Thursday, Sept. 15, 2005 | 9:22 a.m.
CARSON CITY -- A federal appeals court Wednesday ordered a trial on a complaint by a state Transportation Department worker who said she was subjected to a hostile work environment by a male supervisor, who allegedly made rude and sexist remarks to her and other women.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Sylvia Dominguez-Curry submitted enough evidence to merit a trial also on the allegation that she may have been passed over for promotion because she is a woman.
The 2-1 decision overturns the ruling of U.S. District Judge David Hagen, who granted a summary judgment in favor of the department and Roc Stacey, Dominguez-Curry's supervisor.
Dominguez-Curry, who worked under Stacey's supervision in the contract compliance division, said he made demeaning comments to females in the division. She said Stacey told her and two other women that he wished he could get men to do their jobs and suggested the women were getting paid too much.
She aid he called one woman "stupid."
Dominguez-Curry complained that Stacey told sexually explicit jokes and complained about women in the agency getting pregnant and suggested they stay home rather than work.
Stacey said in an affidavit that he jokes about every woman getting pregnant but also commented on husbands, ex-husbands, boyfriends, female problems, pregnancy symptoms.
This was the second sexual case involving the state that has arisen in the last two days.
The state Board of Examiners on Tuesday approved a $149,000 settlement for Jolaine Johnson of the state Division of Environmental Protection who said she was subjected to sexual harassment.
Stacey was promoted in 1999 to contract compliance manager and still holds that position. Dominguez-Curry also remains with the agency, but her job was upgraded, said Scott McGruder, spokesman for the department.
Dominguez-Curry applied to succeed Stacey in his old job as Program Officer III. Stacey told Dominguez he wanted a man in the position.
Stacey and Construction Engineer Mark Elicegui conducted the rankings and rated Dominguez and Phillip Andrews as fifth among the seven top applicants. Andrews was selected.
Dominguez-Curry testified she believed Andrews was very qualified and he may have been more qualified than her but she added, "I just knew because he had the right body parts is why he got hired, in addition to being qualified."
Andrews had a college degree in a related field, had attended law school for two years and had worked in Wyoming as a labor standards compliance officer. Dominguez-Curry worked in contract compliance for several years, graduated from high school and attended vocational school and community college but did not have a college degree.
The court, in the majority decision written by Judge Richard Paez, said the court record "reveals that genuine factual disputes exist as to both the severity and pervasiveness of Stacey's conduct."
Hagen, in granting the summary judgment in favor of the department and Stacey, said this conduct by Stacey were "isolated, sporadic incidents" and "only a handful of incidents spread over a five year period."
The federal court decision said Hagen "erroneously disregarded evidence of discriminatory comments that Stacey directed to other women in the division." Paez said Hagen erred in not regarding Stacey's comment that he was going to hire a man to replace him.
Judge Consuelo Callahan dissented from the majority opinion, saying Hagen properly granted summary judgment on the issue of promotion.
"The record amply support NDOT's (Transportation Department's) assertion that Andrews was the best-qualified job applicant."
archive
