IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION

un""

,..-CourtS District of Tlltal

Soutbtm FI LED

SEP - 4 1\l\l1

._, ta. tI"bY.Clarkat CIIIIl

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff,
v.
KEY ENERGY SERVICES, INC., Defendant.

§

§ §

C-0 3- 331

§

§

Civil Action No.

§

§

COMPLAINT AND

§

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

§

§

NATURE OF 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 to provide appropriate relief to Tina S. Roberson, who was adversely affected by such practices. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission") alleges that Tina S. Roberson, a female, was sexually harassed during her employment at Key Energy Services, Inc., in violation of Section 703(a) of Title Vll. The Commission further alleges that the conduct to which Tina S. Roberson was subjected was so severe and pervasive that it created a sexually hostile work environment.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451,1331,1337,1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title Vll of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.c. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) ("Title Vll"), and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a.
\-

2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Corpus Christi Division.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, the Commission, is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3). 4. At all relevant times, Defendant Key Energy Services, Inc. has continuously been a Maryland corporation doing business in the State of Texas, and the City of Alice, and has continuously had at least 15 employees. 5. At all relevant times, Defendant Key Energy Services, Inc. has continuously been 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, Tina S. Roberson filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant Key Energy Services, Inc. 7. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 8. Since at least 1999, Defendant Key Energy Services, Inc. has engaged in unlawful employment practices at its Alice, Texas, facility in violation of Section 703(a)(I) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(a)(I) by creating and fostering a hostile work environment based on sex.

Plaintiffs Original Complaint

Page 2

a. More specifically, Tina S. Roberson, a female, was sexually harassed by Operations Manager Q. Buentello, a male supervisor, who made sexual advances towards her, and subjected her to inappropriate sexual comments and sexual innuendos, and other egregious verbal conduct, including asking her for sex.
b. Further, Ms. Roberson was also subjected to inappropriate sexual comments and sexual innuendos by other male Key Energy Services, Inc. employees.
•
9. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraph eight above has been to deprive Tina S. Roberson of equal employment opportunities and to otherwise adversely affect her status as an employee, because of her sex.
10. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph eight above were intentional.
11. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph eight above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Tina S. Roberson.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Key Energy Services, Inc., its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from subjecting its female employees to a sexually hostile work environment because of their sex and from any other employment practice which discriminates on the basis of sex; B. Order Defendant Key Energy Services, Inc. to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for females and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices;

Plaintiff's Original Complaint

Page 3

C. Order Defendant Key Energy Services, Inc. to make whole Tina S. Roberson, by providing appropriate back pay with prejudgment interest, in an amount to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices, including, but not limited to, the reinstatement of Tina S. Roberson, or front pay in lieu thereof;
D. Order Defendant Key Energy Services, Inc. to make whole Tina S. Roberson, by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraph eight above, including, but not limited to, relocation expenses, job search expenses and medical expenses, in an amount to be determined at trial;
E. Order Defendant Key Energy Services, Inc. to make whole Tina S. Roberson, by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph eight above, including, but not limited to, emotional pain, suffering, humiliation, embarrassment, emotional distress, stress, anxiety, inconvenience, and loss of enjoyment of life, in an amount to be determined at trial;
F. Order Defendant Key Energy Services, Inc. to pay Tina S. Roberson punitive damages for its malicious and reckless conduct described in paragraph eight above, in an amount to be determined at trial;
G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest; and
H. 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.

Plaintiff's Original Complaint

Page 4

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
~ ~RREZ
Supervisory Trial Attorney Texas State Bar No. 08642750 Federall.D. No. 14464 Attorney-in-Charge
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION San Antonio District Office 5410 Fredericksburg Road, Suite 200 San Antonio, TX 78229-3555 Telephone: (210) 281-7637 Facsimile: (210) 281-7669
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

Plaintiff's Original Complaint

Page 5

 </s> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION

uSMo"uathdeSrntaF0~I"s~~0c",tstorifcTt eCxOaUs/1

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff vs.
KEY ENERGY SERVICES, INC., Defendant.
TINA S. ROBERSON, Plaintiff-Intervenor

§

SEP 2'* 2003

§

MICHAELN M

§

" ILev CLEAI<

§

§

§ Civil Action No. C-03-331

§

§ JURY TRIAL REQUESTED

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

PLAINTIFF-INTERVENER TINA ROBERSON'S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Comes now Plaintiff-Intervener, Tina Roberson, by and through counsel, and in support of

her claims against the above-named Defendant respectfully states:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. In this action, Plaintiff-Intervener alleges violation ofher rights pursuant to Title VII

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.

PARTIES

2. Plaintiff-Intervener, Tina Roberson, is a female who resides in Jim Wells County,

Texas.

3. Defendant, Key Energy Services, Inc., is a Maryland corporation doing business in

Jim Wells County, Texas. At all pertinent times, Defendant was the employer of Plaintiff.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. This Court has jurisdiction over this action by reason of28 U.S.c. 1331 and 1343,

in that Plaintiff, pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, seeks to redress sexual harassment and retaliation for protected activity she experienced at the hands of Defendant. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391 because the acts complained of primarily occurred within the geographical boundaries ofthe United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Corpus Christi, Division.
S. Plaintiff-Intervener, Tina Roberson, timely filed a charge of discrimination and retaliation with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (hereinafter EEOC). All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.
FACTS 6. Since at least 1999, Defendant Key Energy Services, Inc. has engaged in unlawful employment practices at its Alice, Texas facility in violation of Section 703(a)(1) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(a)(I) by creating and fostering a hostile work environment based on sex. 7. Plaintiff-Intervener, Tina Roberson, a female, was sexually harassed by Operations Manager Q. Buentello, a male supervisor, who made sexual advances towards her, and subjected her to inappropriate sexual comments and sexual innuendos, and other egregious verbal conduct, including asking her for sex. 8. Further, Plaintiff-Intervener was also subjected to inappropriate sexual comments and sexual innuendos by other male Key Energy Services, Inc. employees. 9. On more than one occasion, Plaintiff-Intervener reported the unlawful sexual advances ofQ Buentello to Defendant's management. However, Defendant failed to take any action to correct the unlawful situation. Further, Defendant unlawfully terminated Plaintiff-Intervener from her employment with Defendant in retaliation for her reports of sexual harassment to Defendant's
2

management. 10. The effect of the practices complained of has been to deprive Plaintiff-Intervener of
equal employment opportunities and to otherwise adversely affect her status as an employee, because ofher sex and because she opposed conduct which is in violation ofTitle VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.
11. The unlawful employment practices complained of were intentional. 12. The unlawful employment practices complained of were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Plaintiff-Intervener.
CLAIMS Discrimination in Violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended
13. Plaintiff-Intervener incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 12.
14. As alleged in the facts portion of this Complaint, Plaintiff-Intervener was subjected to sexual harassment on a consistent basis which permeated her work place and had an adverse effect upon her working conditions. Also, after opposing and reporting Mr. Buentello's unlawful behavior, Plaintiff faced retaliation which ultimately came in the form of termination from Defendant as setout more specifically in the facts section of this pleading.
15. As a result of the above alleged illegal acts, Plaintiff has suffered the loss of wages and benefits, loss ofjob opportunity, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life and other pecuniary and nonpecuniary losses.
16. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission brought the original action as Plaintiff exhausted her administrative remedies.
3

