United States v. Indiana Department of Transportation Complaint

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
CIVIL ACTION NO.
v.
INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
Defendant.
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff, United States of America, alleges:
1. This action is brought on behalf of the United States to enforce the provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.
2. This Court has jurisdiction of the action under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f) and 28 U.S.C. § 1345.
3. The defendant, Indiana Department of Transportation ("INDOT"), is a corporate, governmental body created pursuant to the laws of the State of Indiana.
4. The defendant is a person within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(a) and an employer within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b).
5. The defendant has subjected Tarlochan Bansi, an Indian-American and a native of India, to discrimination on the basis of his national origin, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a), among other ways, by:
(a) Failing or refusing to promote Mr. Bansi to a vacancy in the Highway Engineer Supervisor 3 classification as a Preliminary Engineering Studies Section Manager in the PreEngineering and Environment Division, in or about December 1997, and to pay him accordingly; and
(b) Failing or refusing to take appropriate action to remedy the effects of the discriminatory treatment of Mr. Bansi.
6. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") received a timely charge filed by Mr. Bansi on or about July 22, 1998 (charge number 240982586), alleging that he had been discriminated against on the basis of his national origin by INDOT when he was denied a promotion to Highway Engineer Supervisor 3 in the Pre-Engineering and Environment Division as Preliminary Engineering Studies Section Manager. Pursuant to Section 706 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5, the EEOC investigated the charge, found reasonable cause to believe

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/emp/documents/indotcm.htm

8/14/2007

United States v. Indiana Department of Transportation Complaint

Page 2 of 3

that the allegation of national origin discrimination was true, attempted unsuccessfully to achieve through conciliation a voluntary resolution of the charge and subsequently referred the matter to the Department of Justice.
7. All conditions precedent to the filing of suit have been performed or have occurred.
WHEREFORE, the plaintiff prays this Court to:
(a) Enter an order enjoining the defendant from failing or refusing to provide remedial relief sufficient to make whole the charging party, Mr. Bansi, for the individual loss he has suffered as a result of the discrimination against him as alleged in this Complaint; and
(b) Award compensatory damages to Mr. Bansi to fully compensate him for injuries caused by INDOT's discriminatory conduct, pursuant to and within the statutory limitations of Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a.
(c) Take other appropriate nondiscriminatory measures to overcome the effects of the discrimination.
The plaintiff prays for such additional relief as justice may require, together with its costs and disbursements in this action.
JURY DEMAND
The United States hereby demands a trial by jury of all issues so triable pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42U.S.C. §1981a.
JOHN ASHCROFT Attorney General
By:
SUSAN W. BROOKS United States Attorney Southern District of Indiana
RALPH F. BOYD, JR. Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division
JAMES P. HANLON Assistant United States Attorney Southern District of Indiana 10 West Market Street, Suite 2100 Indianapolis, IN 46204 (317) 226-6333
WILLIAM B. FENTON Deputy Section Chief
JENNY R. YANG

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/emp/documents/indotcm.htm

8/14/2007

United States v. Indiana Department of Transportation Complaint
Senior Trial Attorney U.S. Department of Justice 10th and Constitution Avenue, N.W. Civil Rights Division Employment Litigation Section, PHOB 4611 Washington, D.C. 20530 (202) 307-3925 (202) 514-1105 (facsimile)

Page 3 of 3

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/emp/documents/indotcm.htm

8/14/2007

 </s> US v. Indiana Department of Transportation

Page 1 of 12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

Cause No.1:02-CV-1475 SEB-VSS

VS.

INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION,
Defendant.
CONSENT DECREE
This Decree is in full and final resolution of the above-captioned complaint, and in full and final resolution of EEOC Charge Nos. 240982586, 240991333, and 240A01218.
This action was brought by the United States against the Indiana Department of Transportation ("INDOT") to enforce the provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. ("Title VII"), following receipt by the Department of Justice from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") of EEOC Charge Nos. 240982586, 240991333, and 240A01218 filed by Tarlochan Bansi.
The United States alleges that INDOT violated Title VII when it improperly considered Mr. Bansi's national origin (Indian-American) in making its decision to deny Mr. Bansi a promotion to a vacancy in the Highway Engineer Supervisor 3 classification as a Preliminary Engineering Studies Section Manager in the PreEngineering and Environment Division in or about December 1997; and in failing or refusing to take appropriate action to remedy the effects of the alleged discriminatory treatment of Mr. Bansi.
INDOT has denied and continues to deny all allegations of unlawful discrimination, liability or wrongdoing on its part, or on the part of any of its employees or agents. In entering into this Consent Decree, INDOT does not admit any violation of law, and this Consent Decree may not be used as evidence of liability in any other proceeding.

