Date: 03-25-2006

Case Style: Celisity Klein-Cadotte v. Barker & Little, Inc. et al.

Case Number: 5:04-cv-05084-RHB

Judge: Richard H. Battey

Court: United States District Court for the District of South Dakota, Pennington County

Plaintiff's Attorney:

Veronica Duffy of Duffy & Duffy, Rapid City, South Dakota

Defendant's Attorney:

Jeff Hurd and Eric Pickar of Bangs, McCullen, Butler, Foye & Simmons, Rapid City, South Dakota

Description:

Celisity Klein-Cadotte v. Barker & Little, Inc. and Doug Hamilton on a civil rights theory, 42 U.S.C. 2000e, claiming that Mr. Hamilton created a sexually hostile work environment for her and her co-workers in his Rapid City real estate rental properties company. Plaintiff began working for Defendant Barker & Little on July 30, 2001. She was fired by her supervisor, Defendant Douglas Hamilton, on May 30, 2001. Hamilton is the sole owner of Barker & Little, Inc.

Plaintiff brought this action against Barker & Little, Inc. and against Hamilton individually. Plaintiff alleged claims of sexual harassment and retaliation under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. against Barker & Little, Inc. and she asserted a common law claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress against both Defendants, all arising out of events which occurred during Plaintiff's employment with Barker & Little, Inc.

Plaintiff's retaliation claims rested, in part, on the following facts. Plaintiff complained to Defendant Barker & Little, Inc.'s Chief Corporate Officer, Courtney Clayborne, that she believe she and others were being sexually harassed by Defendant Douglas Hamilton. In May of 2003, Hamilton asked Plaintiff to sign a document that would release Defendants from any liability for sexual harassment arising out of Plaintiff's employment. In return, Hamilton proposed to pay Plaintiff $10,000. Plaintiff asked to have the opportunity to have a lawyers review the document. Plaintiff claimed that Hamilton was displeased by Plaintiff's request. The next day, Hamilton fired Plaintiff and told her he had issued a stop payment on the check. Plaintiff claimed that her firing was a direct result of her request to assert her rights under Title VII by having an attorney review the release Hamilton wanted her to sign.

Defendants denied wrongdoing.

Outcome: Plaintiff's verdict for $4 million.

Plaintiff's Experts: Unknown

Defendant's Experts: Unknown

Comments: None