one case designated the lead case and all subsequent activity appears on that case docket? do both dockets contain lots of subsequent entries and if so, are they mostly or entirely duplicative, or do they indicate different types of activities in the two cases? All subsequent litigation activity appears on CV-03-00077 docket until case settled by consent decree on 12/22/2004.

 </s> DC CM/ECF LIVE- US District Court-Texas Southern - Docket Report

https://ecf.txsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?578959398813671-L_3...

U.S. District Court SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (Victoria) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 6:03-cv-00077

CLOSED, LEAD

Griffin, et al v. Formosa Plastics Cor, et al Assigned to: Judge John D. Rainey Demand: $0 Case in other court: CCL #1, Calhoun Co., 02cv264 Cause: 28:1442 Notice of Removal

Date Filed: 07/18/2003 Date Terminated: 12/22/2004 Jury Demand: Defendant Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff
Elva Griffin TERMINATED: 11/24/2004

represented by William Louis Sciba, III Cole Cole et al 302 West Forrest P. O. Box 510 Victoria, Tx 77901 361-575-0551 Fax: 361-575-0986 Email: wsciba@cce-vic.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Anita Herriges TERMINATED: 11/24/2004

represented by William Louis Sciba, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Aniyerita Velazquez TERMINATED: 11/24/2004

represented by William Louis Sciba, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Lynn Stoebner TERMINATED: 11/24/2004

represented by William Louis Sciba, III (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Consol Plaintiff
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

represented by Robert B Harwin EEOC Fax 210 281 7669 5410 Fredericksburg Rd Ste 200

1 of 14

6/4/2007 10:54 AM

DC CM/ECF LIVE- US District Court-Texas Southern - Docket Report

https://ecf.txsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?578959398813671-L_3...

V.
Defendant Formosa Plastics Corporation, Texas TERMINATED: 11/24/2004

San Antonio, TX 78229-3555 210-281-7613 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Carl Rivela Attorney at Law 5410 Fredericksburg Rd Ste 200 San Antonio, TX 78229 210-281-7619 Email: david.rivela@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennifer A Randall EEOC 5410 Fredericksburg Rd Ste 200 San Antonio, TX 78229 210-281-7636
Judith Georgann Taylor EEOC 5410 Fredericksburg Rd Ste 200 San Antonio, TX 78229-3555 210-281-7673 Fax: 210-281-7669 fax Email: judith.taylor@eeoc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Nancy Lynne Patterson Baker Hostetler LLP 1000 Louisiana Ste 2000 Houston, TX 77002 713-751-1600 Fax: 713-751-1717 Email: npatterson@bakerlaw.com TERMINATED: 08/03/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William W Seerden Cullen Carsner et al PO Box 2938 Victoria, TX 77902-2938

2 of 14

6/4/2007 10:54 AM

DC CM/ECF LIVE- US District Court-Texas Southern - Docket Report

https://ecf.txsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?578959398813671-L_3...

Defendant Formosa Plastics Corporation, USA TERMINATED: 11/24/2004 Defendant Glenn Dobbs TERMINATED: 07/07/2004
Defendant

361-573-6318 Fax: 361-573-2603 fax LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Nancy Lynne Patterson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/03/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William W Seerden (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Nancy Lynne Patterson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/07/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Ronald B Walker Walker Keeling et al PO Box 108 Victoria, TX 77902-0108 361-576-6800 Fax: 361-576-6196 Email: rwalker@wkcfirm.com TERMINATED: 07/07/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William W Seerden (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/07/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY
Terry Malone Carroll, Jr Walker Keeling and Carroll 210 E Constitution PO Box 108 Victoria, TX 77902-0108 361-576-6800 Fax: 361-576-6196 Email: tcarroll@wkcfirm.com TERMINATED: 07/07/2004

3 of 14

6/4/2007 10:54 AM

DC CM/ECF LIVE- US District Court-Texas Southern - Docket Report

https://ecf.txsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?578959398813671-L_3...

Mitch McBride TERMINATED: 07/07/2004
Defendant Severo Lopez TERMINATED: 05/05/2004
Defendant Joe Frank Rodriguez TERMINATED: 07/07/2004
Defendant U. S. Contractors, Inc. TERMINATED: 11/24/2004

represented by Nancy Lynne Patterson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/07/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William W Seerden (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/07/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by Nancy Lynne Patterson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/05/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William W Seerden (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/05/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by J Bradley Green Carriage Services 3040 Post Oak Blvd Ste 300 Houston, TX 77056 713-333-8400 Fax: 713-332-5473 TERMINATED: 07/07/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nancy Lynne Patterson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/07/2004 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Nancy Lynne Patterson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Dean Herms, Jr Porter & Hedges, LLP 1000 Main Street

4 of 14

6/4/2007 10:54 AM

DC CM/ECF LIVE- US District Court-Texas Southern - Docket Report

https://ecf.txsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?578959398813671-L_3...