Jury Trial Requested 17. Plaintiff-Intervener requests a trial by jury. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that the Court enter judgment in her favor and against defendants and award Plaintiff the following: 1. Actual damages plus interest; 2. Compensatory damages arising from the physical and emotional injury, pain, suffering, loss of reputation and humiliation plaintiff suffered as a result of defendant misconduct; 3. Punitive damages as allowed by law; 4. Exemplary damages as allowed by law; 5. Injunctive reliefofan affirmative nature, providing make whole economic reliefand reinstatement; 6. Prejudgment interest as allowed by law; 7. Post-judgment interest as allowed by law; 8. Attorney's fees; 9. Court costs; 10. All relief allowed pursuant to Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended;
and 11. Such other legal or equitable relief ultimately justified by the proof of this case.
4

Respectfully submitted, Law Office of Gay E. Gilson 719 South Shoreline, Suite 301A Corpus Christi, Texas 78401 Telephone: (361) 887-0552 FaC~361) 887-0554,
(~ By: _
GAY E. GILSON SBN 0078413l1Fed.I.D. 16385 ATTORNEY IN CHARGE FOR APPLICANT FOR INTERVENTION DAVID LEE MCGEE Law Office of David Lee McGee, P.C. 701 Park Ave. Corpus Christi, Texas 78401 SBN 136125501Fed I.D.5932 Telephone: (512) 888-6489 Facsimile: (512) 888-5585 CO-COUNSEL FOR APPLICANT FOR INTERVENTION
5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that this Certificate of Interested persons will be served on the parties by service on Linda Gutierrez, Supervisory Trial Attorney Equal Employment Opportunity Commission San Antonio District Office 5410 Fredericksburg Road, Suite 200 San Antonio, Texas 78229-3555 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF Teresa L. De ford Rathwell & Nizialek, P.C. 1460 Lake Robbins Drive, Suite 300 The Woodlands, Texas 77380 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT on this September 24,2003 pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil rocedure.
(.~(
ilson
6

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

Court
Te~
=F'lt'd
FEB 29 2004
...., N. Milby. Crerk of Court

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY §

COMMISSION,

§

§

Plaintiff,

§

and

§

§

TINA S. ROBERSON,

§

Plaintiff-Intervenor,

§

v.

§

§

BROOKS WELL SERVICING, INC. D/B/A §

KEY ENERGY SERVICES, INC., GULF

§

COAST DIVISION,

§

§

Defendant.

§

Civil Action No. C-03-331 JURY TRIAL DEMAND

PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT This is an action under Title VII ofthe 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 to provide appropriate reliefto Tina S. Roberson, who was adversely affected by such practices. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission") alleges that Tina S. Roberson, a female, was sexually harassed during her employment at Brooks Well Servicing, Inc. d/b/a Key Energy Services, Inc., Gulf Coast Division ("Key Energy Services, Inc."), in violation of Section 703(a) of Title VII. The Commission further alleges that the conduct to which Tina S. Roberson was subjected was so severe and pervasive that it created a sexually hostile work environment.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction of this Court isinvokedpursuantto 2S U.S.C. §§451, 1331, 1337, 1343

and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 US.c. § 2000e-5(f)(I) and (3) ("Title VII"), and

Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 US.c. § 1981a.

2.

The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the

jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Corpus Christi

Division.

PARTIES

3. Plaintiff, the Commission, is the agency ofthe United States ofAmerica charged with

the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring

this action by Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 US.c. § 2000e-5(f)(l) and (3).

4. At all relevant times, Defendant Key Energy Services, Inc. has continuously been

foreign corporation doing business in the State ofTexas, and the City ofAlice, and has continuously

had at least 15 employees.

5. At all relevant times, Defendant Key Energy Services, Inc. has continuously been 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, Tina S. Roberson filed
a charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title vn by Defendant Key Energy Services,

Inc.

7. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.

8. Since at least 1999, Defendant Key Energy Services, Inc. has engaged in unlawful

Plaintiff's Pm·t Amended Original Complaint

Page 2

employment practices at its Alice, Texas, facility in violation of Section 703(a)(l) of Title VII, 42 U.S.c. §2000e-2(a)(l) by creating and fostering a hostile work environment based on sex.
a. More specifically, Tina S. Roberson, a female, was sexually harassed by Operations
Manager Q. Buentello, a male supervisor, who made sexual advances towards her,
and subj ected her to inappropriate sexual comments and sexual innuendos, and other egregious verbal conduct, including asking her for sex. b. Further, Ms. Roberson was also subjected to inappropriate sexual comments and sexual innuendos by other male Key Energy Services, Inc. 's employees. 9. The effect ofthe practices complained ofin paragraph eight above has been to deprive Tina S. Roberson of equal employment opportunities and to otherwise adversely affect her status as an employee, because of her sex. 10. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph eight above were intentional. 11. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph eight above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights ofTina S. Roberson.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Key Energy Services, Inc., its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from subjecting its female employees to a sexually hostile work environment because oftheir sex and from any other employment practice which discriminates on the basis of sex; B. Order Defendant Key Energy Services, Inc. to institute and carry out policies,

Plaintiff's First Amended Original Complaint

Page 3

practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for females and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices;
C. Order Defendant Key Energy Services, Inc. to make whole Tina S. Roberson, by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraph eight above, including, but not limited to, relocation expenses, job search expenses and medical expenses, in an amount to be determined at trial;
D. Order Defendant Key Energy Services, Inc. to make whole Tina S. Roberson, by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph eight above, including, but not limited to, emotional pain, suffering, humiliation, embarrassment, emotional distress, stress, anxiety, inconvenience, and loss of enjoyment of life, in an amount to be determined at trial;
E. Order Defendant Key Energy Services, Inc. to pay Tina S. Roberson punitive damages for its malicious and reckless conduct described in paragraph eight above, in an amount to be determined at trial;
F. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest; and
G. 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. DREIBAND General Counsel

Plaintiff's First Amended Origmal Complaint

Page 4

JAMES L. LEE Deputy General Counsel GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel
~J~
ROBERT B. HARWIN Regional Attorney District of Columbia Bar No. 076083
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION San Antonio District Office 5410 Fredericksburg Road, Suite 200 San Antonio, TX 78229-3555 Telephone: (210) 281-7637 Telecopier: (210) 281-7669 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

Plamtiff's First Amended Ongmal Complaint

Page 5

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

United States District Coun
Southern District of Texas FILED
MAR 23 2004

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY §

COMMISSION,

§

§

Plaintiff,

§

and

§

§

TINA S. ROBERSON,

§

Plaintiff-Intervenor,

§

v.

