878 F.2d 338 (10th Cir. 1989), 87-1225, Ebert v. Lamar Truck Plaza

Docket Nº:87-1225.
Citation:878 F.2d 338
Party Name:29 Wage & Hour Cas. (BN 814, Ruby EBERT, Carla Ebert, Esther C. Ebert, Tempa Roselind Ebert, Willa Dean Atkinson, and Ila M. Brown, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LAMAR TRUCK PLAZA, a Colorado corporation, Defendant-Appellee.
Case Date:June 23, 1989
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 338

878 F.2d 338 (10th Cir. 1989)

29 Wage & Hour Cas. (BN 814,

Ruby EBERT, Carla Ebert, Esther C. Ebert, Tempa Roselind

Ebert, Willa Dean Atkinson, and Ila M. Brown,

individually and on behalf of all others

similarly situated,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

LAMAR TRUCK PLAZA, a Colorado corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 87-1225.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit

June 23, 1989

Penfield W. Tate II of Trimble, Tate & Nulan, Denver, Colo., for plaintiffs-appellants.

John Gehlhausen (Darla K. Scranton, with him on the brief), Lamar, Colo., for defendant-appellee.

Before ANDERSON, TACHA and McWILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

McWILLIAMS, Circuit Judge.

This is a case of alleged sex discrimination in the workplace. The issue on appeal is whether the critical findings of the district court, 715 F.Supp. 1496 (D.Colo.1987),are "clearly erroneous." Our study of the record convinces us that the record permits the several findings of the district court and giving, inter alia, due regard "to the opportunity of the trial court to judge ... the credibility of the witnesses," such findings are not "clearly erroneous." Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a); Willner v. University of Kansas, 848 F.2d 1023, 1030 (10th Cir.1988) (citing Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 574, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 1511, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985)).

In 1984, Lamar Truck Plaza, a Colorado corporation, opened a 24-hour, full service restaurant in Lamar, Colorado. The plaintiffs in the present proceeding are five former employees, and one current employee, all of whom were employed in the Lamar Truck Plaza restaurant.

The plaintiffs alleged two claims for relief: (1) the defendant permitted and maintained a hostile workplace environment growing out of discriminatory sexual

Page 339

harassment, in violation of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e et seq., and (2) the defendant discriminated against women in its pay scale, in violation of the Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 206(d).

In its findings the district court recognized that rough language by employees and supervisors alike was commonplace in the kitchen area at the Truck Plaza, noting that such language was used indiscriminately by both male and female employees, including certain of the plaintiffs. However, the district court held that such language, by itself, did not constitute a hostile workplace environment based on sex...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP