Old sexual harassment claims haunt Timet as case heats up

Grace Leong

Friday, April 19, 2002 | 11:01 a.m.

A legal battle is heating up between Denver-based Titanium Metals Corp. and a federal agency that claims several women were sexually harassed at Timet's big plant near Henderson between 1997 and 2001.

Complaints of sexual harassment were first filed by Timet worker Mary Carol Allen with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in February 1998 against the company.

Allen said she was sexually harassed by Daniel Haynes, a former Inspection Department employee, demoted in 1997 and given low evaluations because of her age and gender. But she settled with the company in April 1998 after it promised to eliminate sexual harassment.

But alleged recurring incidents of harassment against Allen by Haynes and an emergence of sexual harassment complaints against Haynes and other Timet employees by several other women after the 1998 settlement prompted the EEOC to file a lawsuit on the women's behalf against the company in September 2000.

The 2000 suit claims Timet employee Sherrie Sullivan and a "class of similarly situated female employees and former employees" including Allen, were sexually harassed and subjected to a hostile work environment because of their gender. Sullivan and the other plaintiffs demanded punitive damages for alleged "malicious and reckless" conduct by Timet officials.

The EEOC wants court approval to include in discovery proceedings of the 2000 suit "references to pre-settlement incidents of sexual harassment involving Allen" to reinforce charges of ongoing sexual harassment at the plant.

The EEOC said these references are "relevant background" in its efforts to "vindicate public interest in enforcing compliance with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (anti-discrimination laws) against an employer who ... has engaged in a pattern of failing to correct ongoing sexual harassment against Allen and other class members."

The suit said Timet didn't take action against Haynes even after two of the class plaintiffs, Sullivan and Sharon Owens, and at least two other female employees, Caroline Crooks and Diana Machada, complained about being sexually harassed by him.

Owens, in a November 2001 deposition, said Haynes would "come into the button lab when (she) was by herself, reeking of alcohol, put his hands all over (her), hug and try to kiss (her)." She said Timet officials retaliated against her after she filed a complaint with the EEOC on Jan. 22, 2001, alleging another male co-worker ripped open her pants in November 2000.

"There were also other instances of sexual harassment not involving Haynes but which occurred after Timet's 1998 settlement with Allen. These took several forms including pornographic pictures, dirty jokes and e-mails that were circulated at the company," EEOC attorney Sue Noh said.

"Our lawsuit has brought more attention to the issue. But we believe there is still sexual harassment going on today at Timet," Noh said. "One type of sexual harassment is a hostile environment, where the workplace environment objectifies women, for example, in derogatory and sexual jokes about women or showing posters of women scantily clad."

But Timet is fighting to exclude evidence of Allen's 1988 case from discovery proceedings, saying in a March 11 motion to enforce settlement that Allen is prohibited from re-litigating settled disputes in the 2000 lawsuit.

But Allen, in an Oct. 31 deposition for the 2000 suit, claimed Timet failed to take prompt action as required by the 1998 settlement against Haynes, whom she said continued to make "inappropriate remarks and attempts to touch and kiss" her even after the settlement.

Some of the claims Allen made in 1998, which Timet now wants excluded from the 2000 lawsuit, are:

The EEOC said Haynes was discharged in February 2001 after he was found to have inappropriately touched and attempted to kiss Allen. But his termination was allegedly categorized as a "retirement" and not a"termination for misconduct," the EEOC said in court papers filed March 25.

But Timet, in a April 5 response to the EEOC's claims, said the allegations raised in her October deposition are "no longer actionable" because of the 1998 settlement and release.

Timet, which said employers are entitled to regard settlement agreements as final, said the EEOC should never have signed the settlement and agreed to close its investigation of Allen's charges if it was concerned that Allen's rights "weren't sufficiently vindicated."

But the EEOC argued Timet's alleged failure to correct ongoing sexual harassment against Allen by Haynes after the settlement not only entitles her to reopen her claims and join the Sullivan suit, but also reinforced the validity of the EEOC's 2000 lawsuit on behalf of Sullivan and other women.

Timet defended its management of claims against Haynes.

Timet said it wasn't able to take prompt action against Haynes because Allen failed to take her claims to Alan Gines or Brent Peterson, whom Timet says were designated in the settlement to deal with her complaints.

Allen also claims she was intimidated by Timet's attorney, Elayna Youchah, into signing the 1998 settlement and release without receiving any settlement monies in return. She claimed Youchah was "pulling her chain" during mediation in 1998 by implying Allen had "brought the sexual harassment on by leading the harasser on."

But Timet disputed the claims, saying an EEOC representative was present and "capable of preventing any overreaching" by Youchah during mediation and that the EEOC could have refused to enter the settlement.

archive