§

§

BROOKS WELL SERVICING, INC. D/B/A §

KEY ENERGY SERVICES, INC., GULF

§

COAST DIVISION,

§

§

Defendant.

§

..... fl.MiIby. ad
Civil Action No. C-03-331 JURY TRIAL DEMAND

PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT This is an action under Title VII 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 ofsex, female, and to provide appropriate reliefto Tina S. Roberson, who was adversely affected by such practices. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission") alleges that Tina S. Roberson, a female, was sexually harassed during her employment at Brooks Well Servicing, Inc. d/b/a Key Energy Services, Inc., Gulf Coast Division ("Key Energy Services, Inc."), in violation of Section 703(a) of Title VII. The Commission further alleges that the conduct to which Tina S. Roberson was subjected was so severe and pervasive that it created a sexually hostile work environment.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction ofthis Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.c. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343

and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.c. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) ("Title VII"), and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U.S.c. § 1981a.
2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Corpus Christi Division.
PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, the Commission, is the agency ofthe United States ofAmerica charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.c. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3). 4. At all relevant times, Defendant Key Energy Services, Inc. has continuously been foreign corporation doing business in the State ofTexas, and the City ofAlice, and has continuously had at least 15 employees. 5. At all relevant times, Defendant Key Energy Services, Inc. has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning ofSections 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, Tina S. Roberson filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant Key Energy Services, Inc. 7. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 8. Since at least 1999, Defendant Key Energy Services, Inc. has engaged in unlawful

Plaintiff's First Amended Original Complaint

Page 2

employment practices at its Alice, Texas, facility in violation of Section 703(a)(1) of Title VII, 42

U.S.C. §2000e-2(a)(I) by creating and fostering a hostile work environment based on sex.

a.

More specifically, Tina S. Roberson, a female, was sexually harassed by Operations

Manager Q. Buentello, a male supervisor, who made sexual advances towards her,

and subjected her to inappropriate sexual comments and sexual innuendos, and other

egregious verbal conduct, including asking her for sex.

b. Further, Ms. Roberson was also subjected to inappropriate sexual comments and

sexual innuendos by other male Key Energy Services, Inc.'s employees.

9. The effect ofthe practices complained ofin paragraph eight above has been to deprive

Tina S. Roberson of equal employment opportunities and to otherwise adversely affect her status as

an employee, because of her sex.

10. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph eight above were

intentional.

11. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph eight above were

done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights ofTina S. Roberson.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court:

A. Grant a pennanent injunction enjoining Defendant Key Energy Services, Inc., its

officers, successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation wi th it, from subj ecting

its female employees to a sexually hostile work environment because oftheir sex and from any other

employment practice which discriminates on the basis of sex;

B. Order Defendant Key Energy Services, Inc. to institute and carry out policies,

Plaintiff's First Amended Original Complaint

Page 3

practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for females and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices;
C. Order Defendant Key Energy Services, Inc. to make whole Tina S. Roberson, by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraph eight above, including, but not limited to, relocation expenses, job search expenses and medical expenses, in an amount to be determined at trial;
D. Order Defendant Key Energy Services, Inc. to make whole Tina S. Roberson, by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph eight above, including, but not limited to, emotional pain, suffering, humiliation, embarrassment, emotional distress, stress, anxiety, inconvenience, and loss of enjoyment oflife, in an amount to be determined at trial;
E. Order Defendant Key Energy Services, Inc. to pay Tina S. Roberson punitive damages for its malicious and reckless conduct described in paragraph eight above, in an amount to be determined at trial;
F. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest; and
G. Award the Commission its costs ofthis action. JURY TRIAL DEMAND
The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint. Respectfully submitted, ERIC S. DREIBAND General Counsel

Plaintiff's First Amended Original Complamt

Page 4

JAMES L. LEE Deputy General Counsel GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel
ROBERT B. HARWIN Regional Attorney District of Columbia Bar No. 076083
'Attorney-in-Charge Texas State Bar No. 19708300 Federal ID No. 14850 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION San Antonio District Office 5410 Fredericksburg Road, Suite 200 San Antonio, TX 78229-3555 Telephone: (210) 281-7637 Telecopier: (210) 281-7669 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

Plaintiff's First Amended Original Complaint

Page 5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy ofthe foregoing document has been delivered, as designated below, on this the 19th day of February 2004.

Teresa De Ford Rathwell & Nizialek, P.C. 1450 Lake Robbins Dr., Suite 300 The Woodlands, Texas 77380 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT

o Hand Delivery
o Facsimile Transmission at (281 )296-6970
'wCertified Mail, Return Receipt Requested
o U.S. First Class Mail, Postage Prepaid

Gay E. Gilson Law Office of Gay E. Gilson 719 South Shoreline, Suite 301A Corpus Christi, Texas 78401 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR

o Hand Delivery o Facsimile Transmission at (361)887-0554
16Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested
o U.S. First Class Mail, Postage Prepaid

Plaintiff's First Amended Original Complaint

Page 6

 </s> IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION

United States Courts Southern District of Texas
FILED

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY §

COMMISSION,

§

MAY 1 9 2004

§

Plaintiff

§

Michael N. Milby, Clerk of Coun

§

and

§

§

TINA S. ROBERSON,

§

§

Plaintiff-Intervenor

§

§

v.

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. C-03-331

§

KEY ENERGY SERVICES, INC.,

§

JURY

§

Defendant.

§

KEY ENERGY SERVICES, INC.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR'S FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

TO THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

Defendant BROOKS WELL SERVICING, INC. DIBIA KEY ENERGY SERVICES, INC.,

GULF COAST DIVISION ("Defendant" or "Key Energy") files this its Answer to Plaintiff-

Intervenor's First Amended Original Complaint ("Intervenor's Complaint"), and would respectfully

show unto the Honorable Court the following:

I.
FIRST DEFENSE

1. Key Energy answers the allegations contained within the separately numbered

paragraphs of Intervenor's Complaint as follows:

2. To the extent that a response to the averments contained in Paragraph 1, titled "Nature

of Action," is required or pennitted, Key Energy denies those averments.

