Free Proposed Jury Instructions - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:03-cv-02073-WDM-KLM

Document 226-2

Filed 01/03/2006

Page 1 of 5

INSTRUCTION NO. ______ NATURE OF CASE The party who brings a lawsuit is called plaintiff. In this action there are two Plaintiffs: Roberta Pulse and Tonya House. The party against whom the suit is brought is called defendant. In this action the defendant is the Larry H. Miller Group. Plaintiffs are females who claim that they were discriminated against and then retaliated against after they made reports of sexual harassment and sex discrimination. Plaintiffs contend that they were employed by the Denver dealerships (Larry H. Miller Used Car Superstore and Larry Miller Toyota) and Landcar Management, Ltd., which was doing business as the Larry H. Miller Group as a single employer. Plaintiffs further contend that as a single employer, the Defendant was their employer as defined by Title VII. Although Plaintiffs have made claims of sexual harassment and sex discrimination, you are here only to decide whether these entities were Plaintiffs' employer and, if so, did they have more than 15 employees as required by Title VII.

Case 1:03-cv-02073-WDM-KLM

Document 226-2

Filed 01/03/2006

Page 2 of 5

INSTRUCTION NO. ______ TRADE NAME OPERATION A company may use its trade name in advertising, promoting and generating publicity for the business. A suit by or against a company may be brought under the name in which it transacts business, including an assumed or fictitious name. An entity transacting business under a trade name shall be liable as if that business were transacted under its true name or entity name. The entity may be sued under its true name, its entity name, or its trade name.

Authority: C.R.S. §7-71-101(4); Knowlton v. Teltrust, Inc., 189 F.3d 1177 (10th Cir. 1999); Millers Super Markets v. Hobart, 482 P.2d 413 (Colo. Ct. App. 1971); EEOC Compliance Manual, §2-III(B)(1)(a)(iii)(a).

2

Case 1:03-cv-02073-WDM-KLM

Document 226-2

Filed 01/03/2006

Page 3 of 5

INSTRUCTION NO. ______ DEFENDANT'S ABILITY TO BE SUED If you find that the Larry H. Miller Group was a trade name for Landcar Management, Ltd., ("Landcar"), and that Landcar and the Denver dealerships (Larry H. Miller Used Car Superstore and Larry Miller Toyota) were a single employer (See Jury Instruction No. ______), then you must find that the Larry H. Miller Group was the Plaintiffs' employer. To determine if Landcar and the Denver dealerships (Larry H. Miller Used Car Superstore and Larry Miller Toyota) were a single employer go to Jury Instruction No. ____________.

Authority: C.R.S. §7-71-101(4); Knowlton v. Teltrust, Inc., 189 F.3d 1177 (10th Cir. 1999); Millers Super Markets v. Hobart, 482 P.2d 413 (Colo. Ct. App. 1971); EEOC Compliance Manual, §2-III(B)(1)(a)(iii)(a). 3

Case 1:03-cv-02073-WDM-KLM

Document 226-2

Filed 01/03/2006

Page 4 of 5

INSTRUCTION NO. ______ SINGLE EMPLOYER To determine if Larry H. Miller Group/Landcar and the Denver dealerships (Larry H. Miller Used Car Superstore and Larry Miller Toyota) were a single employer, you may consider the following four factors: 1) 2) 3) 4) Interrelation of operations; Centralized control over labor relations; Common management; and Common ownership or financial control.

You do not need to find all four elements were established to conclude Larry H. Miller Group/Landcar and the Denver Dealerships were a single employer.

Authority: Knowlton v. Teltrust, Inc., 189 F.3d 1177 (10th Cir. 1999); Frank v. U.S. West, Inc., 3 F. 3d 1357 (10th Cir. 1993). 4

Case 1:03-cv-02073-WDM-KLM

Document 226-2

Filed 01/03/2006

Page 5 of 5

INSTRUCTION NO. ______ EMPLOYER ­ STATUTORY NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES For Plaintiffs to prevail they must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Defendant had the statutory number of employees as defined by Title VII by proving: (1) Defendant had 15 or more employees for each working day in each of 20

or more calendar weeks for the years 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001 (the year before, and the years in which discrimination, sexual harassment and retaliation allegedly occurred). In determining the number of employees, if you find that the Larry H. Miller Group was a trade name of Landcar Management, Ltd., you may include the number of employees employed by Landcar. If you find that Landcar and the Denver dealerships (Larry H. Miller Used Car Superstore and Larry Miller Toyota) are a single employer, you may also include the number of employees employed by the Denver dealerships. If you find that Plaintiffs proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the Larry H. Miller Group, Landcar and/or the Denver dealerships had 15 or more employees, then you must find in favor of the Plaintiffs and against the Defendant.

5