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/emp/documents/indotcd.htm

8/14/2007

US v. Indiana Department of Transportation

Page 2 of 12

Desiring that this action be settled by an appropriate Consent Decree and without the burden of protracted litigation, the United States and INDOT agree to the Court's jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this action. Furthermore, the United States and INDOT waive, for the purposes of this Consent Decree, hearings and findings of fact and conclusions of law. This Consent Decree resolves all issues raised in the Complaint of the United States, and the United States and INDOT accept this Consent Decree as final and binding among themselves. This Consent Decree, being entered with the consent of the United States and INDOT, shall not constitute an admission, adjudication or finding on the merits of this action.
In resolution of this action, the United States and INDOT hereby AGREE and the Court expressly APPROVES, ENTERS and ORDERS the following:
I. SPECIFIC RELIEF
In full and final settlement of the claims of the United States for relief on behalf of Tarlochan Bansi, as well as in full and final settlement of the claims of Mr. Bansi, who, by his signature to this Decree and the release attached as Appendix A has signified his acceptance of the relief to be provided him pursuant to this Decree, INDOT agrees to do the following:
1. INDOT agrees to pay Mr. Bansi a back pay award of $35,233, of which $29,483 is to be considered principal and $5,750 is to be considered interest. INDOT agrees to separately pay the appropriate employer's contribution to the Social Security fund due on the $29,483 award for back pay, if applicable; i.e., the employer's contribution shall not be deducted from the monetary award to Mr. Bansi. INDOT shall deduct from the back pay part of the award appropriate deductions for federal, state and local income taxes; FICA; federal Medicare taxes; and any other taxes that INDOT is required by law to deduct from the salaries and benefits of INDOT employees.
2. INDOT agrees to contribute to Mr. Bansi's retirement account adjusted retirement benefits of $2,992, which represents the amount the State would have contributed to Mr. Bansi's retirement account had he been promoted to the Highway Engineer Supervisor 3 classification on December 12, 1997.
3. INDOT agrees to place Mr. Bansi in the Executive Broadband classification as the Environment/Planning and Engineering Consultant Services Manager in the Environment, Planning and Engineering Consultant Services Section of the Environment, Planning and Engineering Division with an effective date of the first pay period following the date of the Court's approval and entry of this Consent Decree. The job responsibilities of the Consulting and Special Projects Manager shall be as set forth in the job description attached as Appendix B.
4. INDOT agrees to make a request through appropriate channels to provide Mr. Bansi with an office space commensurate with that of the Section Managers in the Environment, Planning and Engineering Division at the earliest possible date.

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/emp/documents/indotcd.htm

8/14/2007

US v. Indiana Department of Transportation

Page 3 of 12

5. INDOT, by and through its officials, agents and all persons in active concert or participation with INDOT in the performance of employment or personnel functions, agrees not to engage in any act or practice that unlawfully retaliates against Mr. Bansi because he has formally or informally complained of or otherwise opposed an allegedly discriminatory employment practice or policy under Title VII, filed a charge under Title VII with the EEOC or any state or local fair employment practices agency, or participated or cooperated in any proceeding under Title VII, including, but not limited to, the initiation, investigation, litigation, or administration of this case or this Consent Decree.
6. INDOT agrees to continue to maintain Mr. Bansi's EEOC charges, and references to such charges, separate from his personnel files and/or records.
7. To obtain the monetary relief and the employment relief set forth in Paragraphs 1-4 of this Decree, Mr. Bansi has executed a release attached as Appendix A to this Consent Decree, fully releasing INDOT, the State of Indiana, and their officers, agents, employees, and successors, known and unknown, from liability for any injuries or costs allegedly incurred by Mr. Bansi arising out of EEOC Charge Nos. 240982586, 240991333, and 240A01218.
8. INDOT agrees to provide Mr. Bansi with the monetary payment and related benefits set forth in Paragraphs 1,2 and 4 of this Decree by the second pay period after the date of the Court's approval and entry of the Consent Decree. INDOT agrees, as set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 3 of this Decree, to place Mr. Bansi in the Executive Broadband classification as the Environment/Planning and Engineering Consultant Services Manager in the Environment/Planning and Engineering Consultant Services Section of the Environment, Planning and Engineering Division by the first pay period after the date of the Court's approval and entry of the Consent Decree.
II. GENERAL RELIEF
9. INDOT agrees not to undertake any act or practice that unlawfully discriminates against any employee because of that employee's national origin.
10. INDOT agrees that whenever an applicant for a vacant Highway Engineer Supervisor ("HES") or Executive Broadband position is interviewed as part of the selection procedure for filling such a position, a written list of job-related questions shall be prepared by INDOT's designated selecting official(s) and all applicants shall be asked the same questions in addition to whatever other related follow-up questions the interviewer(s) deem appropriate. Any questions asked in addition to the standard written questions and each applicant's answers to all questions shall be summarized in writing by the interviewer(s),
11. INDOT agrees that selecting official(s) shall state in writing the basis for the final selection or rejection of each applicant.
12. INDOT agrees that in filling any HES or Executive Broadband position, INDOT shall utilize nondiscriminatory selection procedures that do not rely on

