Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Gollnick Construction, Inc.

• Court: District Court, D. Colorado
• Decided: November 26, 2019
• Docket: 1:19-cv-02581
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Daniel D. Domenico

Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-02581-DDD-SKC

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,

Plaintiff, v.

GOLLNICK CONSTRUCTION, INC. d/b/a Colorado Excavating,

Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR ENTRY OF CONSENT DECREE

Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Motion to Enter Consent De- cree and for Administrative Closure, Subject to the Terms of the Con- sent Decree [Doc. 11]. Having considered the motion and applicable law, and having reviewed the proposed consent decree, the Court ap- proves the proposed decree and grants the parties’ motion. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Equal Opportunity Employment Commission brings claims for damages and injunctive relief pursuant to the public enforcement provisions of Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12117, and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a, based on a charge of discrimination filed by Dora Marquez, an individ- ual with a seizure disability. [See generally Compl., Doc. 1.] The EEOC alleges that Defendant Gollnick Construction, Inc., doing business as Colorado Excavating, refused to provide reasonable accommodation to Ms. Marquez; reduced Ms. Marquez’s hours because of her disability and/or the need to provide reasonable accommodation; discharged Ms. Marquez because of her disability and/or the need to provide rea- sonable accommodation; and violated ADA recordkeeping and confi- dentiality requirements. [See id.] The parties move for entry of a con- sent decree that will resolve all claims and issues in the case. [Mot. for Consent Decree, Doc. 11.] APPLICABLE LAW Before entering a consent decree, a district court “must ensure that the agreement is not illegal, a product of collusion, or against the pub- lic interest,” and that “the decree is fair, adequate, and reasonable.” United States v. Colorado, 937 F.2d 505, 509 (10th Cir. 1991). A con- sent decree must serve to resolve a dispute within the court’s subject- matter jurisdiction, must come within the general scope of the case made by the pleadings, and must further the objectives of the law upon which the complaint was based. Local No. 93, Int’l Ass’n of Firefighters, AFL-CIO C.L.C. v. City of Cleveland, 478 U.S. 501, 525 (1986). And, a consent decree must comply with Federal Rule of Civil Proce- dure 65(d). Consumers Gas & Oil, Inc. v. Farmland Indus., Inc., 84 F.3d 367, 370 (10th Cir. 1996). Rule 65(d) requires that every order granting injunctive relief must “state the reasons why it issued,” “state its terms specifically,” and “describe in reasonable detail . . . the act or acts restrained or required.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)(A)-(C). DISCUSSION In this case, both parties are represented by counsel, nothing in the record suggests unfairness in the parties’ negotiations, and the terms of the proposed consent decree appear to be fair, reasonable, and con- sistent with the public interest and the objectives of the ADA and the Civil Rights Act. And, the proposed consent decree complies with Rule 65(d). Accordingly, the Court approves the proposed decree, which will be entered by separate order.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that:

The parties’ Joint Motion to Enter Consent Decree and for Adminis- trative Closure, Subject to the Terms of the Consent Decree [Doc. 11] is GRANTED. The Court approves and adopts the Consent Decree [Doc. 11-1], which will be entered separately as an order of the Court; The Clerk of Court shall ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE this case, subject to reopening for good cause, pursuant to Local Civil Rule 41.2; and

The parties’ Joint Motion to Vacate Scheduling Conference and Stay Case Pending Resolution of Joint Motion to Enter Consent Decree [Doc. 13] is DENIED AS MOOT.

DATED: November 26, 2019 BY THE COURT:

Hon. Daniel D. Domenico

-3-