District Court City and County of Denver, Colorado

Court Address:
1437 Bannock Street
Denver, CO 80202
DARLENE RAKOWSKI, an Individual
Plaintiff,
v.
MONTEZ CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., a Corporation
Defendant.
Attorney:
Larry L. Lawyer
LAWYER LAW FIRM, P.C.
1234 17th Street, Suite 123
Denver, CO 80201

COURT USE ONLY

Case Number:

Division
Phone Number:(303) 030-3030
FAX Number:(303) 030-3031

Courtroom

E-mail:llawyer@lawyer.com
Atty. Reg. #: 12345678

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, Darlene Rakowski (Ms. Rakowski), by and through her attorney, Larry L. Lawyer, for her
Complaint against Defendant Montez Construction Co., Inc. (Montez), states and alleges as follows:
PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE
1. Ms. Rakowski is an individual over the age of eighteen who is a resident of the City and County of
Denver, Colorado.
2. Montez is a for-profit corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Colorado, with its domicile
and principal place of business at 1000 Welton Street in the City and County of Denver, Colorado.
3. This Court has jurisdiction over both parties in this lawsuit.
4. Venue is proper in the Court pursuant to C.R.C.P. 98(c)(1).
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
5. Montez is a construction company doing work in Colorado.
6. On April 2, 2014, Ms. Rakowski entered an employment contract with an annual salary of $70,000, paid
bi-weekly, for one year with Montez based on her vocational school training and certificate showing her
competency to work with equipment and construction.
7. Ms. Rakowski was the first woman hired by Montez for a nonsecretarial role.
8. There were no other women employed by Montez at the time Ms. Rakowski worked there.
Page 1 of 4

9. When she was hired, Ms. Rakowskis immediate supervisor and foreman, Adam Stroud (Mr. Stroud), told
her that he did not think that a woman was tough enough for the job. Ms. Rakowski was confident that
with her on-the-job training, she would be able to perform the duties for which she was hired.
10. When she was hired, Ms. Rakowski was not given information about the proper authority for any
complaints or concerns about the work environment.
11. Beginning the first day on the job, Ms. Rakowskis male co-workers whistled and catcalled at her, and
mimicked a sexual walk while following her.
12. On May 5, 2014, Ms. Rakowski verbally complained to Mr. Stroud, after which time the sexual behavior
ended.
13. After Ms. Rakowski complained to Mr. Stroud, Mr. Stroud assigned Ms. Rakowski only menial tasks, not
the type of duties she was capable of performing nor the type of duties for which she had been hired.
14. Mr. Stroud did not give Ms. Rakowski information about how he wanted her to perform the menial tasks.
15. Ms. Rakowski performed the menial tasks competently; however, on a weekly basis, Mr. Stroud would yell
profanities at her, insult her intelligence, and call her worthless in front of her co-workers.
16. During this time, when Ms. Rakowskis male co-workers made mistakes on the job, Mr. Stroud called
those males into a private room to discuss their mistakes.
17. During this time, her co-workers publicly mocked her within the hearing and sight of Mr. Stroud and
various vendors.
18. After May 5 but before June 10, 2014, Ms. Rakowski again verbally complained to Mr. Stroud about his
actions and the actions of his male employees; Mr. Stroud told Ms. Rakowski that she was taking the
harassing behavior too seriously.
19. After Ms. Rakowski complained to Mr. Stroud, the harassing behavior continued.
20. As the harassing behavior continued, Ms. Rakowski felt humiliated, became distraught and occasionally
cried.
21. Thereafter, the harassing behavior continued and escalated.
22. On June 10, 2014, Ms. Rakowski verbally complained to the owner of Montez, Carlos Montez (Mr.
Montez), about the harassing behavior. Mr. Montez told Ms. Rakowski to loosen up and verbally promised
her that he would investigate the harassing behavior.
23. Ms. Rakowski relied on Mr. Montez to put a stop to the harassing behavior of the employees of his
copmany.
24. After Ms. Rakowski complained to Mr. Montez, the harassing behavior continued.
25. Ms. Rakowski believed that the harassing behavior would never stop.
26. After Ms. Rakowski complained to Mr. Montez, complaints about Ms. Rakowskis quality of work, her
inability to lift certain items, her inability to follow directions, and her inability to operate tools safely were
entered into her personnel file.
Page 2 of 4