Defendant U.S. Contractors, LTD
Movant Ronald J. Hare

36th Floor Houston, TX 77002 713-226-6680 Fax: 713-226-6280 Email: dherms@porterhedges.com
Drew B Tipton Baker and Hostetler LLP 1000 Louisiana Ste 2000 Houston, TX 77002-5009 713-646-1348 Fax: 713-751-1717 fax Email: dtipton@bakerlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Nancy Lynne Patterson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Curtis Dean Herms, Jr (See above for address)
Drew B Tipton (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Roland J Carlson, Jr Attorney at Law Box 2335 Victoria, TX 77902 361-573-3341 Fax: 361-573-9874 fax Email: swedecarlson@sbcglobal.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 07/18/2003 07/22/2003

#

Docket Text

1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL filed FILING FEE $ 150.00 RECEIPT # 603279 (lmunoz) (Entered: 07/22/2003)
2 Order setting Initial Pretrial and Scheduling Conference on 11/3/03 at 9:20 a.m. and Order to Disclose Interested Persons, filed. ( Signed by Judge John D. Rainey ) Parties notified. (lmunoz) (Entered: 07/22/2003)

5 of 14

6/4/2007 10:54 AM

DC CM/ECF LIVE- US District Court-Texas Southern - Docket Report

https://ecf.txsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?578959398813671-L_3...

07/24/2003 08/01/2003 08/07/2003 08/07/2003 08/08/2003 08/18/2003
08/19/2003 09/18/2003
09/26/2003 09/26/2003 10/27/2003 10/29/2003 10/31/2003 11/03/2003

3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE IN REMOVED ACTION re: [2-1] order , (lmunoz) (Entered: 07/24/2003)
4 DEFENDANT JOE FRANK RODRIGUEZ'S CERTIFICATE OF ENTITITIES WITH A FINANCIAL INTERESTED IN THE OUTCOME OF THIS LITIGATION , filed. (lmunoz) (Entered: 08/01/2003)
5 DEFENDANTS' DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTED PARTIES , filed. (lmunoz) (Entered: 08/08/2003)
6 DEFENDANTS' CERTIFICATE OF ENTITIES WITH A FINANCIAL INTEREST IN THE OUTCOME OF THIS LITIGATION , filed. (lmunoz) (Entered: 08/08/2003)
7 PLAINTIFFS' CERTIFICATE OF ENTITIES WITH A FINANCIAL INTERESTED IN THE OUTCOME OF THIS LITIGATION , filed. (lmunoz) (Entered: 08/11/2003)
8 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE the Clerk of the Court shall consolidate Civil Action V-03-81 with Civil Action V-03-77, entered; Parties notified. ( signed by Judge John D. Rainey ) (lmunoz) (Entered: 08/19/2003)
Consolidated Lead Case V-03-77; Member Case V-03-81. (lmunoz) (Entered: 08/19/2003)
9 U.S. CONTRACTORS, INC.'S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND ORIGINAL ANSWER TO THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSIONS' COMPLAINT, filed; jury demand (kwallace) (Entered: 09/18/2003)
10 DEFENDANTS' AMENDED CERTIFICATE OF ENTITIES WITH A FINANCIAL INTERESTED IN THE OUTCOME OF THIS LITIGATION , filed. (lmunoz) (Entered: 09/26/2003)
11 DEFENDANTS' RULE 26 DISCLOSURE by U.S. Contractors, In, U.S. Contractors, LT , filed. (lmunoz) (Entered: 09/26/2003)
12 Plaintiff EEOC's Unopposed MOTION to Take Leave to File Its First Amended Complaint ; Motion Docket Date 11/16/03 [12-1] motion , filed. (kwallace) (Entered: 10/27/2003)
13 ORDER granting Pltf's Unopposed [12-1] motion for Leave of Court to Amend Original Complaint, entered; Parties notified. (signed by Judge John D. Rainey) (kwallace) (Entered: 10/30/2003)
14 JOINT DISCOVERY/Case Management Plan under Rule 26(f) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, filed. (kwallace) (Entered: 10/31/2003)
15 CONFERENCE MEMORANDUM Apps: Will Sciba f/plft; Brad Greer f/dft Joe Frank Rodriguez; Dean Herms; f/dft U.S. Contractors; David Rivela f/Dft EEOC; Jennie Randall f/Dft EEOC; Patrick Cullen f/dft Formosa. Rule 16 conference held in chambers. Scheduling order signed , entered. Parties ntfd. ( signed by Judge John D. Rainey ) (lmunoz) (Entered: 11/03/2003)

6 of 14

6/4/2007 10:54 AM

DC CM/ECF LIVE- US District Court-Texas Southern - Docket Report

https://ecf.txsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?578959398813671-L_3...