3. Key Energy admits the averments contained In Paragraph 2 of Intervenor's Complaint.
4. Key Energy admits the averments contained In Paragraph 3 of Intervenor's Complaint.
5. With regard to Paragraph 4 of Intervenor's Complaint, Key Energy denies that any unlawful employment practices were committed within this Court's jurisdiction, but admits that venue is proper within this District and Division.
6. Key Energy denies the averments contained in Paragraph 5 ofIntervenor' s Complaint. 7. Key Energy denies the averments contained in Paragraph 6 ofIntervenor' s Complaint. 8. Key Energy denies the averments contained in Paragraph 7 ofIntervenor's Complaint. 9. Key Energy denies the averments contained in Paragraph 8 ofIntervenor's Complaint. 10. Key Energy denies the averments contained in Paragraph 9 ofIntervenor's Complaint. 11. Key Energy denies the averments contained in Paragraph 10 of Intervenor's Complaint. 12. Key Energy denies the averments contained In Paragraph 11 of Intervenor's Complaint. 13. Key Energy denies the averments contained In Paragraph 12 of Intervenor's Complaint. 14. To the extent that a response to the averments contained in Paragraph 13 is required or permitted, Key Energy denies those averments. 15. Key Energy denies the averments contained In Paragraph 14 of Intervenor's Complaint.
2

16. Key Energy denies the averments contained III Paragraph 15 of Intervenor's Complaint.
17. Key Energy denies the averments contained III Paragraph 16 of Intervenor's Complaint.
18. No response to Plaintiff s Jury Trial Demand paragraph is required or permitted. Furthermore, to the extent that a response to subparagraphs 1-11 of paragraph 17 are permitted or required, Key Energy denies those averments
II. SECOND DEFENSE 19. Key Energy alleges and avers that Plaintiff-Intervenor has failed to mitigate her damages.
III. THIRD DEFENSE 20. Alternatively, Key Energy alleges and avers that the claims upon which Intervenor's Complaint are based are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations.
IV. FOURTH DEFENSE 21. Alternatively, Key Energy further alleges and avers that it exercised reasonable care to prevent and/or correct promptly any alleged sexual harassment or discrimination.
V.
FIFTH DEFENSE
3

22. Alternatively, Key Energy further alleges and avers that Plaintiff unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventative or corrective opportunities provided by Key Energy.
VI. SIXTH DEFENSE 23. Alternatively, Key Energy further alleges and avers that the claims upon which Intervenor's Complaint are based are barred by the doctrine of waiver.
VII. SEVENTH DEFENSE 24. Alternatively, Key Energy further alleges and avers that the claims upon which Intervenor's Complaint are based are barred by the doctrine of estoppel.
VIII. EIGHTH DEFENSE 25. Alternatively, Key Energy further alleges and avers that the claims upon which Intervener's Complaint are based are barred by the doctrine oflaches.
IX. NINTH DEFENSE 26. Alternatively, Key Energy further alleges and avers that Intervener has failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant Brooks Well Service, Inc. d/b/a Key Energy Services, Inc., GulfCoast Division prays that upon final trial and hearing in this case, it have judgment in accordance with the law and facts as determined by this Honorable Court, that it have its costs of court expended herein, and that it deny the relief sought by Plaintiff-Intervener, and for all such other and further relief, at law and in equity, to which this Defendant may be justly entitled.
Respectfully submitted, 4

OF COUNSEL: RATHWELL & NIZIALEK, P.C. Town Center One 1450 Lake Robbins Drive, Suite 300 The Woodlands, Texas 77380 Telephone: (281) 296-8900 Facsimile: (281) 296-6970

RATHWELL & NIZIALEK, P.c.
~"'" BY:"":! L~kJ ~ ( Teresa L. De Ford State Bar No. 00793600 Federal Bar No. 19660 Town Center One 1450 Lake Robbins Drive, Suite 300 The Woodlands, Texas 77380 Telephone: (281) 296-8900 Telecopier: (281) 296-6970
ATTORNEY-IN-CHARGE FOR DEFENDANT BROOKS WELL SERVICING, INC. d/b/a KEY ENERGY SERVICES, INC., GULF COAST DIVISION

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I do certify that a true and correct copy ofthe foregoing instrument has been forwarded to all counsel of record via certified mail, return receipt requested, facsimile, and/or regular mail on this 19th day of May 2004, properly addressed as follows:
Judith G. Taylor Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 5410 Fredericksburg Road Suite 200 San Antonio, Texas 78229
Gay E. Gilson LA W OFFICE OF GAY E. GILSON 719 South Shoreline Suite 301A Corpus Christi, Texas 78401
5

David Lee McGee LAW OFFICE OF DAVID LEE MCGEE, PC 701 Park Avenue Corpus Christi, Texas 78401
~k~L,~®
Teresa L. De Ford
6

 </s> IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY §

USnoi.ut....S"t.itOaa;,t";j-U-IC-T~ Court
ENTEREf/ of TeXIs
JUN 14 200~

COMMISSION,

§

....... N.. M;Ibv, C'erlc of Court

§

Plaintiff,

§

and

§

§

TINA S. ROBERSON,

§

§

Plaintiff-Intervenor,

§ Civil Action No. C-03-331

v.

§

§

BROOKS WELL SERVICING, INC. D/B/A §

KEY ENERGY SERVICES, INC., GULF

§

COAST DIVISION,

§

§

Defendant.

§

CONSENT DECREE

The parties to this Consent Decree are the Plaintiff, United States Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), Plaintiff-Intervenor, Tina S. Roberson, and Defendant, Key

Energy Services, Inc. ("Key Energy"). This Consent Decree resolves th:! allegations raised by

the EEOC and Plaintiff-Intervenor in the above-referenced Civil Action No. C-03-331. The

EEOC initiated this lawsuit under Title VII 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 to provide appropriate relief to Tina S. Roberson, who l;vas adversely affected

by such practices. The EEOC alleges that Tina S. Roberson, a female, was sexually harassed

during her employment at Key Energy and that the conduct to which Tina S. Roberson was

subjected was so severe and pervasive that it created a sexually hostile work environment.

Plaintiff-Intervenor further alleges that Key Energy subjected Ms. Roberson to retaliatory

discharge.

The EEOC, Tina S. Roberson and Key Energy wish to settle Hlis action, without the risks, uncertainties and expenses of continued litigation, under the terms in the Decree. By entering into this Consent Decree, Key Energy expressly denies the valid: ty of any claim and/or cause of action asserted in Plaintiff EEOC's Complaint and Plaintiff-Intenrenor Tina Roberson's Complaint-in-Intervention, and Key Energy enters into this Consent Decr'~e for the sole purpose of avoiding the expenses associated with this litigation. Key Energy further asserts that by entering into this Consent Decree it makes no admission of liability or wrcngdoing and makes no admission that its alleged conduct was improper, discriminatory or illegal in any respect.
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 all administrative prerequisites to the EEOC's filing of this action have been met. The parties stipulate to the Court's jurisdiction. 2. This Consent Decree resolves all issues raised in the EEOC's Complaint and in Tina S. Roberson's Complaint-in-Intervention. The EEOC and Tina S. Roberson waive further litigation of all issues raised in the above-referenced complaints. The EEOC expressly reserves its right, however, to process and litigate any other charges which may now be pending or may in the future be filed against Defendant Key Energy.
SCOPE OF CONSENT DECREE 3. The duration of this Decree shall be three (3) years from the date of its filing with the Court. Key Energy shall be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the Joint Motion for Dismissal filed contemporaneously herewith, subject to the Court's ancillary jurisdiction to ensure implementation and enforcement of the Consent Decree. In the e,'ent there is a question as to compliance with or implementation of the Consent Decree, before seeking assistance from

