Case 1:14-cv-01765-JAP-GPG Document 1 Filed 06/24/14 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-1765
STEPHANIE BARNETT,
Plaintiff,
v.
The BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS of the COUNTY OF MONTROSE,
ROY ECKERT in his individual capacity.
Defendants.

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff, by and through undersigned counsel, files this Complaint against Defendants
the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Montrose and Roy Eckert, in his
individual capacity.
I. PARTIES AND JURISDICTION
1.

Plaintiff, Stephanie Barnett, is a Colorado resident who currently resides in

Montrose County Colorado. At all relevant times, Barnett was an employee of Montrose County
and under the supervision and control of the Board of County Commissioners for the County of
Montrose.
2.

Defendant, the Board of County Commissioners for the County of Montrose, is

legally charged with exercising the powers of the County of Montrose. The Board of County
Commissioners must be named in all suits or proceedings against Montrose County pursuant to
C.R.S. 30-11-105.

Case 1:14-cv-01765-JAP-GPG Document 1 Filed 06/24/14 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 9

3.

Defendant Roy Rick Eckert is the former County Manager of Montrose County.

As the County Manager, Eckert was appointed by the Board of County Commissioners to
manage the overall operation of the County government.
4.

During the relevant period, Defendant employed over 300 employees.

5.

On or about May 12, 2013, Barnett filed a Charge of Discrimination with the U.S.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (hereinafter EEOC) and the Colorado Civil
Rights Division.
6.

On April 30, 2014, at Barnetts request, the EEOC issued a Notice of Right to Sue

informing Barnett that she had 90 days from the receipt of the notice to file suit in this matter.
This lawsuit is filed within 90 days of the receipt of the Notice. On August 19, 2013, Barnett,
through counsel, filed a Governmental Notice with the County Commissioners and the County
Attorney pursuant to C.R.S. 24-10-109. Accordingly, Barnett has satisfied all jurisdictional
prerequisites to bringing this suit.
7.

This Court has jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(f)(3)

and 28 U.S.C. 1331.

8.

Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) as Defendants reside in this

district and a substantial part of the events giving rise to this suit occurred in this district.
II. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
9.

Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all previous paragraphs as though fully

set forth herein.

10.

Barnett worked as an employee of Montrose County from November 27, 2007,

until her termination on March 15, 2013.

2

Case 1:14-cv-01765-JAP-GPG Document 1 Filed 06/24/14 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 9

11.

At the time of her termination, Barnett was the Internal Services Director for

Montrose County.
12.

Throughout the duration of her employment with the County, Barnett had an

exemplary employment record and continuously received positive employment evaluations. In

fact, just a few months before her termination, Barnett was given an award by her peers for her
work excellence.
13.

On February 19, 2013, Barnett met with the County Manager, Rick Eckert.

Barnett told Eckert that she was pregnant and expressed concern over the impact of high levels
of stress on her pregnancy. Barnett informed the Eckert of her desire to work part-time for the
County in order to minimize stress during the pregnancy. At no time did Barnett inform Eckert
or anyone at the County that she desired to resign from the County. Barnett and Eckert agreed to
meet on March 6, 2013, to formally discuss Barnetts possible transition to part-time
employment.
14.

On or about March 6, 2013, Barnett met with Eckert and the Organizational

Development and Training Specialist for the County. During the March 6, 2013 meeting, Eckert
agreed to allow Barnett to transition to part-time employment with the County. Eckert and
Barnett agreed that Barnett was to begin her part-time employment with the County on April 1,
2013.
15.

Nine days later, on March 15, 2013, without any other discussion or coordination,

Eckert informed Barnett that the Internal Services Division was being dissolved and that her
services were no longer needed.

Case 1:14-cv-01765-JAP-GPG Document 1 Filed 06/24/14 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 9

16.

Barnett asked Eckert the reason she was not permitted to work part-time as

previously discussed. Eckert said that the part-time employment arrangement would not work
due to budgetary constraints.
17.

Barnett was told that she was to leave the building and not work the remainder of

the day.
18.

As it turned out, instead of a countywide reorganization, Barnett was the only

person whose job was eliminated. Originally, the essential responsibilities and duties of her
position were largely replaced by a thirty-three year old male.
19.

The decision to terminate Barnetts position was made without prior consultation

with the County Commissioners or the Countys Finance Staff, as would be typical in
reorganization decisions in which budget constraints are cited as the cause for eliminating
positions.
20.

Barnett was extremely upset over her sudden and unexpected termination. She

was the primary breadwinner in her household and had concerns about her familys ability to pay
the bills, especially with a baby on the way. Barnett also took a lot of pride in her work and was
dedicated to the County.
21.

The sudden stress of the situation manifested itself physically. Hours after her

termination, Barnett began to experience significant abdominal cramping.

22.

On March 20, 2013, less than a week after her sudden termination, Barnett

suffered a miscarriage.

Case 1:14-cv-01765-JAP-GPG Document 1 Filed 06/24/14 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 9

III. FIRST CLAIM

Gender and Pregnancy Discrimination in violation of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 against Defendant Board
of County Commissioners of the County of Montrose
23.

Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all previous paragraphs as though fully

set forth herein.

24.

Barnett was a pregnant female and was therefore entitled to the protections of

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of
1978.
25.

At all relevant times, Barnett was performing satisfactory work for the County.

26.

Barnett was discharged from her employment with the County.

27.

Defendants termination of Barnetts employment was motivated by Barnetts

gender and her pregnancy and was therefore discriminatory and in violation of Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978. A male
largely took over the essential responsibilities of Barnetts position, and she was terminated
under circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination.
28.