11/03/2003
01/20/2004 01/21/2004 01/27/2004 03/18/2004 03/19/2004 04/06/2004 04/12/2004 05/03/2004 05/04/2004 05/05/2004 05/05/2004 06/03/2004 06/03/2004 06/03/2004

16 SCHEDULING ORDER setting Pltf expert witness list submitted by 5/3/04 ; Deft expert witness list submitted by 6/14/04 ; Discovery cutoff 7/23/04 ; Deadline for filing all dispositive motions 8/13/04 ; Deadline for filing non-dispositive motions 8/13/04 ; Pretrial order to be submitted on or before 10/25/04 ; Jury Trial deadline 11/2/04 ETT: 5 days , entered. Parties notified. Trial Term: November 2004 ( Signed by Judge John D. Rainey ) (lmunoz) (Entered: 11/03/2003)
17 EEOC's Unopposed MOTION to Take Leave to File its Second Amended Complaint ; Motion Docket Date 2/9/04 [17-1] motion , filed. (kwallace) (Entered: 01/20/2004)
18 ORDER granting Plaintiff EEOC's [17-1] motion to Take Leave to File its Second Amended Complaint, entered; Parties notified. (signed by Judge John D. Rainey) (kwallace) (Entered: 01/22/2004)
19 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT by the EEOC, filed. (kwallace) (Entered: 01/27/2004)
20 AGREED MOTION for Entry of Protective Order by U.S. Contractors, Inc and U.S. Contractors, LTD; Motion Docket Date 4/7/04 [20-1] motion , filed. (kwallace) (Entered: 03/18/2004)
21 AGREED PROTECTIVE ORDER granting Agreed [20-1] motion for Entry of Protective Order, entered. Parties ntfd. (Signed by John D. Rainey) (kwallace) (Entered: 03/19/2004)
22 PLAINTIFF'S UNOPPOSED MOTION for leave to file Third Amended Original Complaint , Motion Docket Date 4/26/04 [22-1] motion , filed. (lmunoz) Modified on 04/08/2004 (Entered: 04/08/2004)
23 NOTICE of Appearance of Counsel by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, filed. (kwallace) (Entered: 04/12/2004)
24 Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Expert Disclosures, filed. (kwallace) (Entered: 05/03/2004)
27 Plaintiffs', Elva Griffin, Anita Herriges, Aniyerita Velazquez and Lynn Stoebner, Expert Disclosures, filed. (kwallace) (Entered: 05/06/2004)
25 ORDER granting Plaintiff's Unopposed [22-1] motion for leave to file Third Amended Original Complaint, entered; Parties notified. (signed by Judge John D. Rainey) (kwallace) (Entered: 05/05/2004)
26 Plaintiffs' Third AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT, filed. (kwallace) (Entered: 05/05/2004)
28 Plaintiffs' Notice of Intention to take the Oral/Video Deposition of Jimmy Lapier and of Documents to be Produced, filed. (kwallace) (Entered: 06/03/2004)
29 Plaintiffs' Notice of Intention to take the Oral/Video Deposition of Ron Hare, filed. (kwallace) (Entered: 06/03/2004)
30 Plaintiffs' First Amended Notice of Intention to take the Oral/Video Deposition of Garland "Speedy" Wells and of Documents to be Produced, filed. (kwallace) (Entered: 06/03/2004)

7 of 14

6/4/2007 10:54 AM

DC CM/ECF LIVE- US District Court-Texas Southern - Docket Report

https://ecf.txsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?578959398813671-L_3...

06/04/2004 06/04/2004 06/04/2004 06/07/2004 06/07/2004 06/08/2004
06/08/2004 06/10/2004
06/10/2004
06/10/2004 06/14/2004 06/24/2004 06/30/2004

