BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE CONSOLIDATED ACTIONS

On December 10, 2003, a complaint alleging violation of the Equal Pay Act (“EPA”) and breach of contract was filed in United States District Court by Veronique A. Longmire and Laura Barber, on their own behalf and as representatives of a class of similarly situated employees at the Laboratory (the “Barber Action”). On January 6, 2004, a second lawsuit was filed in Rio Arriba County District Court by Yolanda Garcia, Loyda Martinez, Gloria A. Bennett, Yvonne Ebelacker, Hispanic Roundtable of New Mexico, and University Professional & Technical Employees CWA 9119 (AFL-CIO) alleging violation of the Equal Pay Act (“EPA”), breach of contract and other claims (the “Garcia Action”). The Garcia action was removed to United States District Court and consolidated with the Barber Action to become the Consolidated Actions.

The Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Actions claim that the Regents, which operates and manages the Laboratory, and G. Peter Nanos, discriminated against female and Hispanic employees in terms of pay, promotion, educational opportunities, and other terms and conditions of employment.

Specifically, the Consolidated Actions allege the following causes of action against the Regents: violations of the EPA, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d); violations of 42 U.S.C. section 1983; violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”); violations of the New Mexico Human Rights Act, as amended, NMSA 1978, §§ 28-1-1 et seq. (the “NMHRA”); and breach of contract.

The Consolidated Actions seek unspecified damages for lost earnings and benefits, emotional distress damages, liquidated damages, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs, in addition to certain injunctive and declaratory relief.

The Defendants dispute the allegations of the Plaintiffs and deny any liability. There has been no trial in this matter and the Plaintiffs’ claims have not been proven.

Nevertheless, the parties have reached an agreement to settle the Consolidated Actions. The District Court has granted preliminary approval to the parties’ Settlement Agreement, authorizing notice of the settlement to be sent to persons who may be members of the class. The Settlement Agreement does not constitute evidence of any violations of law, regulation, order, or rule. The Regents’ voluntary entry into the Settlement Agreement does not constitute an admission, express or implied, that the Regents is liable to Class Representatives or Class members. On the contrary, the Regents expressly denies liability and enters into the Settlement Agreement solely to compromise disputed claims and to avoid further expense, inconvenience, and uncertainty of litigation. Likewise, by entering into the Settlement Agreement, the Class Representatives do not concede that the Regents has valid defenses to their discrimination claims. The District Court has also scheduled a hearing for final approval for June 27, 2007.

This website is a resource for people who believe they may be in the class and are interested in gathering information regarding the case and the settlement.