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/emp/documents/indotcd.htm

8/14/2007

US v. Indiana Department of Transportation

Page 4 of 12

the use of national origin.
13. INDOT agrees to provide employment discrimination awareness training to all supervisory and management personnel of INDOT, as well as to any other individuals employed by INDOT who participate in the process by which individuals are selected for a promotion by INDOT. INDOT agrees that a description of the training shall be submitted to counsel for the United States within ninety (90) days from the date of entry of this Decree.
(a) The training sessions will begin within one hundred twenty (120) days after the date of the approval and entry of this Consent Decree by the Court, and continue until completed, which completion shall occur within one hundred eighty (180) days from the date of the commencement of the training sessions.
(b) INDOT agrees to maintain written confirmation that all required employees have received the above described training.
III. RECORD KEEPING AND REPORTING
14. INDOT agrees to retain for the duration of this Consent Decree all records, in whatever form (including any computer disks and computer, video or audio tapes), necessary to monitor the implementation of this Decree.
15. INDOT agrees to retain, for the duration of this Decree, all vacancy announcements, advertisements, employment applications, personnel files, interview questions, interview notes, eligibility lists, correspondence, memoranda, and any other records pertaining to hiring for HES or Executive Broadband positions.
16. INDOT agrees to retain all records that come into its possession relating to complaints or charges of employment discrimination based on national origin in promotions to HES or Executive Broadband positions filed against INDOT, whether made to a local, state or federal agency or through any internal grievance process. INDOT agrees to provide copies of such complaints or charges to counsel for the United States within thirty (30) days of its receipt of such complaints or charges. In addition, upon reasonable notice to INDOT without further order of this Court, the United States shall have the right to inspect and copy all documents related to such complaints or charges, including INDOT's investigation and resolution of such charges, with the exception of those documents protected by attorney client or work product privilege or other applicable privilege. INDOT will provide the United States with a privilege log identifying any documents that it contends constitute attorney client or work product material that INDOT has withheld.
IV. COMPLIANCE
17. If a dispute arises concerning compliance by a party with any provision of this Consent Decree, or if due to a change in circumstances, a party desires to request modification of a term or terms of the Consent Decree, the parties shall engage in good faith efforts to informally resolve the issue before seeking

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/emp/documents/indotcd.htm

8/14/2007

US v. Indiana Department of Transportation

Page 5 of 12

action by the Court. Prior to moving the Court for resolution, a party shall provide the other party with written notice of the dispute or proposed modification of the Consent Decree, stating with particularity any alleged issues of noncompliance, or in the case of a proposed modification, the reasons supporting such a modification. The parties will provide each other with a full and fair opportunity to informally resolve the issue prior to court intervention. If the parties are unable to informally resolve the issue within forty-five (45) days after written notice of a dispute or proposed modification has been given by one party to the other party, any party may move the Court for resolution. The burden of establishing noncompliance with any provision of the Consent Decree or any need for modification of the Consent Decree is on the moving party.

