Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Stacie Culp; Stephanie Peters v. Reminton of Montrose Gold Club, Inc.
Date: 03-01-2025
Case Number: 18-cv-2213
Judge: RMR
Court: United States District Court for the District of Colorado (Denver County)
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Click Here For The Best Denver Civil Rights Law Lawyer Directory
Defendant's Attorney: Nicholas H. Gower and Karoline M. Henning
Description:
Denver, Colorado civil rights lawyers represented the Plaintiffs on sexual harassment theories.
Remington of Montrose Golf Club, LLC (Remington) operates a golf club and casual-dining restaurant in Montrose, Colorado. Stacie Culp and Stephanie Peters (Plaintiffs), both servers at Remington's restaurant, were allegedly harased by bartender Jason DeSalvo while all three were employed at Remington. Plaintiffs brought several claims against Remington under both state and federal law. The claims at issue on appeal are for damages under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2(a), 3(a), and the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA), C.R.S. § 24-34-402, for sexual harassment and retaliation. The district court granted Remington summary judgment on Ms. Peters's retaliation claim, leaving the other claims for trial. At trial the jury rejected Ms. Peters's remaining claims and returned puzzling special verdicts on Ms. Culp's claims, finding that Remington did not violate her rights under Title VII but nonetheless awarding her punitive damages on a Title VII claim.
Remington of Montrose Golf Club, LLC (Remington) operates a golf club and casual-dining restaurant in Montrose, Colorado. Stacie Culp and Stephanie Peters (Plaintiffs), both servers at Remington's restaurant, were allegedly harased by bartender Jason DeSalvo while all three were employed at Remington. Plaintiffs brought several claims against Remington under both state and federal law. The claims at issue on appeal are for damages under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2(a), 3(a), and the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA), C.R.S. § 24-34-402, for sexual harassment and retaliation. The district court granted Remington summary judgment on Ms. Peters's retaliation claim, leaving the other claims for trial. At trial the jury rejected Ms. Peters's remaining claims and returned puzzling special verdicts on Ms. Culp's claims, finding that Remington did not violate her rights under Title VII but nonetheless awarding her punitive damages on a Title VII claim.
Outcome:
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
About This Case
What was the outcome of Stacie Culp; Stephanie Peters v. Reminton of Montrose Gol...?
The outcome was: Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Which court heard Stacie Culp; Stephanie Peters v. Reminton of Montrose Gol...?
This case was heard in United States District Court for the District of Colorado (Denver County), CO. The presiding judge was RMR.
Who were the attorneys in Stacie Culp; Stephanie Peters v. Reminton of Montrose Gol...?
Plaintiff's attorney: Click Here For The Best Denver Civil Rights Law Lawyer Directory. Defendant's attorney: Nicholas H. Gower and Karoline M. Henning.
When was Stacie Culp; Stephanie Peters v. Reminton of Montrose Gol... decided?
This case was decided on March 1, 2025.