The firm represented Plaintiffs in Vaszlavik, et al. v. StorageTek, a class action lawsuit which settled for $5 million and a commitment by the employer to include human resource training and policy amendments including age and benefits administration.
In Drake v. TalMor Capital Management, et al., the firm’s client prevailed on claims of fraud and breach of contract. After trial, Mr. Drake received a judgment totaling roughly $3.5 million (including attorney fees, costs, and interest). This is one of the very largest Colorado judgments ever in a single plaintiff employment case.
Benezra & Culver represented one Plaintiff in the Title IX gender discrimination case of Does v. University of Colorado, Boulder, in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. Plaintiffs were subjected to severe sexual harassment by students recruited to play football by the University of Colorado. The case was settled for $3.0 million and a commitment to provide training and change recruitment practices.
In Caspar v. Lucent Technologies and Avaya, Inc., the firm represented Plaintiff Peggy Caspar, who received a total award in excess of $1.8 million (including attorneys’ fees and costs) on novel and difficult claims she was discriminated against on the basis of her gender by another woman.
After a seven-day jury trial in January of 2019, our firm’s client, Colley Fisher, prevailed on her claim of retaliation in violation of Title VII. On April 16, 2019, Judge Richard P. Matsch of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado entered an Amended Final Judgment on her behalf in the amount of $1,206,000.00.
Members of the firm represented the Plaintiff in Langely v. Adams County, a sexual discrimination and retaliation case that was tried in the United States District Court in Colorado and resulted in a $1 million dollar settlement.
In Cillo v. City of Greenwood Village, the firm’s client prevailed at trial on his First Amendment Freedom of Association claim and received almost $900,000 for punitive damages, economic losses, attorney fees, and costs. In order to get to trial, the firm first had to prevail on a difficult appeal to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed the trial court’s improper grant of summary judgment.
The firm prevailed on a retaliation claim on behalf of its clients in Crowe & Ford v. South Adams County Water and Sanitation District. Plaintiffs Crowe and Ford stated their opposition to acts of sexual discrimination and harassment by a manager and were demoted or fired as a result. After a four-day trial, the Plaintiffs received a judgment worth nearly $500,000, including attorneys’ fees and costs.
The firm represented Plaintiff Candy Wilson in Wilson v. Alamosa School District, a disability discrimination claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The District terminated Ms. Wilson after she revealed symptoms of depression and anxiety to the Superintendent, who incorrectly stereotyped her as disabled. In what appears to be the first jury verdict in Colorado based a “regarded as disabled” claim, a jury found in Ms. Wilson’s favor in a judgment worth over $400,000, including attorneys’ fees and costs.
Benezra & Culver successfully represented Plaintiff Julie Jacobsen in Jacobsen v. Dillon Cos., a disability discrimination case under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Ms. Jacobsen was terminated after she was diagnosed with breast cancer and told her supervisors she needed scheduling flexibility or reassignment to a new position for several months in order to undergo chemotherapy. Ms. Jacobsen won her case before a jury, which awarded her $88,000 including punitive damages. The case settled before appeal for an amount inclusive of attorneys’ fees and costs.
In Doe v. Small Business Administration, Benezra & Culver prevailed before the Merit Systems Protection Board (“MSPB”) on a claim of disproportionate discipline of a longtime federal employee. After a three-day hearing, an Administrative Law Judge reinstated the employee to his position and awarded him lost wages.
In Acks v. City and County of Denver, the firm obtained class certification for a group of eight named Plaintiffs and 92 other individuals who were arrested by the Denver Police Department while peacefully marching at the Democratic National Convention (“DNC”) and denied counsel while police detained them. The case subsequently settled.
Benezra & Culver represented the Plaintiff in Carr v. Fort Morgan School District in which the Plaintiff prevailed in an unusual failure-to-hire case under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act.
The firm represented a transgender woman who had been denied a federal grant for a breast cancer screening because she was not born biologically female. The firm’s efforts resulted in a policy change at the Centers for Disease Control regarding such grants, which are now awarded regardless of whether the grant applicant is transgendered.
The firm was counsel for Plaintiffs in Nash, et al. v. City and County of Denver, where the Court held that a city Ordinance violated the Colorado Open Records Act and awarded nearly $60,000 in attorney fees and costs.
The firm was counsel for Plaintiff in Howard v. United States, in which the District of Colorado published its opinion at 864 F. Supp. 1019 (D. Colo. 1994). This was a novel and precedent-setting case in which a prisoner at the Federal Correctional Institute in Englewood, Colorado obtained a preliminary injunction of an unconstitutional Bureau of Prisons policy which infringed upon the Plaintiff’s freedom of religion.
Benezra & Culver has also obtained numerous significant six-figure settlements in cases alleging discrimination and constitutional violations, including pre-litigation and pre-trial settlements in excess of $450,000, $650,000, and $950,000. At the end of 2015, the firm settled a quid pro quo sexual harassment case for $735,000, prior to filing a lawsuit. In early 2016, the firm settled a sex discrimination and due process case for $500,000, prior to filing a lawsuit and a whistleblower case for $450,000 after a complaint had been filed, but before any discovery had been conducted.