V. NOTIFICATION OF THE PARTIES

18. The following shall serve as the correct addresses for purposes of all correspondence directed to the parties.

For the United States:

David J. Palmer Chief Employment Litigation Section Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W Washington, D.C. 20530

For INDOT:

Anne M. O'Connor Chief Legal Counsel Indiana Department of Transportation
100 North Senate Avenue, Room N755 Indianapolis, Indiana 46204-2249

Patricia Orloff Grow Deputy Attorney General Office of the Attorney General IGCS, 5th Floor 302 West Washington Street Indianapolis, Indiana 4620

VII. JURISDICTION OF THE COURT

19. This Court shall retain jurisdiction of the matters covered by this Consent Decree for a period of two (2) years from the date of entry of this Consent Decree for such action as may be necessary or appropriate to effectuate the purposes of the Decree. This period may be extended by order of this Court for good cause shown, and the burdens, standards and procedures set forth in paragraph 17, above, are incorporated and restated as though fully set out herein.

20. Each party shall bear its own costs, including attorneys' fees, except that the parties shall retain the right to seek costs for any matter which, in the future, may arise from this Decree and require resolution by the Court.

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/emp/documents/indotcd.htm

8/14/2007

US v. Indiana Department of Transportation

Page 6 of 12

DONE AND ORDERED this _________day of _________________, 2003.

__________________________________

United States District Judge

Agreed and Consented to: On behalf of Plaintiff United States of America Transportation

On behalf of Defendant Indiana Department of

R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA Assistant Attorney General For Civil Rights

_________________________ WILLIAM B. FENTON SONYA A. RAO U.S. Department of Justice Attorneys Civil Rights Division Employment Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530

Dated: _______________________

PATRICIA ORLOFF GROW MARGARET WIELENBERG Deputy Attorneys General Office of the Indiana Attorney General Indiana Government Center South, 5th Floor 402 West Washington Street Indianapolis, IN 46204

_________________________ ANNE M. O'CONNOR Chief Legal Counsel Indiana Department of Transportation 100 North Senate Avenue, Room N755 Indianapolis, Indiana 46204-2249

____________________________ J. Bryan Nicol Commissioner Indiana Department of Transportation

Dated:______________________________

_____________________

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/emp/documents/indotcd.htm

8/14/2007

US v. Indiana Department of Transportation

Page 7 of 12

Tarlochan Bansi Dated:_______________________
APPENDIX A
RELEASE
United States v. Indiana Department of Transportation,
Cause No. 1:02-CV-1475 SEB VSS (S.D. Ind.)
For and in consideration of the acceptance of the relief offered me pursuant to the provisions of the Consent Decree entered in United States v. Indiana Department of Transportation, Cause No. 1:02-CV-1475 SEB- VSS (S.D. Ind.), I, Tarlochan Bansi, hereby release, acquit and forever discharge the Defendant Indiana Department of Transportation, the State of Indiana, and all their present and former members, officers, agents, employees, successors, known and unknown, from any and all actions of any kind, causes of action, claims, demands, grievances, charges, liens, liabilities, damages, costs (including, but not limited to, all attorney fees), interest, loss of services, expenses and compensation (including, but not limited to, back wages and benefits), including but not limited to on account of or in any way growing out of any and all known and unknown personal injuries, losses and property damage, and injuries to constitutional rights, arising out of this action and EEOC Charge Nos. 240982586, 240991333, and 240A01218.
I understand that the relief offered to me by the Defendant Indiana Department of Transportation in consideration for this release does not constitute an admission by the party released of the validity of any claim raised by me or on my behalf.
This release constitutes the entire agreement between the Defendant Indiana Department of Transportation and myself, without exception or exclusion.
I acknowledge that a copy of the Consent Decree in this action has been made available to me.
I HAVE READ THIS RELEASE AND UNDERSTAND THE CONTENTS THEREOF, AND I EXECUTE THIS RELEASE OF MY OWN FREE ACT AND DEED,
Signed this _____day of ____________ , 2003.
_________________________
Tarlochan Bansi
Subscribed and Sworn to before me this_______day of ____________ 2003.
_____________________ My commission expires:___________________ .

