Opinion
Civil Case No. 06-cv-00292-LTB-MJW.
September 7, 2006
ORDER
The plaintiffs have stated claims for sexual discrimination and harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. ("Title VII") and for age discrimination under the Age Discrimination Employment Act ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. § 621. They have named the defendant Susan Sisitki individually and as representative of her late husband's estate on the theory that their former employer, the defendant Raptor Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a John Robert Powers of Colorado, Inc. ("Raptor"), was an alter-ego for Mr. and Mrs. Sisitki, its only shareholders. Their complaint includes additional allegations — Raptor co-mingled assets with the Sisitkis and acted only to further the Sisitkis' personal objectives, the Sisitkis alone controlled Raptor — that put Ms. Sisitki on notice of their theory. Geringer v. Wildhorn Ranch, Inc., 706 F. Supp. 1442, 1447 (D. Colo. 1988).
Ms. Sisitki, who moves for dismissal of the claims against her, first argues that corporate-veil piercing constitutes a remedy rather than a claim. The question, however, is not whether the alter-ego theory constitutes a distinct claim — it does not — but rather whether Ms. Sisitki and her husband's estate can be personally liable on the Title VII and ADEA claims that the plaintiffs have stated. At this stage, I am obliged to take the allegations of the complaint as true, and so allow the claims to proceed against Ms. Sisitki.
Ms. Sisitki next argues that the plaintiffs have failed to allege that recognition of the corporate form in this case would defeat public convenience. However, that is the gravamen of the plaintiffs' allegations, which taken together support the inference that adherence to the corporate fiction would promote injustice, protect fraud, or defeat a legitimate claim. LaFond v. Basham, 683 P.2d 367, 369 (Colo.App. 1984).
Accordingly it is ORDERED that Ms. Sisitki's motion to dismiss is DENIED.