Consent Decree

Page 2

the Court, the party complaining about compliance and/or implementation shall first send a letter detailing all issues it believes fail to comply with the Consent Decree and allow the receiving party ten (10) days to respond to such letter. If the issues are not resolved by correspondence, the parties shall within twenty (20) days of the date of response meet face-to-face to discuss the issues believed not to comply with the Consent Decree. If no resolution call be reached after the face-to-face conference, the party complaining about compliance may then File a motion with the Court to enforce the Consent Decree. Any motion filed with the Court must certify that both the correspondence and the face-to-face requisites have been met.
4. The scope of this Consent Decree shall only apply to Key Energy's facility located in Alice, Texas.
INJUNCTIVE PROVISIONS 5. Key Energy is hereby enjoined from retaliating in any manner whatsoever against Tina S. Roberson or any other employee for opposing any employment practice made unlawful

by Title VII, or for complaining of harassment or other unlawful discrimination, filing a discrimination charge, giving testimony or assistance, or participating in cny lawful manner in any investigation, proceeding, hearing or action under Title VII.
6. Key Energy is hereby enjoined from discriminating against any employee on the basis of sex, female, in violation of Title VII.
7. During the term of this Consent Decree, Key Energy will (~ontinue to distribute

and enforce its sexual harassment policy and complaint procedure as set forth in its Employee Handbook.
MONETARY RELIEF 8. Defendant Key Energy, in settlement of this dispute, shall pay the sum total of $57,500.00 (FIFTY-SEVEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED AND OO/lOO DOLLARS). Payment shall be distributed as follows: $30,001.40 shall be mailed directly to Tina S. Roberson,

Consent Decree

Page 3

224 County Road 468, Alice, Texas 78332; and $27,498.60 shall be mail,~d to Ms. Roberson's attorney, Gay E. Gilson, Law Office of Gay E. Gilson, 719 South Shorelint, Suite 301A, Corpus Christi, Texas 78401. Payment shall be made on or before June 21, 2004. A copy of the settlement checks, and any accompanying transmittal documents shall be forwarded to Robert Harwin, Regional Attorney, San Antonio District Office, United State~ Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 5410 Fredericksburg Road, Suite 200, San Antonio, Texas 78229.
TRAINING 9. During the term of this Consent Decree, Key Energy will provide annual training on Title VII according to the following terms: (a) Key Energy shall provide training of no less than four (4) hours of training to all
of Key Energy's managers, supervisors and employees 011 the subject of the employment provisions of Title VII, including sex-based di:;crimination, hostile work environment, sexual harassment and retaliation; (b) All participants shall be required to sign a registry upo 1 completion of the training; and Key Energy shall provide the initial training session in accordance with this Paragraph within ninety (90) calendar days of the er try of this Decree; (c) Within thirty (30) days after each annual anniversary of the entry of this Decree, Key Energy shall provide this same training pursuant to and in compliance with this Paragraph for all new Key Energy employees; and (d) Within twenty (20) business days prior to any proposed training pursuant to this Decree, Key Energy shall submit the date(s) of the proposed training session and a topic outline of the contents of the training to EEOC. EEOC shall then have ten (l0) business days from the date of receipt of the information to accept or reject the contents of the topic outline. In the event that EEOC does not approve Key

Consent Decree

Page 4

Energy's topic outline, Key Energy shall have ten (10) bminess days to submit a revised outline. 10. Within ten (10) days after the completion of each required training session, Key Energy shall certify to EEOC, in writing, that the required training hag taken place and that required personnel attended. Such certification shall include: (a) The date, location and duration of the training; and (b) A copy of the registry of attendance which shall include th.~ name and position or title of each person in attendance.
POSTING REOUIREMENT 11. Within ten (10) business days after entry of this Decree" Defendant shall post copies of the Notice attached as Exhibit "A" to this Decree at its Alice, Texas, facility in a conspicuous location easily accessible to and commonly frequented by employees. The Notice shall remain posted for the duration of this Decree. Key Energy shall emure that the posting is not altered, defaced or covered by any other material. Key Energy shall I~ertify to the EEOC in writing within ten (10) business days after entry of the Decree that the Notice has been properly posted. Key Energy shall permit a representative of EEOC to enter Key Energy's premises for purposes of verifying compliance with this Paragraph at any time during normal business hours. 12. During the term of this Consent Decree, Key Energy shaH provide all employees hired after the entry of this Decree with a copy of Key Energy's policies and complaint procedures concerning sexual harassment.
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 13. Key Energy shall bear the costs associated with administering and implementing the provisions of this Decree.

Consent Decree

Page 5

14. Except as provided herein, the parties to this Decree shaH bear their own costs

and attorney's fees. Furthermore, the parties agree that pursuant to Sectiln 706(k) of Title VII,

42 U.S.c. § 2000e-5(k), there is no "prevailing party" in this action or proc:eeding.

15. The terms of this Decree shall be binding upon the EEOC, Tina S. Roberson and

Defendant Key Energy its agents, officers, employees, servants, success;)rs, and assigns, as to

the issues resolved herein.

16. When this Consent Decree requires the submission by Ke~,' Energy of documents

or other materials to EEOC, such documents or other materials shall b,~ 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 r e c o r d 4

SO ORDERED AND ENTERED this --J--l-'.L~--~day of

i _,l -<

,2004.

~--\

/'

,~~ .
LE

JANI~~

GU

H

JACK

STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Respectfully submitte(l,
ERIC S. DREIBAND General Counsel
JAMES L. LEE Deputy General Counl;el
GWENDOLYN YOU~G REAMS Associate General Counsel

Consent Decree

~\S~c~
ROBERTB. HARWn~ Regional Attorney District of Columbia Bar No. 076083
Page 6

TERESA L. DE FORD State Bar No. 00793600 S.D. Federal ID No. 19660 Attorney-In Charge RATHWELL & NIZIALEK, P.C. Town Center One 1450 Lake Robbins Drive, Suite 300 The Woodlands, Texas 77380 Telephone: (281) 296-8900 Telecopier: (281) 296-6970 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT
Consent Decree

Su rvisory Trial Attorney T as State Bar No. 1n08300 S.D. Federal ID No. 14850 Attorney-In-Charge
Trial A torney Colorado Bar No. 033240 S.D. Federal ID No. 31)033
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION San Antonio District Office 5410 Fredericksburg Road, Suite 200 San Antonio, Texas 7~Q29-3555 Telephone: (210) 28]-7637 Telecopier: (210) 281·7669
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF EEOC
dt1>7 { licJ/ GAY :E:6ILSON h~"'_-:--- - - -
Texas State Bar No. 01)784131 S.D.Federal ID No. 16385 Attorney-In-Charge for Plaintiff-Intervenor
Law Office of Gay E. Gilson 719 South Shoreline, Suite 301A Corpus Christi, Texas 78401 Telephone: (361) 887-0552 Telecopier: (361) 887·0554
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTFFINTERVENOR
Page 7

Of Counsel:
DAVID LEE MCGEE Law Office of David Lee McGee, P.e. 701 Park Ave. Corpus Christi, Texas 78401 Texas State Bar No. 1~612550 S.D. Federal ID No. 5')32 Telephone: (361) 888·,6489 Telecopier: (361) 888·5585
CO-COUNSEL FOR lNTERVENER