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/emp/documents/indotcd.htm

8/14/2007

US v. Indiana Department of Transportation

Page 8 of 12

NOTARY PUBLIC
APPENDIX B
Executive Broad Band EXBB
(formerly Highway Engineer Supervisor 3)
Environment/Planning and Engineering Consultant Services Manager
Environment/Planning and Engineering Consultant Services Section
Page 1 of 4
Incumbent is responsible for administering and coordinating the Consultant Services Function. Incumbent assures maximum efficiency and utilization of personnel to meet the Highway
operating needs and goals in Environment/Planning and Engineering Consultant Services Function. Incumbent reports and is directly accountable to the Environment/Planning and Engineering Division Chief. Staff may be assigned to report to the Incumbent as necessary.
Essential Duties include:
• Coordinates the activities of the Environment/Planning and Engineering Consultant Services and supervises subordinates as assigned;
• Establishes long and short range goals with priorities and deadlines on projects which are distributed to subordinates as assigned;
• Develops and effects necessary policies and procedures to administer and control Environmental/Planning and Engineering consultant contract administration;
• Directs the administration and operation of Environmental/Planning and Engineering Consultant Services;
• Provides direction, guidance, assistance and coordination with other divisions in the overall work program within the Indiana Department of Transportation ("Department"), especially as it relates to consultant services in environment, planning, public involvement and engineering efforts;
• Provides decisions concerning contract administration and project development problems and undertakes appropriate action;
• Provides review of consultant performance with the input of Division staff for

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/emp/documents/indotcd.htm

8/14/2007

US v. Indiana Department of Transportation

Page 9 of 12

assurance of production quality and quantity to fulfill designated goals;
• Provides and directs the familiarization to all employees in the Division with the work rules, policies, standards and procedures of the Department for consultant services, and the quality and quantity of work to be maintained in Environment/Planning and Engineering Consultant Services;
• Formulates and recommends to the Chief, Environment/Planning and Engineering Division the annual resource requirements to the Environment/Planning and Engineering Consultant Services;
APPENDIX B
Executive Broad Band EXBB
(formerly Highway Engineer Supervisor 3)
Environment/Planning and Engineering Consultant Services Manager
Environment/Planning and Engineering Consultant Services Section
Page 2 of 4
• Directs the consultant selection process, negotiation of design contracts, administration of the contracts, payment for contract work, and coordination and scheduling of project development;
• Prepares memorandums, guidelines, and issues verbal instruction to Division employees and assigned subordinates for the processing of work through Environment/Planning and Engineering Consultant Services;
• Confers with citizens, businessmen, government officials and consultants in explaining and resolving Environment/Planning and Engineering concepts and consultant contract details;
• Serves as a technical advisor in lawsuits filed against the State;
• Receives, processes and distributes all correspondence received;
• Performs related work as required;
• Counsels with assigned subordinates on performance standards, career objectives and solving of grievances or complaints by assigned subordinates;
• Examines and recommends personnel actions affecting assigned subordinates;

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/emp/documents/indotcd.htm

8/14/2007

US v. Indiana Department of Transportation

Page 10 of 12

• Performs performance evaluations of assigned subordinates;
• Prepare recommendations of personnel functions and transactions of assigned subordinates.
I. JOB REQUIREMENTS
• Thorough knowledge of engineering, planning, public involvement, or environmental principles and practices typically developed through obtaining minimally a BA, BS, or BSCE and application of higher education in the highway industry;
APPENDIX B
Executive Broad Band EXBB
(formerly Highway Engineer Supervisor 3)
Environment/Planning and Engineering Consultant Services Manager
Environment/Planning and Engineering Consultant Services Section
Page 3 of 4
• Extensive knowledge of highway statutory, Departmental, and administrative laws, rules, and regulations with regard to Environment/Planning and Engineering consultant contracting; thorough knowledge of the AASHTO Bridge and Road Specifications, ASTM Specifications, Geometric Design Manuals, INDOT Specifications, and INDOT Action Plan, Bridge Design Manual, Road Design Manual, Federal planning requirements, NBPA and other environmental requirements, INDOT public involvement requirements and INDOT Standards relative to Environment/Planning and Engineering Consultant Services;
• Thorough knowledge of the Department, its structure and function, and ability to integrate and coordinate Environment/Planning and Engineering consultant administration and activities with personnel from other divisions in the Department;
• Knowledge of supervisory and administrative skills and methods and the ability to effectively manage Environment/Planning and Engineering Consultant Services and subordinates as assigned; ability to plan, formulate, and carry-out programs, policies and administrative matter;
• Ability to communicate technical and non-technical problems both verbally and in writing;
• Ability to effectively communicate and work cooperatively with consultants, INDOT personnel, FHWA, other outside agencies, and the general public.