Defendants explanation for terminating Barnetts employment is unworthy of

belief and is pretext for illegal gender and pregnancy discrimination.

29.

Defendants actions denied Barnett equal employment opportunities by subjecting

her to different terms and conditions of employment than her male and non-pregnant co-workers.
30.

The unlawful and discriminatory practices complained of herein were intentional

and done with malice or with reckless indifference to Barnetts federally protected rights.

Case 1:14-cv-01765-JAP-GPG Document 1 Filed 06/24/14 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 9

31.

As a result of Defendants unlawful employment practices, Barnett has suffered

economic and non-economic damages including but not limited to severe emotional distress,
mental pain and suffering, inconvenience, and loss of income.
IV. SECOND CLAIM
Gender and Pregnancy Discrimination in violation of the Colorado AntiDiscrimination Act against Defendant Board of County Commissioners of the
County of Montrose
32.

Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all previous paragraphs as though fully

set forth herein.

33.

Barnett was a pregnant female and was therefore entitled to the protections of the

Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act.

34.

At all relevant times, Barnett was performing satisfactory work for the County.

35.

Barnett was discharged from her employment with the County.

36.

Defendants termination of Barnetts employment was motivated by Barnetts

gender and her pregnancy and therefore was discriminatory and in violation of the Colorado
Anti-Discrimination Act.
37.

Defendants explanation for terminating Barnetts employment is unworthy of

belief and pretext for illegal gender and pregnancy discrimination.

38.

Defendants actions denied Barnett equal employment opportunities by subjecting

her to different terms and conditions of employment than her male and non-pregnant co-workers.
39.

The unlawful and discriminatory practices complained of herein were intentional

and done with malice or with reckless indifference to Barnetts rights.

Case 1:14-cv-01765-JAP-GPG Document 1 Filed 06/24/14 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 9

40.

As a result of Defendants unlawful employment practices, Barnett has suffered

economic and non-economic damages including but not limited to severe emotional distress,
mental pain and suffering, inconvenience, and loss of income.
V. THIRD CLAIM
Extreme and Outrageous Conduct against Roy Eckert
41.

Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all previous paragraphs as though fully

set forth herein.

42.

Defendant Eckert engaged in extreme and outrageous conduct by terminating

Barnetts employment when he had previously agreed to allow her to work part-time and knew
of Barnetts concern for her health and the health of her baby. Eckert did not inform Barnett of
his decision to terminate her employment prior to March 15, 2013. Barnett did not learn that
anything was amiss until she discovered that her computer access was blocked on the morning of
March 15, 2013. Shortly thereafter, Eckert informed Barnett of her termination and demanded
that she leave the office immediately and not finish up her day.
43.

Eckert aced recklessly or with the intent of causing Barnett severe emotional

distress. Eckert knew that Barnett was concerned about the effect of stress on her pregnancy.
By suddenly and unexpectedly terminating her employment, Eckert did the very thing in his
power to maximize Barnetts stress. Eckerts actions, as described herein, were willful and
wanton.
44.

Eckerts conduct caused Barnett severe emotional distress. Barnett was extremely

distraught over her sudden termination. She was the primary breadwinner in her household and
had concerns about her ability to pay the bills, especially with a baby on the way. She took a lot
7

Case 1:14-cv-01765-JAP-GPG Document 1 Filed 06/24/14 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 9

of pride in her work and was dedicated to the County. The sudden stress of her termination
manifested itself physically. Hours after her termination Barnett began to experience significant
abdominal cramping. Five days later she suffered a miscarriage.
45.

As a result of Eckerts unlawful acts, Barnett has suffered economic and non-

economic damages, including but not limited to severe emotional distress, mental pain and
suffering, inconvenience, emotional stress, fear, anxiety, embarrassment, humiliation, and loss of
income.
VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, for the reasons stated above, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this
Honorable Court enter a judgment for the Plaintiff as follows:
As to the First Claim brought against Defendant the Board of County Commissioners for
the County of Montrose pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended by the
Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 as described in paragraphs 22-31:
a.

An award of actual damages in an amount to be determined at trial,

including lost wages, and other non-economic damages for emotional distress, mental
pain and suffering, inconvenience, emotional stress, fear, anxiety, embarrassment,
humiliation, back pay, and front pay pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(g);
b.

An award of punitive damages;

c.

An award of reasonable attorneys fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 2000e-

5(k) and 29 U.S.C. 2617(a)(3);

d.

An award of Plaintiffs pre- and post-judgment interest; and

e.

Ordering such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
8

Case 1:14-cv-01765-JAP-GPG Document 1 Filed 06/24/14 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 9

As to the Second Claim brought against Defendant the Board of County Commissioners
for the County of Montrose pursuant to the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act as described in
paragraphs 32-40:
a.

An award of actual damages in an amount to be determined at trial, including

back pay and front pay pursuant to C.R.S. 24-34-405(2);

b.

An award of attorney fees and costs pursuant to C.R.S. 24-34-405(4);

c.

Ordering any such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.

As to the Third Claim brought against Roy Eckert, in his individual capacity, for
Extreme and Outrageous Conduct as described in paragraphs 41-44:
a.

An award of economic and non-economic damages in the maximum amount

allowed by law;
b.

An award of punitive damages in the maximum amount allowed by law;

c.

An award of costs and reasonable attorney fees; and

d.

Ordering any such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
VI.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff Barnett hereby demands a jury on all issues so triable pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
38.
Respectfully submitted this 24th day of June, 2014.
By: S/ Joseph H. Azbell
Joseph H. Azbell
Erik R. Groves
Azbell & Groves, LLC
619 Main Street
Grand Junction, CO 81501
9