Consent Decree

Page 8

EXHIBIT A
NOTICE AS REOUIRED UNDER TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964
1. Federal law requires that there be no discrimination against any employee or applicant for employment because of that person's race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or age with respect to hiring, compensation, promotion, discharge, or other terms, conditions or privileges of employment.
2. Key Energy strongly supports and will comply with such Federal Jaw in all aspects and it will not take any action against employees because they have exercised their rights under the law by filing charges with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
3. If you believe you are being discriminated against in any term or condition of your employment because of your race, religion, color, national origin, sex, or disability, or that you are being sUbjected to harassment because of your sex or because of having engaged in Title VII-protected activity, you are encouraged to seek assistance from supervisory personnel, or from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 5410 Fredericksburg Road, Suite 200, San Antonio, Texas 78229-3555, (210) 281-7600 or 1-800-669-4000.
4. No retaliatory action may be taken against you for seeking assistance, filing a charge, or communicating with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
5. Basing employment actions on the gender of an employee may alsc constitute a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and any such conduct is a violation of company policy. Any employee found to be in violaticn of this company policy will be subject to written reprimand, suspension, and/or discharge.

 </s> IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION

iJnitid StItII OWlet Court Southern District of TeXIS
ENTERED

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY §

COMMISSION,

§

JUN 1 4 2004

§

Plaintiff,

§

....., N. Milby. Clark of Court

and

§

§

TINA S. ROBERSON,

§

§

Plaintiff-Intervenor,

§ Civil Action No. C-03-331

v.

§

§

BROOKS WELL SERVICING, INC. D/B/A §

KEY ENERGY SERVICES, INC., GULF

§

COAST DIVIS~.oN,

§

§

Defendant.

§

FINAL JUDGMENT ORDER ENTERING CONSEl'lT DECREE On this day came on to be heard the parties' Joint Motion to Enter Consent Decree. After reviewing the Consent Decree, the Court finds that all issues in the Complaint have been disposed of, that the parties are in agreement, and that the Consent Decree should be entered. It is therefore ordered that the Consent Decree is hereby entered. The Court shall retain ancillary jurisdiction to enforce the terms and conditions as set forth in the Consent Decree, which is attached to the parties' Joint l'M"rmn to Enter Consent Decree.
Signed this -It!-day of __-_-_-_--+--t-_~_-=-____, 2004.

 </s> FY 2002 Office of General Counsel Annual Report

Page 1 of 1

z
 Wages 3

In EEOC v. SuperValu Holdings, Inc., the Commission alleged that a wholesale grocery warehousing business paid women less than men doing the same work. Twenty-two women received a total of $400,000 in back pay and damages.

In a case involving a unique kind of

work, the Commission alleged that

Warehousing business provided $400,000 to

an entertainment company providing 22 women who were paid less than men for

trick horse riders, subjected female

the same work

riders to a hostile work environment

and paid them less than the male

trick riders. The company agreed to pay the women $135,000 in monetary relief. EEOC v.

Dixie Stampede Dinner Attractions, Inc.

In EEOC v. Phoenix Management Limited Co., the Commission recovered $120,000 on behalf of a female comptroller who was paid less by a management and financial services company than the man who previously held her position. See also EEOC v. Four Corners, Inc. d/b/a/ Key Energy Services, Inc., Four Corners Division (female controller paid less than male predecessor receives $25,000 and an increase in salary to $80,000).

http://www.eeoc.gov/litigation/02annrpt.html

5/9/2007

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

Page 1 of 7

U.S. District Court SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (Corpus Christi)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:03-cv-00331

CLOSED

Equal Employment v. Key Energy Services Assigned to: Judge Janis Graham Jack Demand: $0 Cause: 42:1981 Civil Rights
Plaintiff Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Date Filed: 09/04/2003 Date Terminated: 06/21/2004 Jury Demand: Defendant Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff
represented by 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 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eric S Dreiband EEOC 5410 Fredericksburg Rd Ste 200 San Antonio, TX 78229-3555 210-281-7637

Gwendolyn Young Reams EEOC 5410 Fredericksburg Rd Ste 200 San Antonio, TX 78229-3555 210-281-7637

James L Lee EEOC 5410 Fredericksburg Rd Ste 200 San Antonio, TX 78229-3555 210-281-7637

Robert B Harwin EEOC Fax 210 281 7669 5410 Fredericksburg Rd

https://ecf.txsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?350100271415412-L_353_0-1

5/9/2007

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

Page 2 of 7

V. Defendant Key Energy Services, Inc.
Intervenor Defendant Key Energy Services, Inc. Interested Party Tina S Robinson
Interested Party Brooks Well Servicing Inc
Movant Tina Roberson

Ste 200 San Antonio, TX 78229-3555 210-281-7613
represented by Teresa L DeFord Ratwell & Nizialek 1450 Lake Robbins Dr Ste 300 The Woodlands, TX 77381 281-296-8900 Fax: 281-296-6970 fax Email: deford@woodlandslaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Tina S Robinson -not provided PRO SE
represented by Brooks Well Servicing Inc -not provided PRO SE
represented by Gay Ellen Gilson Attorney at Law 719 S Shoreline Suite 301A Corpus Christi, TX 78401 361-887-0552 Fax: 361-887-0554 fax Email: gegilson@gilsonlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Lee McGee Attorney at Law 3827 N 10th Street Ste 302-B McAllen, TX 78501 956-687-2010

https://ecf.txsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?350100271415412-L_353_0-1

5/9/2007

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

Page 3 of 7

Date Filed 09/04/2003 09/04/2003
09/04/2003 09/12/2003 09/24/2003
09/24/2003 09/29/2003
10/08/2003
10/08/2003 10/08/2003 10/21/2003

Fax: 956-687-2937 Email: lawofficesofdmcgee@rgv.rr.com

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed; (dterrell) (Entered: 09/05/2003)

2 Order setting Initial Pretrial and Scheduling Conference on 1:15 10/21/03 before Judge Janis Graham Jack and Order to Disclose Interested Persons, filed. (dterrell) (Entered: 09/05/2003)

SUMMONS issued for Key Energy Services (dterrell) (Entered: 09/05/2003)

3 DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTED PARTIES by Equal Employment , filed. (lcayce) (Entered: 09/12/2003)

4 MOTION to Intervene as a Plaintiff Under FRCP 24 by Tina Roberson by Tina Roberson, Motion Docket Date 10/14/03 [4-1] motion , filed. (lcayce) (Entered: 09/25/2003)

5 Intervenor's COMPLAINT by Tina Roberson against defendant Key Energy Services , filed (lcayce) (Entered: 09/25/2003)

6 RETURN OF SERVICE executed as to Key Energy Services 9/18/03 filed. Answer due on 10/8/03 for Key Energy Services (lcayce) (Entered: 09/30/2003)