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/emp/documents/indotcd.htm

8/14/2007

US v. Indiana Department of Transportation

Page 11 of 12

II. DIFFICULTY OF WORK
• Position is broad in scope requiring extensive judgment involved in recognizing, assessing, and resolving a variety of situations encountered during the planning, organizing, and execution of the Environment/Planning and Engineering Consultant contracting operation. Guidelines vary with tasks undertaken from generally accepted to non-existent. Incumbent utilizes personal initiative and judgment in order to resolve situations which are highly unusual, complex, new and unprecedented particularly in the development of planning, NEPA, environmental, engineering and public involvement documents by consultants, and the development of agreements with consultants. Considerable technical and administrative judgment is required in adopting or making significant compromises to fit these situations based on the overall Environment/ Planning and Engineering consultant contracting goals and objectives.
APPENDIX B
Executive Broad Band EXBB
(formerly Highway Engineer Supervisor 3)
Environmental Planning and Engineering Consultant Services Manager
Environment/Planning and Engineering Consultant Services Section
Page 4 of 4
III. RESPONSIBILITY
• Incumbent is responsible for effectively working with consultants and INDOT staff in the development and accomplishment of consultant contract administration for Environment/Planning and Engineering Consultant Services projects. The incumbent must ensure that all functions within the Environment/Planning and Engineering consultant contracting operation are properly executed and coordinated with each other and are in accordance with the policies, standards, and objectives promulgated by the Department.
• Incumbent plans and administers Environment/Planning and Engineering consultant contract administration goals and objectives based on highway guidelines. General instructions concerning goals and objectives are discussed with the Chief, Environment/Planning and Engineering Division, but incumbent utilizes initiative and judgment in seeking sources and coordinating efforts of consultant staff and in-house staff. All major projects and programs are reviewed by the Chief, Environment/Planning and Engineering Division, Deputy Director, Office of Planning and Intermodal Transportation and other Department Executives for compliance with federal and state standards, regulations and guidelines.
IV. PERSONAL WORK RELATIONSHIPS

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/emp/documents/indotcd.htm

8/14/2007

US v. Indiana Department of Transportation

Page 12 of 12

• Incumbent interacts with Consultants and in-house staff for administering and and coordinating the contract administration of Environment/Planning and Engineering project development. Incumbent interacts with the Commissioner; Chief Engineer, Deputy Directors, Chief, Environment/Planning and Engineering Division and Central Office division staffs, District function heads, other professional, para-professional, and clerical personnel within the Department and various outside representatives for the purpose of effectively administering and coordinating highway plans and programs within the Department organization as they apply to the Environment/Planning and Engineering Consulting Services function.

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/emp/documents/indotcd.htm

8/14/2007

 </s> U.S. District Court Southern District of Indiana (Indianapolis) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:02-cv-01475-SEB-VSS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Assigned to: Judge Sarah Evans Barker Referred to: Magistrate Judge V. Sue Shields Cause: 42:2000 Job Discrimination (Race)

Date Filed: 09/25/2002 Date Terminated: 09/03/2003 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff

Plaintiff UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

represented by Debra G. Richards UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE 10 West Market Street Suite 2100 Indianapolis, IN 46204 (317)226-6333 Fax: (317)226-5027 Email: debra.richards@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James Patrick Hanlon BAKER & DANIELS 300 North Meridian Street Suite 2700 Indianapolis, IN 46204 (317) 237-8252 Fax: (317) 237-8582 Email: jphanlon@bakerd.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Ralph F. Boyd, Jr. U.S. Department of Justice 10th and Constitution Ave., N.W. Civil Rights Division Employment Litigation Section, PHOB 4611 Washington, DC 20530 (202) 307-3925 Fax: (202) 514-1105 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sonya A. Rao

V.
Defendant
INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

U.S. Department of Justice Employment Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20530 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William B. Fenton U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 10th and Constitutional Avenue North West Civil Rights Division Employment Litigation Section, PHOB 4611 Washington, DC 20035-5968 (202)514-3852 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Margaret Dewey Wielenberg ICE MILLER LLP One American Square Suite 3100 Indianapolis, IN 46282 (317) 236-2273 Fax: (317) 592-5459 Email: margaret.wielenberg@icemiller.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patricia Orloff Erdmann INDIANA STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL 302 West Washington Street IGCS - 5th Floor Indianapolis, IN 46204 (317)232-6318 Fax: (317)232-7979 Email: Patricia.Erdmann@atg.in.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 09/25/2002 09/25/2002 09/25/2002 09/25/2002 09/25/2002 10/01/2002
10/01/2002
10/09/2002 10/09/2002 11/15/2002 11/20/2002
12/20/2002 12/20/2002