31 Plaintiffs' Second Amended Notice of Intention to take the Oral/Video Deposition of Garland "Speedy" Wells and of Documents to be Produced, filed. (kwallace) (Entered: 06/04/2004)
32 Plaintiffs' First Amended Notice of Intention to take the Oral/Video Deposition of Jimmy Lapier and of Documents to be Produced, filed. (kwallace) (Entered: 06/04/2004)
33 Plaintiffs' Third Amended Notice of Intention to take the Oral/Video Deposition of Garland "Speedy" Wells and of Documents to be Produced, filed. (kwallace) (Entered: 06/04/2004)
34 Defendant Joe Frank Rodriguez's NOTICE of Change of Address of Counsel, filed. (kwallace) (Entered: 06/07/2004)
35 Unopposed MOTION to Withdraw as Attorneys and to Substitute Counsel by Glenn Dobbs; Motion Docket Date 6/27/04 [35-1] motion, 6/27/04 [35-2] motion , filed. (kwallace) (Entered: 06/07/2004)
36 Plaintiffs', Elva Griffin, Anita Herriges, Aniyeritza Velazquez, and Lynn Stoebner, UNOPPOSED MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Designation of Expert Witnesses ; Motion Docket Date 6/28/04 [36-1] motion , filed. (kwallace) (Entered: 06/09/2004)
37 Plaintiffs' Elva Griffin, Anita Herriges, Aniyeritza Velaquez and Lynn Stoebner, NOTICE for Additional Means of Recording Deposition of Glenn Dobbs, filed. (kwallace) (Entered: 06/09/2004)
38 ORDER On Unopposed Motion to Withdraw as Attorneys and to Substitute Counsel: Granting Defendant Dobb's [35-1] motion to Withdraw as Attorneys and granting [35-2] motion to Substitute Counsel, entered; Parties notified. (signed by Judge John D. Rainey) (kwallace) (Entered: 06/10/2004)
39 ORDER on Plaintiffs', Elva Griffin, Anita Herriges, Aniyeritza Velazquez, and Lynn Stoebner, Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Expert Disclosures: Granting Plaintiff's [36-1] motion for Leave to File Supplemental Designation of Expert Witnesses, entered; Parties (signed by Judge John D. Rainey) (kwallace) (Entered: 06/10/2004)
40 Plaintiffs', Elva Griffin, Anita Herriges, Aniyeritza Velazquez, and Lynn Stoebner, SUPPLEMENTAL [27-1] Expert Disclosures, filed. (kwallace) (Entered: 06/10/2004)
41 Defendant U.S. Contractors, Ltd.'s DESIGNATION OF EXPERT WITNESSES, filed. (kwallace) (Entered: 06/15/2004)
42 EEOC's MOTION to Quash Defendant's Deposition Notice and for Protective Order ; Motion Docket Date 7/14/04 [42-1] motion, 7/14/04 [42-2] motion , filed. (kwallace) (Entered: 06/24/2004)
43 Plaintiff's Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Fourth Amended Original Complaint ; Motion Docket Date 7/20/04 [43-1] motion , filed. (kwallace) (Entered: 06/30/2004)

8 of 14

6/4/2007 10:54 AM

DC CM/ECF LIVE- US District Court-Texas Southern - Docket Report

https://ecf.txsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?578959398813671-L_3...

07/07/2004 07/07/2004 07/14/2004 07/15/2004 07/21/2004 07/28/2004 08/03/2004 08/03/2004 08/05/2004 08/09/2004 08/10/2004 08/12/2004 08/12/2004

44 ORDER granting Plaintiff's Unopposed [43-1] Motion for Leave to File thier Fourth Amended Original Complaint, entered; Parties notified. (signed by Judge John D. Rainey) (kwallace) (Entered: 07/07/2004)
45 Plaintiffs' Fourth AMENDED Original COMPLAINT by Elva Griffin, Anita Herriges, Aniyerita Velazquez and Lynn Stoebner, filed. (kwallace) (Entered: 07/08/2004)
46 Unopposed Joint MOTION for Continuance by U.S. Contractors, LTD, Formosa Plastics Corp, USA and Formosa Plastics Corp, Texas; Motion Docket Date 8/3/04 [46-1] motion , filed. (kwallace) (Entered: 07/14/2004)
47 ORDER granting Joint [46-1] motion for Continuance; Reset discovery due for 8/27/04 , and reset dispositive motion filing deadline for 9/10/04 , entered; Parties notified. (signed by Judge John D. Rainey) (kwallace) (Entered: 07/16/2004)
48 APPLICATION for Order to Show Cause Re Contempt for Refusal to Comply with Subpoena Duces Tecum by U.S. Contractors, Ltd. and Formosa Plastics Corp, Texas; Motion Docket Date 8/10/04 [48-1] motion , filed. (kwallace) (Entered: 07/21/2004)
49 Plaintiffs' Elva Griffin, Anita Herriges, Aniyeritza Velazquez, and Lynn Stoebner, Notice of Intention to Take the Oral/Video Deposition of Jim Quitta, filed. (kwallace) (Entered: 07/28/2004)
50 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: Show Cause Hearing - Ronald J. Hare must appear before this Court at 9:30 a.m. on 8/19/04, entered. Additional specific directives are further outlined in this Order. Parties notified (signed by Judge John Rainey) (kwallace) (Entered: 08/03/2004)
51 MOTION for Leave to file Amended Answer and Cross-Claim by Defendants Formosa Plastics Corporation, Texas and Formosa Plastics Corporation, U.S.A. ; Motion Docket Date 8/23/04 [51-1] motion , filed. (kwallace) (Entered: 08/03/2004)
52 Plaintiff's Elva Griffin NOTICE of Intention to take Oral / Video Deposition of Kotturappa Kumar, MD, filed. (kwallace) (Entered: 08/05/2004)
53 Plaintiffs' Elva Griffin, Anita Herriges, Aniyeritza Velazquez and Lynn Stoebner, NOTICE for Additional Means of Recording Depositions of Bill Holladay, Ray Alvarez, Amy Shipp and Avelina "Abby" Garza, filed. (kwallace) (Entered: 08/10/2004)
54 Plaintiff's, Aniyeritza Velazquez, NOTICE of Intention to take oral/video deposition of Scott Stein, D.O., filed. (kwallace) (Entered: 08/10/2004)
55 Defendant U.S. Contractors, Ltd.'s MOTION to strike members of "Similarly Situated" class or in the alternative, MOTION for continuance of current trial setting ; Motion Docket Date 9/1/04 [55-1] motion, 9/1/04 [55-2] motion , filed. (kwallace) (Entered: 08/12/2004)
56 Plaintiff's MOTION to Compel Discovery and Memorandum in Support of Motion to Compel ; Motion Docket Date 9/1/04 [56-1] motion , filed. (kwallace) (Entered: 08/12/2004)

