Phone: 719-387-8205
Fax: 719-475-1264

431 N. Cascade Avenue Suite 1
Colorado Springs, CO 80903

Recent Cases


Schneider v. Landvest Corp., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17230 (D. Colo. Feb. 9, 2006) Litigated overtime claims of resident managers of a National Storage company. Decision by Chief Judge Wiley Daniel in Plaintiff’s favor on overtime claims under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act. Order addresses recordkeeping, deduction of mealtimes

Cornell v. Harmony Homes, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 564 (D. Colo. Jan. 4, 2007) Order denying Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration.

Gilman v. Target Corp., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112373 (D. Colo. Dec. 1, 2009) Order denying motion for summary judgment.

Morris v. City of Colo. Springs, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122239 (D. Colo. Dec. 18, 2009) Order denying Defendant’s motion to compel medical releases/authorizations to obtain medical records from Plaintiff’s doctors; Court held that the Defendant was required to first attempt to obtain Plaintiff’s medical records through the use of a subpoena, and that a motion to compel releases would only be entertained if “production of the records pursuant to subpoena is refused.”) This decision has been favorably cited in the following cases, where courts have refused to order parties to execute medical releases: Chase v. Nova Southeastern Univ., Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73887 (S.D. Fla. May 29, 2012) (Judge Seltzer); Gianzero v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98900 (D. Colo. Sept. 3, 2010) (Judge Boland); Bouchard v. Whetstone, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46776 (D. Colo. Apr. 9, 2010) (Judge Boland)

Morris v. City of Colo. Springs, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48409 (D. Colo. Apr. 23, 2010) Order finding that because evidence of past harassment may be admissible at trial for several purposes, discovery of information and documents concerning other allegations of sexual harassment made by females against alleged sexual harasser was proper; Plaintiff’s motion to compel granted

McCargo v. Tex. Roadhouse, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4314 (D. Colo. Jan. 12, 2011) In a race discrimination case which included an allegation that employees of Defendant tried to set the African-American Plaintiff on fire, Defendant’s attorneys made a blanket claim of representation of 97 current and former employees of Defendant’s Colorado Springs restaurant.  Due to the disruption caused by Defendant’s counsel’s unjustified blanket claim of representation, the Court imposed sanctions.

McCargo v. Tex. Roadhouse, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49320 (D. Colo. May 2, 2011) Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions for spoliation (destruction) of video evidence, the Court held that Defendant “made a conscious and willful decision not to take steps to preserve evidence that he knew would be destroyed without his taking action.”  Further, the Court found that the spoliation was part of a larger pattern of conduct by Defendant with respect to discovery.  The Court awarded sanctions for Defendant’s destruction of video evidence, which included specific factual findings, an instruction that those factual findings are evidence supporting Plaintiff’s hostile work environment claim, an adverse inference instruction, an order prohibiting Defendant from cross examining Plaintiff’s witnesses with respect to testimony regarding events that would have been preserved on the destroyed video, and an award of attorney’s fees.

Roe v. Catholic Health Initiatives Colo., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 713 (D. Colo. Jan. 4, 2012) Order granting Plaintiff leave to proceed pseudonymously in her lawsuit alleging Defendant violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by requiring her to undergo medical examinations and medical inquires that forced Plaintiff to disclose confidential medical information that Defendant would not have otherwise known about, which information was subsequently unlawfully disclosed by Defendant.  In granting Plaintiff’s motion, the Court found that the Plaintiff has a substantial privacy right which outweighs the customary openness of judicial proceedings, and that there are no less drastic means available to protect Plaintiff from the loss of privacy that underlies her alleged ADA claims other than allowing her to proceed under a pseudonym.

Cole v. McHugh, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4505 (D. Colo. Jan. 13, 2012) A disabled veteran suffering from PTSD as a result of his service in Iraq brought a failure to hire claim against the U.S. Army after his application for a civilian position was rejected.  In ruling on Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, Judge Daniel found that Plaintiff had established that Defendant’s stated reasons for its failure to hire Plaintiff were so weak, implausible, inconsistent, incoherent, or contradictory as to make summary judgment inappropriate, and ordered that the claim proceed to trial.