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT against INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION with Jury Demand, filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.(MAC, ) (Entered: 09/26/2002)

2 CIVIL COVER SHEET by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (MAC, ) (Entered: 09/26/2002)

3 MAGISTRATE JUDGE's NOTICE of Availability to Exercise Jurisdiction (MAC, ) (Entered: 09/26/2002)

4 MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S Summary of CMP Notice (MAC, ) (Entered: 09/26/2002)

5 Summons Issued as to INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. (MAC, ) (Entered: 09/26/2002)

6 RETURN of USM Service by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO J. Bryan Nicol, Commissioner served on 9/26/2002. (MAC, ) (Entered: 10/01/2002)

7 RETURN of USM Service by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION to Steve Carter, Indiana Attorney General served on 9/26/2002. (MAC, ) (Entered: 10/01/2002)

8 NOTICE of Appearance by Patrica O. Grow on behalf of INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION c/s (MAC, ) (Entered: 10/09/2002)

9 NOTICE of Parties' First Extension of Time to Answer or otherwise Respond to the Complaint to 11/15/02 by INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION c/s (MAC, ) (Entered: 10/09/2002)

10 ANSWER to Complaint and Affirmative Defenses by INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. c/s(MAC, ) (Entered: 11/18/2002)

11 SCHEDULING ORDER: Pretrial Conference set for 1/31/2003 08:30 AM in room #256 before Magistrate Judge V. Sue Shields (initial). CMP is due 12/24/02. Signed by Judge V. Sue Shields on 11/20/02. (SWM, ) (Entered: 11/20/2002)

12 CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN TENDERED by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Richards, Debra) (Entered: 12/20/2002)

13 Joint MOTION For A Settlement Conference by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed

01/06/2003 01/06/2003 01/06/2003 01/13/2003 01/31/2003 02/18/2003 02/25/2003 03/05/2003
03/20/2003

Order)(Richards, Debra) (Entered: 12/20/2002)
14 ORDER granting parties' joint 13 Motion for a settlement conference cm. Signed by Judge V. Sue Shields on 1/6/03. (SWM, ) (Entered: 01/07/2003)
SCHEDULING ORDER: Settlement Conference set for 2/18/2003 09:30 AM in room #256 before Magistrate Judge V. Sue Shields. Confidential settlement statements due on or before 2/14/03. (Refer to document #14) . Signed by Judge V. Sue Shields on 1/6/03. (SWM, ) (Entered: 01/07/2003)
15 ORDER: CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER APPROVED as submitted cm. Signed by Judge V. Sue Shields on 1/6/03. (SWM, ) (Entered: 01/07/2003)
16 SCHEDULING ORDER: Final Pretrial Conference set for 3/11/2004 02:00 PM in room #210 before Judge Sarah Evans Barker. Jury Trial set for 3/22/2004 09:30 AM in room #216 before Judge Sarah Evans Barker. cm Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 1/13/03. (MAC, ) (Entered: 01/14/2003)
17 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge V. Sue Shields : Pretrial Conference held on 1/31/2003. Parties appeared by counsel. Conference held and concluded cm (SWM, ) (Entered: 02/04/2003)
18 SCHEDULING ORDER: Settlement Conference (TELEPHONIC) set for 3/5/2003 11:00 AM in room #256 before Magistrate Judge V. Sue Shields. Parties appeared on 2/18/03 for settlement conference. Conference held and continued c/m. Signed by Judge V. Sue Shields on 2/18/03. (SWM, ) (Entered: 02/20/2003)
19 Witness List by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA., Exhibit List by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA., (Richards, Debra) Modified on 2/26/2003 (MAC, ). (Entered: 02/25/2003)
20 SCHEDULING ORDER and ENTRY for 3/5/2003: Status Conference (TELEPHONIC) set for 3/20/2003 08:30 AM in room #256 before Magistrate Judge V. Sue Shields. Parties appeared by counsel telephonically for a status conference on 3/5/2003. Conference held and continued c/m. Signed by Judge V. Sue Shields on 3/5/03. (SWM, ) (Entered: 03/07/2003)
21 SCHEDULING ORDER and ORDER on 3/20/2003 telephonic status conference: Status Conference (TELEPHONIC) set for 4/7/2003 04:30 PM in room #256 before Magistrate Judge V. Sue Shields. Status conference held and continued cm. Signed by Judge V. Sue Shields on 3/20/03. (SWM, ) (Entered: 03/28/2003)