9 of 14

6/4/2007 10:54 AM

DC CM/ECF LIVE- US District Court-Texas Southern - Docket Report

https://ecf.txsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?578959398813671-L_3...

08/12/2004 08/12/2004 08/17/2004 08/19/2004
08/19/2004 08/19/2004 08/19/2004 08/25/2004 08/27/2004
08/30/2004 08/30/2004

57 Declaration of Amy Shipp by Plaintiffs, filed. (kwallace) (Entered: 08/12/2004)
58 RETURN OF SERVICE executed: Ronald Hare was served with the Court's Order to Show Cause (dkt #50) by USM on 8/5/04, filed. (kwallace) (Entered: 08/12/2004)
59 Plaintiffs' Elva Griffin, Anita Herriges, Aniyerita Velazquez and Lynn Stoebner, NOTICE for Additional Means of Recording Deposition of David Shipp, filed. (kwallace) (Entered: 08/19/2004)
60 Show cause hearing held before Judge John D. Rainey; Ct Reporter: S. Carlisle. Apps: Travis Edwards f/pltfs; Bill Seerdan f/Formosa Plastics; Dean Hermes and Drew Tipton f/U.S. Contractors; David Rivela f/EEOC. Ronald James Hare appeared without counsel. Court recessed the hearing and ORDERED Mr. Hare to hire an attorney immediately. Roland Carlson retained. Testimony presented. Ronald James Hare was found to be in contempt of Court. This hearing will resume on 08/30/04 at 5:30 p.m. Counsel for USC will prepare and submit written order. Reset show cause hearing for 08/30/04 before Judge John D. Rainey (kwallace) (Entered: 08/19/2004)
Deadline updated; Set show cause hearing for 5:30 8/30/04 before Judge John D. Rainey (kwallace) (Entered: 08/19/2004)
61 FINANCIAL AFFIDAVIT as to Ronald James Hare, filed. (kwallace) (Entered: 08/19/2004)
62 Exhibit list by U.S. Contractors, filed. (kwallace) (Entered: 08/19/2004)
63 Plaintiff Equal Opportunity Commissioner's RESPONSE to Defendant U.S. Contractors, Ltd.'s [55-1] motion to Strike Members of "Similarly Situated" class, filed. (kwallace) (Entered: 08/25/2004)
64 ORDER: The Court FINDS Mr. Ron Hare in CONTEMPT OF COURT and SENTENCES Mr. Hare to 30 days in jail. In addition, the Court ORDERS Mr. Hare to pay Deft. U.S. Contractors, Inc. the sum of $4,230 and to Deft Formosa Plastics Corporation, Texas the sum of $3,500 in reasonable attorney fees, entered. In the event that Mr. Hare complies with the requirements outlined in this Order, the Court will suspend the 30 day sentence and will reduce the amounts owed by Mr. Hare to the Defendants by fifty percent. Parties notified. (signed by Judge John D. Rainey) (kwallace) (Entered: 08/30/2004)
Copy of Order (dkt #64) faxed to Roland Carlson. (kwallace) (Entered: 08/30/2004)
65 Show cause hearing (Day 2) held before Judge John D. Rainey. Ct Reporter: R. Payton, Appearances: Will Sciba f/Plaintiffs David Rivela f/EEOC; William Seerden and Pat Cullen f/Deft Formosa; Dean Hermes and Drew Tipton f/US Contractors; Roland Carlson f/ Witness,Ronald J. Hare. Witness: Ronald J. Hare. Testimony presented. Hearing recessed to allow Mr. Hare and counsel to locate J.T. Finley and the tapes. A telephone status conference is set for 9/13/04 @ 5:00 p.m. The Court reserves ruling at this time as to the sanctions to be imposed on Mr. Hare. Another hearing on this matter may be set at a later date. Deft US Contractors to submit an order to memorialize the rulings made today. Set telephone status conference for 09/13/04 at 5:00 p.m. before Judge John D.