27. Ms. Rakowski neither saw nor signed the complaints in her personnel file, and Ms. Rakowski was not
given the opportunity to rebut the complaints in her personnel file.
28. Ms. Rakowski asserts that she performed all her duties competently.
29. After Ms. Rakowski complained to Mr. Montez and the harassing behavior continued, Ms. Rakowski
began to see a psychiatrist because of her mental anguish due to the harassing behavior.
30. At this time, Ms. Rakowski began to miss work because of her emotional reaction to the harassing
behavior.
31. At this time, Ms. Rakowski began to fear for her personal safety at work because of the harassing
behavior, although she was never physically touched.
32. On December 31, 2014, Ms. Rakowski felt forced to quit her job because of the continuing harassing
behavior.
33. Montez did not contact Ms. Rakowski after she quit her job.
34. After she quit her job, Ms. Rakowski remained under psychiatric supervision because of her mental
anguish due to the harassing behavior she suffered at Montez.
35. After she quit her job, Ms. Rakowski looked for new employment but has been unable to secure another
job.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Breach of Contract against Defendant Montez)
36. Ms. Rakowski incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 35 as if fully restated.
37. Ms. Rakowski entered into a one-year employment contract with Montez under Colorado common law.
38. Because of public policy against harassment in the workplace, non-harassing behavior is an implied-inlaw condition of an employment contract.
39. Montez allowed harassing behavior toward Ms. Rakowski, breaching an important public policy condition
of the employment contract.
40. Because Montez allowed harassing behavior toward Ms. Rakowski, Ms. Rakowski was wrongfully
prevented from fully performing her obligations of the one-year employment contract between Montez and
Ms. Rakowski.
41. Ms. Rakowski was not paid for one year of employment pursuant to the contract between Montez and Ms.
Rakowski.
42. Ms. Rakowski has been damaged and continues to be damaged in a dollar amount to be determined at
trial.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress against Defendant Montez)
Page 3 of 4

43. Ms. Rakowski incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 35 as if fully restated.

44. Ms. Rakowskis supervisor, Mr. Stroud, and her male co-workers yelled at, mocked, and demeaned Ms.
Rakowski daily, despite Ms. Rakowskis complaints to her supervisor, Mr. Stroud, and to the owner of the
company, Mr. Montez.
45. This harassing behavior was intended to cause Ms. Rakowski mental anguish.
46. This harassing behavior was reckless, outrageous and contrary to public policy.
47. Ms. Rakowski suffered mental anguish to such a degree that she needed psychiatric supervision, which
continues.
48. Ms. Rakowski suffered mental anguish to such a degree that she finds it impossible to continue to seek
other employment.
49. Ms. Rakowski has been damaged and continues to be damaged in a dollar amount to be determined at
trial.
WHEREFORE, Ms. Rakowski prays for relief as follows:
a. First Claim for Relief: Judgment in favor of Plaintiff Ms. Rakowski and against Defendant
Montez for lost wages due to the breach of the employment contract by Montez and all other
damages established at trial, together with all pre- and post-judgment interest as permitted by
law, costs of this litigation, and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and
proper in the circumstances;
b. Second Claim for Relief: Judgment in favor of Plaintiff Ms. Rakowski and against Defendant
Montez for all compensatory and special damages established at trial, together with all preand post-judgment interest as permitted by law, costs of this litigation, and such other and
further relief as the Court deems just and proper in the circumstances.
Dated this 9th day of March, 2015.
LAWYER LAW FIRM, P.C.

Larry L. Lawyer, #12345678

1234 17th Street, Suite 123
Denver, CO 80201
(303) 030-3030
ATTORNEY FOR THE PLAINTIFF
Plaintiffs Address:
125 Elm Street
Denver, CO 80220

Page 4 of 4