04/04/2003 04/28/2003
05/13/2003 05/27/2003 07/08/2003 07/17/2003 09/03/2003 09/03/2003

22 SCHEDULING ORDER: Status Conference RESET for 4/28/2003 12:30 PM in room #256 before Magistrate Judge V. Sue Shields. Status Conference set for 4/7/2003 is VACATED . Signed by Judge V. Sue Shields on 4/4/03. (SWM, ) (Entered: 04/07/2003)
23 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge V. Sue Shields : Status Conference held on 4/28/2003 (telephonically). Parties appeared by counsel. Conference held and continued to 5/7/03, at which time the parties shall call the Mag Judge and report their respective positions on proposed resolution of this cause. (SWM, ) (Entered: 05/01/2003)
24 SCHEDULING ORDER: Status Conference set for 5/27/2003 01:00 PM (Telephonic) before Magistrate Judge V. Sue Shields. Signed by Judge V. Sue Shields on 5/13/03. (SWM, ) (Entered: 05/14/2003)
25 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge V. Sue Shields : Status Conference held (telephonically) on 5/27/2003. Parties appear by counsel. Conference held and continued. (SWM, ) (Entered: 05/29/2003)
26 NOTICE of Appearance by Margaret Dewey Wielenberg, D.A.G. on behalf of INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION c/s (MAC, ) (Entered: 07/09/2003)
27 NOTICE of Appearance by Sonya A. Rao of the U.S. Department of Justice on behalf of UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Substitution of Appearance for Jenny Yang) c/s (MAC, ) (Entered: 07/17/2003)
28 CONSENT DECREE by INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (MAC, ) (Entered: 09/03/2003)
29 CLOSED JUDGMENT - APPROVES Parties Consent Decree. (S.O.) cm Signed by Judge Sarah Evans Barker on 9/3/03. (MAC, ) (Entered: 09/04/2003)


[CONTENT] September 25, 2002 | the United States | Title VII | the Indiana Department of Transportation | INDOT | United States District Court | the Southern District | Indiana ||| The United States | the Department of Transportation | Indian-American ||| INDOT | Indian-American | 3 ||| The United States ||| EEOC ||| September 3, 2003 | Sarah Evans Barker ||| INDOT | State | 3 ||| INDOT | Executive Broadband | the Environment/Planning and Engineering Consultant Services ||| Title VII ||| INDOT | INDOT | INDOT ||| INDOT | this Consent Decree |||  |||  [SUMMARY] On September 25, 2002, the United States filed a lawsuit under Title VII against the Indiana Department of Transportation in the ("INDOT") United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. The United States alleged that the Department of Transportation discriminated against an Indian-American employee on the basis of his national origin. Specifically, the plaintiff contended that INDOT failed or refused to promote an Indian-American employee to a vacancy in the Highway Engineer Supervisor 3 classification and failed or refused to take appropriate action to remedy the effects of the discriminatory treatment of this employee. The United States sought injunctive and remedial relief.

The EEOC investigated the charge, found reasonable cause to believe that the allegation of national origin discrimination was true, attempted unsuccessfully to achieve a voluntary resolution of the charge through conciliation and subsequently referred the matter to the DOJ.

On September 3, 2003, the plaintiff and the defendant entered into a consent decree ordered by the district court (Judge Sarah Evans Barker). The consent decree ordered INDOT to pay the plaintiff back pay and contribute adjusted retirement benefits to his retirement account, which represent the amount the State would have contributed to his retirement account had he been promoted to the Highway Engineer Supervisor 3 classification. INDOT agreed to place the plaintiff in the Executive Broadband classification as the Environment/Planning and Engineering Consultant Services Manager. Additionally, defendant agreed not to engage in any act or practice that unlawfully retaliates against the plaintiff for exercising his rights under Title VII.  Furthermore, INDOT agreed not to unlawfully discriminate against any employee because of national origin and to provide employment discrimination awareness training to all supervisory and management personnel, as well as to any other individuals employed by INDOT who participate in the process by which individuals are selected for a promotion by INDOT. Finally, INDOT agreed to retain all relevant records for the duration of this Consent Decree.  In return, the plaintiff executed a release.

We have no further information on this case.