10 of 14

6/4/2007 10:54 AM

DC CM/ECF LIVE- US District Court-Texas Southern - Docket Report

https://ecf.txsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?578959398813671-L_3...

08/30/2004 08/30/2004 09/02/2004 09/07/2004
09/07/2004 09/09/2004 09/10/2004 09/13/2004
09/13/2004 09/13/2004
09/13/2004 09/14/2004 09/15/2004

Rainey (ltesch) Modified on 08/31/2004 (Entered: 08/31/2004)
Deadline updated; Set telephone conference for 5:00 9/13/04 before Judge John D. Rainey (ltesch) (Entered: 08/31/2004)
66 RONALD J. HARE'S RESPONSE TO THE COURT'S REQUEST FOR INFORMATION, filed. (ltesch) (Entered: 08/31/2004)
67 TRANSCRIPT of Show Cause Hearing held on August 30, 2004 before Judge John D. Rainey. Court Reporter: Regina Payton, filed. (kwallace, ) (Entered: 09/05/2004)
68 Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's MOTION for Leave to File a Supplemental Exhibit to the EEOC's Response to Defendant U.S. Contractors, Ltd.'s Motion to Strike Members of "Similarly Situated" class, filed. Motion Docket Date 9/27/2004. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(kwallace, ) (Entered: 09/07/2004)
69 TRANSCRIPT of Show Cause Hearing held on August 19, 2004 before Judge John D. Rainey. Court Reporter: Regina Payton, filed. (kwallace, ) (Entered: 09/07/2004)
70 Proposed "ORDER" regarding Show Cause Hearing, filed.(kwallace, ) (Entered: 09/09/2004)
74 Defendant U.S. Contractors, Ltd.'s REPLY to EEOC's Response to Motion to Strike Members of "Similarly Situated" Class, filed. (kwallace, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 9/14/2004 (jrichards, ). (Entered: 09/14/2004)
71 Plaintiffs', Elva Griffin, Anita Herriges, Aniyeritza Velazquez, and Lynn Stoebner, RESPONSE to Defendants US Contractors, Ltd. and Formosa Plastics Corporation, Texas 48 Application for Order to Show Cause re: Contempt for Refusual to Comply with Subpoena Duces Tecum, filed. (kwallace, ) (Entered: 09/13/2004)
72 Plaintiff's First Amended NOTICE of Intention to Take Oral/Video Deposition of Kotturappa Kumar, M.D. by Elva Griffin , filed. (jrichards, ) (Entered: 09/13/2004)
73 CONFERENCE MEMORANDUM: The Show Cause Hearing will resume at 11:00 a.m. on September 27, 2004. Apps: Drew Tipton, Roland Carlson, David Carl Rivela, William Louis Sciba III, and William W Seerden. ( Signed by Judge John D. Rainey ) Parties notified.(kwallace, ) (Entered: 09/14/2004)
***Set/Reset Hearings: Show Cause Hearing set for 9/27/2004 10:00 AM before Judge John D. Rainey. (kwallace, ) (Entered: 09/14/2004)
76 Plaintiff's, Aniyeritza Velazquez, First Amended 54 Notice of Intention to take oral/video deposition of Scott Stein, D.O., filed.(kwallace, ) (Entered: 09/15/2004)
75 Defendant U.S. Contractors, Ltd.'s SUPPLEMENT to its REPLY to EEOC's RESPONSE to MOTION to Strike Members of "Similarly Situated" Class, filed.(kwallace, ) (Entered: 09/15/2004)

11 of 14

6/4/2007 10:54 AM

DC CM/ECF LIVE- US District Court-Texas Southern - Docket Report

https://ecf.txsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?578959398813671-L_3...

09/24/2004 09/27/2004
09/30/2004
10/01/2004 10/01/2004 10/05/2004 10/05/2004 10/05/2004 10/06/2004 10/06/2004