7 ORIGINAL ANSWER to Complaint by Key Energy Services (Added attorney Teresa L De Ford), filed.; jury demand (lcayce) (Entered: 10/08/2003)

8 JOINT DISCOVERY/Case Management Plan by Key Energy Services , filed. (lcayce) (Entered: 10/08/2003)

9 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES by Key Energy Services , filed. (lcayce) (Entered: 10/08/2003)

10 Initial Pretrial Conference held before Judge Janis Graham Jack Ct Reporter: Lori Cayce Tape Number: 1:16 - 1:54. Case called; appearance of counsel. Ms. Gilson stated that intervention is for a claim of retaliation not considered by EEOC. Ms. Gutierrez stated EEOC issued finding as to sexual harrassment and not as to retaliation. Ms. Gilson has contracted with deft to seek attorney fees. The Intervention was unopposed by EEOC and Ms. De Ford. Court inquires as to the termination of Ms. Roberson. Ms. DeFord states she was fired because she had been rude to a customer on the phone and her past performance. Ms. DeFord states Ms. Roberson had been reprimanded in two incidents. One of the incidents involved divulging confidential information; the second involved a workers compensation claim. Ms DeFord states KeyEnergy is an oil company that provides trucking business. Ms Gutierrez advised the court that a Q. Buentello is the person doing the sexual harrassment. Ms.

https://ecf.txsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?350100271415412-L_353_0-1

5/9/2007

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

Page 4 of 7

DeFord states that Mr. Buentello is longer with the company. Ms DeFord states there may be a fact question as to the supervisor. Ms. DeFord states that the reprimands were given by Mr.Glen Pavalik and acknowledged by another supervisor Noe Garza. Ms Roberson states Mr. Buentello was her immediate supervisor and Mr. Pavalik ,Bfuentello's Supervisor. Ms. Roberson advised the court on the incidents she was reprimanded. Ms. DeFord advised the court that the two names on the reprimands are Glen Pavalik and Noe Garza. Ms. Roberson stated she was not aware of the reprimand on the workman's compensation. Ms. Roberson states she worked eight years and did not use vulgar language. Ms . DeFord states she does not know who the customer was that complained about Ms. Roberson. Attorneys stated that they have done Rule 26 disclosures. Court orders attorneys to add the name of the customer , date and circumstances to Rule 26 Disclosures. Ms. Gutierrez advised the court that they offered to mediate to the company, there has been mediation and it was not successful. Ms. Gutierrez initial demand was $167,000.00 Dollars, Ms. Gutierrez states offer was for $5,000.00. The job was not offered. Ms. DeFord states the job was not requested back. Ms. DeFord states a positive reprimand was discussed and discussed. Ms. DeFord states mediation was premature, Ms DeFord did not have enough information. Ms. DeFord states investigation has not shown any evidence of sexual harrassment.. Ms. Roberson states she notified Noe Garza , Glen Pavalik and Mr. Carroll of sexual harrassment in the last two years. Ms. Gutierrez states that Mr. Carroll and Mr. Pavalik assured Ms. Roberson the matter of sexual harrassment had been referred to the corporate Midland office and it was being taken care of and did not want her to go over them because it would look bad on the Alice Yard. Ms. DeFord states there was no communication to corporate office. Ms. Gutierrez states they have a witness statement that Robert Carroll conceded to Peggy Lee, employee in the Victoria office that it had been taken to the Midland office but that he could not do anything about it, after Ms. Roberson had been terminated. Ms. Lee is still working in the Victoria office. Ms. DeFord states that this is new information. No objections to the scheduling order. Ms. Gilson states she has not talked to Mr. Garza or Pavalik because they are management. Ms. Gilson states they have statements from other workers. Ms. Roberson's husband also worked for KeyEnergy and was terminated because of a reduction of force. Ms. Roberson states he was in equipment inventory. Ms. Roberson states the Alice yard is under investigation by the Texas Ranger. Ms. Roberson states a retired Texas Ranger about procedures regarding petty cash and equipment. Ms. Roberson states that John Chris was Regional Manager. Ms. DeFord states he was Area Manager. Ms. Roberson explains how she was fired. Ms. DeFord states much of what has been heard today is new information. Ms. DeFord states that co-workers, Noe Garza, Robert Carroll and Glen Pavalik have been interviewed and have denied any claims of sexual harrassment. Ms. Roberson states she has another work making less salary. Ms. DeLong states there was no reprimand for sexual harrassment because it had been denied. Ms. DeLong states another EEOC case is for race discrimination. Court signs scheduling order, exhibit order, general order and mediation order. Ms.

https://ecf.txsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?350100271415412-L_353_0-1

5/9/2007

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

Page 5 of 7

10/21/2003
10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 01/12/2004 02/17/2004
02/19/2004 02/25/2004 02/25/2004 02/27/2004

Gutierrez states a concern of Texas Ranger regarding Glen Pavalik that Mr. Pavalik was told to sign whistle blower contract. Ms. Gutierrez states there is a concern if Mr. Pavalik is under contract not to talk. Ms. DeLong states she will obtain whatever Mr. Pavalik signed. Court signs order for intervention. Ms. Gutierrez states all documents will be available to Ms. DeFord. Ms. DeFord states she has received some information. Court adjourns. (lcayce) (Entered: 10/22/2003)
11 SCHEDULING ORDER setting Trial date 8:00 8/3/04; Final Pretrial Conference 8:30 8/2/04; Joint Pretrial order to be submitted on or before 3:00 7/23/04 ; Deadline for filing all dispositive motions 5/17/04 ; Joining of parties 11/28/03 ; Amending of pleadings 2/27/04 ; Discovery cutoff 5/28/04 ; before Judge Janis Graham Jack , entered. Parties notified. ( Signed by Judge Janis Graham Jack ) (lcayce) (Entered: 10/22/2003)
12 ORDER re: Exhibits , entered; Parties notified. ( signed by Judge Janis Graham Jack ) (lcayce) (Entered: 10/22/2003)
13 GENERAL ORDER , entered; Parties notified. ( signed by Judge Janis Graham Jack ) (lcayce) (Entered: 10/22/2003)
14 ORDER FOR REFERRAL TO MEDIATION mediation deadline is 6/11/04 , entered; Parties notified. ( signed by Judge Janis Graham Jack ) (lcayce) (Entered: 10/22/2003)
15 ORDER granting [4-1] motion to Intervene as a Plaintiff Under FRCP 24 by Tina Roberson , entered; The Court orders that Plaintiff-Intervenor Tina Roberson's Original Complaint be filed. Parties notified. ( signed by Judge Janis Graham Jack ) (lcayce) (Entered: 10/22/2003)
16 NOTICE of appearance of counsel for Equal Employment by Judith Georgann Taylor, filed (pramirez) (Entered: 01/14/2004)
17 UNOPPOSED MOTION to substitute attorney Judith G. Taylor in place of Linda Gutierrez , wda for Linda Gutierrez to withdraw as attorney by Equal Employment, Motion Docket Date 3/8/04 [17-1] motion, 3/8/04 [17-2] motion , filed. (pramirez) Modified on 02/18/2004 (Entered: 02/18/2004)
18 ORDER granting [17-1] motion to substitute attorney Judith G. Taylor in place of Linda Gutierrez Added granting [17-2] motion for Linda Gutierrez to withdraw as attorney , entered; Parties notified. ( signed by Judge Janis Graham Jack ) (pramirez) (Entered: 02/19/2004)
19 UNOPPOSED MOTION for leave to file First Amended Complaint by Tina Robinson, Motion Docket Date 3/16/04 [19-1] motion , filed. (pramirez) Modified on 02/26/2004 (Entered: 02/26/2004)
20 UNOPPOSED MOTION for leave of court to amend plaintiff's original complaint by Equal Employment, [20-1] motion , filed. (pramirez) (Entered: 02/26/2004)
21 NOTICE of appearance of counsel; attorney Jennifer Randall as co-

https://ecf.txsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?350100271415412-L_353_0-1