77 NOTICE TO COURT: Ronald B. Walker and Terry Carroll, Jr. of Walker, Keeling & Carroll, LLP no longer represent a party in this lawsuit, filed. (kwallace, ) Modified on 9/30/2004: To correct date filed (ltesch, ). (Entered: 09/27/2004)
78 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge John D. Rainey. SHOW CAUSE HEARING held on 9/27/2004 (Day 3). Testimony presented. Hearing Concluded. Witnesses: John Thomas Finley; Julie Finley; Raymond McBride; Ronald Hare. The Court rescinds its previous Order dated 08/27/04 and rules as follows: The Court found Ronald J. Hare to be in contempt of court. Mr. Hare is ORDERED to pay $4,230 to US Contractors and $3,500 to Formosa Plastics Corp. in full within thirty (30) days. Mr. Hare is further ORDERED to report to the US Marshal located on the 3rd floor @ 10:00 a.m. on Thursday, September 30, 2004 to be held in custody until Mr. Hare delivers the tapes to the Court or provides information on their whereabouts. Appearances: Eduaro Juarez, Pat Cullen, Roland Carlson, C Dean Herms Jr, David Carl Rivela, William Louis Sciba III and William W Seerden. (Court Reporter: R. Payton), filed.(kwallace, ) (Entered: 09/27/2004)
79 ORDER OF CONTEMPT AND ORDER OF COMMITMENT: The Court ORDERS that Mr. Hare is in Contempt of Court and is hereby sentenced to thirty days of incarceration in a detention facility until such time as he purges himself of contempt by producing tapes or producing credible evidence as to the whereabouts of the tapes as ORDERED by the Court. The Court ORDERS that Mr. Hare shall pay Defendant U.S. Contractors, Inc. the sum of $4,230.00 and Defendant Formosa Plastics Corporation, Texas, the sum of $3,500.00 for attorney fees incurred relating to this contempt proceeding. Mr. Hare shall pay these fees within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order.( Signed by Judge John D. Rainey ) Parties notified.(kwallace, ) (Entered: 09/30/2004)
80 Ex Parte Request for Bond to be Set by Ronald J. Hare, filed.(kwallace, ) (Entered: 10/04/2004)
81 Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's MOTION to Take Leave to file a Supplemental Response to Defendant U.S. Contractors, Ltd.'s MOTION to Strike Members of "Similarly Situated" Class, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Proposed Order)(kwallace, ) (Entered: 10/04/2004)
82 Letter from David Rivela regarding Settlement, filed. (kwallace, ) (Entered: 10/06/2004)
83 ORDER granting Ronald J. Hare's 80 Motion for Bond. Mr.Hare shall be released on bond pending an appeal subject to the conditions specified in this Order. ( Signed by Judge John D. Rainey ) Parties notified.(kwallace, ) (Entered: 10/06/2004)
84 NOTICE OF APPEAL to US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit re 64 Order, by Ronald J. Hare , filed.(lmunoz, ) (Entered: 10/06/2004)
86 NOTICE of Pending Settlement, filed. (kwallace, ) (Entered: 10/06/2004)
87 Transmittal Letter to US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit re 84 Notice of Appeal. Fee status: not paid, filed.(kwallace, ) (Entered: 10/06/2004)

12 of 14

6/4/2007 10:54 AM

DC CM/ECF LIVE- US District Court-Texas Southern - Docket Report

https://ecf.txsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?578959398813671-L_3...

10/18/2004 10/25/2004 11/17/2004 11/18/2004 11/23/2004 11/24/2004 11/24/2004 11/24/2004 11/24/2004 11/24/2004 12/21/2004 12/22/2004 12/22/2004

88 Notice of Docketing Notice of Appeal from US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit re: 84 Notice of Appeal. USCA No. 04-41337, filed.(kwallace, ) (Entered: 10/19/2004)
89 ORDER: The Parties informed this Court that this action has SETTLED. The Parties are ORDERED to submit closing papers no later than thirty (30) days after the entry of this Order, or this case will be dismissed.( Signed by Judge John D. Rainey ) Parties notified.(kwallace, ) (Entered: 10/26/2004)
90 Unopposed MOTION for Enlargment of Deadline for Filing Closing Papers by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(kwallace, ) (Entered: 11/18/2004)
91 ORDER granting EEOC's 90 Motion for Extension of Time to file closing papers.( Signed by Judge John D. Rainey ) Parties notified.(kwallace, ) (Entered: 11/19/2004)
92 Unopposed MOTION to Dismiss by Elva Griffin, Anita Herriges, Aniyerita Velazquez and Lynn Stoebner, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(kwallace, ) (Entered: 11/23/2004)
93 ORDER granting Plaintiff's 92 Motion to Dismiss Defendants Formosa Plastics Corporation, Texas and Formosa Plastics Corporation, USA.( Signed by Judge John D. Rainey ) Parties notified.(kwallace, ) (Entered: 11/24/2004)
94 Unopposed MOTION to Dismiss by Elva Griffin, Anita Herriges, Aniyerita Velazquez and Lynn Stoebner, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(kwallace, ) (Entered: 11/24/2004)
95 JUDGMENT of USCA for the Fifth Circuit (certified copy) dated 11/16/04; issued as mandate 11/16/04; dismissing the case for want of prosecution re 84 Notice of Appeal USCA No. 04-41337, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Cover letter)(kwallace, ) (Entered: 11/24/2004)
96 CORRECTED JUDGMENT of USCA for the Fifth Circuit (certified copy) dated 11/16/04; issued as mandate 11/16/04; dismissing appeal for want of prosecution re 84 Notice of Appeal USCA No. 04-41337, filed.(kwallace, ) (Entered: 11/24/2004)
97 ORDER granting Plaintiffs' Griffin, Herriges, Velazquez and Stoebner's 94 Motion to Dismiss Defendants US Contractors, Inc. an US Contractors, Ltd.( Signed by Judge John D. Rainey ) Parties notified.(kwallace, ) (Entered: 11/24/2004)
98 Unopposed MOTION to Enter Consent Decree, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Consent Decree; #(2) Exhibit B; #(3) Proposed Final Judgment Order Entering Consent Decree)(kwallace, ) (Entered: 12/22/2004)
99 FINAL JUDGMENT Order Entering Consent Decree.( Signed by Judge John D. Rainey ) Parties notified.(kwallace, ) (Entered: 12/27/2004)
100 Consent Decree.( Signed by Judge John D. Rainey ) Parties notified.(kwallace, ) (Entered: 12/27/2004)

13 of 14

6/4/2007 10:54 AM

DC CM/ECF LIVE- US District Court-Texas Southern - Docket Report

https://ecf.txsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?578959398813671-L_3...

01/12/2005 01/12/2005 01/13/2005 03/01/2005 03/08/2005
03/28/2005 04/06/2005
04/06/2005 05/17/2005 07/20/2005

101 Letter from David Rivela re: Request for Conference , filed. (lmunoz, ) (Entered: 01/12/2005)
102 Letter from C. Dean Herns, Jr. re: Conference , filed. (lmunoz, ) (Entered: 01/12/2005)
103 Letter from David Rivela re: Conference , filed. (Attachments: # 1 Letter) (lmunoz, ) (Entered: 01/13/2005)
104 ORDER dft Hare and counsel to appear for a Status Hearing set for 3/8/2005 at 04:30 PM before Judge John D. Rainey.( Signed by Judge John D. Rainey ) Parties notified.(dhansen, ) (Entered: 03/02/2005)
105 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge John D. Rainey. STATUS HEARING held on 3/8/2005. The next status hearing is scheduled for 4/7/05 at 4:30 p.m. Written order to follow. Appearances: Roland J Carlson, Jr.; Ronald Hare(Digital # (4:29 - 4:44))(ERO:Linda Munoz), filed.(jrichards, ) (Entered: 03/08/2005)
106 Report to Court Regarding Judgement Pay Out Agreement by Ronald J. Hare, filed. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit "A")(kwallace, ) (Entered: 03/29/2005)
Minute Entry: STATUS CONFERENCE held on 4/6/2005. Mr. Hare had no tapes to produce at the conference. Brief discussion was held regarding the Report filed on 3/28/05. Deft served 6 days of the sentence imposed on 9/27/04. The remaining term of incarceration is suspended. $500.00 appearance bond will be returned upon written request. Written order will follow. Appearances: Roland J Carlson, Jr.(Digital # (1:30 - 1:37 p.m.))(ERO:Linda Munoz), filed.(jrichards, ) (Entered: 04/06/2005)
107 MOTION for Return of Bond money by Ronald J. Hare, filed.(kwallace, ) (Entered: 04/06/2005)
108 ORDER .( Signed by Judge John D. Rainey ) Parties notified.(lmunoz, ) (Entered: 05/18/2005)
109 ORDER granting 107 Motion for Return of Bond Money.( Signed by Judge John D. Rainey ) Parties notified.(lmunoz, ) (Entered: 07/21/2005)

PACER Service Center

Transaction Receipt

06/04/2007 10:53:50

PACER Login: hs0328

Client Code: eeoc

Description: Docket Report Search Criteria: 6:03-cv-00077

Billable Pages: 8

Cost:

0.64

14 of 14

6/4/2007 10:54 AM


[CONTENT] San Antonio | EEOC | U.S. Contractors, Inc. | the U.S. District Court | the Southern District | Texas | July 2003 ||| Title VII |||  ||| August 18, 2003 | V-03-81 | John D. Rainey ||| Griffin | Formosa ||| December 22, 2004 | Rainey ||| six | 530,000 ||| The three year [SUMMARY] The San Antonio office of the EEOC brought this suit against U.S. Contractors, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas in July 2003.  The complaint alleged discrimination against female employees in violation of Title VII.  More specifically, the complaint alleged that female employees were subjected to sexual harassment from male employees, were disparately discharged, and were subjected to retaliatory demotion.

On August 18, 2003, a motion to consolidate the case V-03-81 (Clearinghouse: EE-TX-0391) with this case was granted by Judge John D. Rainey. Griffin v. Formosa plastics was designated the lead case.

On December 22, 2004 the court (Judge Rainey) approved a consent decree in favor of the plaintiffs.  The six female employees were awarded a total of $530,000. The three year decree also called for injunctive relief in the form of anti-discrimination and retaliation policies, a modified sexual harassment policy, an employee training program and the required posting of applicable laws/policies related to sexual harassment.