5/9/2007

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

Page 6 of 7

02/29/2004 02/29/2004 02/29/2004 03/18/2004 03/23/2004 05/14/2004 05/17/2004
05/19/2004 05/20/2004 06/02/2004
06/02/2004 06/08/2004 06/08/2004 06/13/2004

counsel for Equal Employment, filed (pramirez) Modified on 03/03/2004 (Entered: 02/27/2004)
22 ORDER granting [20-1] motion for leave of court to amend plaintiff's original complaint , entered; Parties notified. ( signed by Judge Janis Graham Jack ) (pramirez) (Entered: 03/01/2004)
23 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT by Equal Employment amending [11] complaint , filed. (pramirez) (Entered: 03/01/2004)
24 ORDER granting [19-1] motion for leave to file First Amended Complaint , entered; Parties notified. ( signed by Judge Janis Graham Jack ) (pramirez) (Entered: 03/01/2004)
25 ORDER striking [23-1] amended complaint , entered; Parties notified. ( signed by Judge Janis Graham Jack ) (pramirez) (Entered: 03/18/2004)
26 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT by Equal Employment amending [11] complaint , filed. (pramirez) (Entered: 03/26/2004)
27 MOTION for partial summary judgment with brief in support by Equal Employment, Motion Docket Date 6/3/04 [27-1] motion , filed. (pramirez) (Entered: 05/14/2004)
28 MOTION for entry of default as to Key Energy Services , and for default judgment against Key Energy Services , and, alternatively, for judgment on pleadings by Tina Roberson, Motion Docket Date 6/6/04 [28-1] motion, 6/6/04 [28-2] motion, 6/6/04 [28-3] motion , filed. (lcayce) (Entered: 05/19/2004)
29 ANSWER by Key Energy Services to plaintiff-intervenor's first amended original complaint, filed.; jury demand (lcayce) (Entered: 05/20/2004)
30 AMENDED ANSWER to Complaint by Key Energy Services : amends [29-1] complaint answer , filed.; jury demand (lcayce) (Entered: 05/20/2004)
31 NOTICE of Hearing: reset joint pretrial order due for 3:00 07/16/04 , reset final pretrial conference for 8:30 7/23/04 before Judge Janis Graham Jack , reset jury selection/trial for 8:00 7/26/04 before Judge Janis Graham Jack , filed. (lcayce) (Entered: 06/02/2004)
Deadline updated; reset pretrial order due for 3:00 7/16/04 (lcayce) (Entered: 06/02/2004)
32 JOINT ADVISORY TO THE COURT by Equal Employment, Key Energy Services, Tina Roberson , filed (lcayce) Modified on 06/09/2004 (Entered: 06/09/2004)
33 JOINT MOTION to enter consent decree by Equal Employment, Key Energy Services, Tina Roberson, Motion Docket Date 6/28/04 [33-1] motion , filed. (lcayce) (Entered: 06/09/2004)
34 CONSENT DECREE : granting [33-1] motion to enter consent decree , entered; Ordered, adjudged and decreed as follows: this Court has

https://ecf.txsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?350100271415412-L_353_0-1

5/9/2007

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

Page 7 of 7

06/14/2004 06/21/2004

jurisdiction of the subject matter of this action and the parties, venue is proper, and all administrative prerequisites to the EEOC's filing of this action have been met. The parties stipulate to the Court's jurisdiction. This Consent Decree resolves all issues raised in the EEOC's complaint and in Tina S. Roberson's complaint-in-intervention. The EEOC and Tina S. Roberson waive further litigation of all issues raised in the abovereferenced complaint. The EEOC expressly reserves its right, however, to process and litigate any other charges which may now be pending or may in the future be filed against defendant Key Energy. Parties notified. ( signed by Judge Janis Graham Jack ) (lcayce) (Entered: 06/14/2004)
35 FINAL JUDGMENT ORDER ENTERING CONSENT DECREE , entered. Parties ntfd. ( signed by Judge Janis Graham Jack ) (lcayce) (Entered: 06/14/2004)
Case closed (lcayce) (Entered: 06/23/2004)

PACER Service Center
Transaction Receipt

PACER Login: Description: Billable Pages:

05/09/2007 14:34:34

hs0328

Client Code:

Docket Report Search Criteria:

4

Cost:

EEOC 2:03-cv-00331 0.32

https://ecf.txsd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?350100271415412-L_353_0-1

5/9/2007


[CONTENT] September 2003 | EEOC | San Antonio | Texas | Key Energy Services | Brooks Well Servicing, Inc. | the U.S. District Court | the Southern District | Texas ||| Title VII of the Civil Rights Act | 1964 |||  ||| EEOC | May 2004 ||| less than a month | June 2004 ||| three years | 10 days |||  ||| 30,001.40 | 27,498.60 ||| no less than | Title VII ||| every year | 30 days ||| EEOC | Texas [SUMMARY] In September 2003, the EEOC district office of San Antonio, Texas brought this suit against Key Energy Services, Inc., the parent company of Brooks Well Servicing, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.  The complaint alleged violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, in that a female employee was sexually harassed by a male manager and male coworkers when they made obscene comments, sexual innuendos, and requested to have sex with her.  The charging party then intervened as a plaintiff. After some initial discovery, the EEOC moved for partial summary judgment in May 2004.  The parties settled in less than a month and in June 2004 a consent decree was issued.

The parties agreed that the injunctive terms of the agreement would extend for three years and that there shall be 10 days notice to defendant if there is a belief that it is violating the agreement and a subsequent face-to-face conference to resolve any issues.  The defendant was enjoined from discriminating on the basis of sex, was not to retaliate against any employee who complains of such discrimination, and had to distribute a copy of its nondiscrimination policy to all current employees.  The female employee received $30,001.40 and her attorney received $27,498.60.  All employees, supervisors and managers were to receive no less than four hours of training on the employment provisions of Title VII.  This training was to be repeated every year within 30 days of the anniversary of the decree.  Further, an EEOC prepared notice was to be conspicuously displayed in the defendant's Texas facility for the duration of the agreement.

