1.  This case is about Regional Transportation District’s (RTD’s) and First Transit,  Inc.’s (First Transit’s) admitted policy of automatically denying employment to potential bus  drivers with more than ten points on their driver’s licenses, whether or not those points arise  from violations that might bear on an applicant’s ability to drive safely.   10.  Ms. Taylor brings this case, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, to  obtain damages and other relief for the wrongful denial of her application for employment as a  bus driver and an injunction that would require RTD and First Transit to perform an  individualized assessment of each applicant’s driving record.   2.  That policy is described here as the “automatic denial” policy.    27.  Under Colorado law, drivers may be assigned a certain number of “points” per  traffic violation.    28.  Points may be assigned for a range of violations from speeding, to driving without  proof of insurance, to driving with a defective headlamp.    29.  There is abundant evidence that people of color are disproportionately likely to be  pulled over in a traffic stop and disproportionately likely to be cited for traffic violations of all  kinds, including minor traffic violations.    3.  People of color are disproportionately likely to be the subject of traffic stops and  are disproportionately likely to be ticketed for minor traffic violations, which may increase the  points on a driver’s record.   30.  In official postings advertising bus driver positions, RTD has announced that it  will not accept job applicants who have “more than five points assessed against [their] motor  vehicle record in the past two years” and “not more than ten points on the seven year record.”    31.  First Transit’s contract with RTD specifies that First Transit may not hire bus  drivers to drive for RTD and First Transit unless those drivers meet certain criteria including that  they may not have more than ten points on their license in the preceding seven years.      32.  Pursuant to its contract with RTD, First Transit applies the automatic denial  policy when it jointly hires and employs RTD drivers.    34.  In 2017, after she obtained her CDL, Ms. Taylor applied to work as a bus driver  with RTD.    35.  RTD informed Ms. Taylor that she could not obtain employment as a bus driver  because she had more than 10 points assessed against her driving record in the preceding seven- year period.    36.  Those points including points for driving an unsafe vehicle, driving with defective  headlamps, and failing to provide proof of insurance.    37.  In 2018, Ms. Taylor saw an advertisement for work as an RTD bus driver through  First Transit.    38.  The advertisement specified that applicants did not need to have a CDL to obtain  employment as an RTD bus driver.    39.  Because RTD and First Transit were apparently not requiring a CDL to obtain  employment, Ms. Taylor assumed that the points on her driving record would also not prevent  her from obtaining employment, especially because the vast majority of the points on her license  related to her vehicle being defective or not having proof of insurance.    4.  Therefore, Defendants’ automatic denial policy has a disparate impact on people  of color and violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.    40.  In March 2018, Ms. Taylor submitted her application to First Transit to apply as a  bus driver for RTD and First Transit.    41.  First Transit granted Ms. Taylor an interview for the position.     42.  In the interview, First Transit did not ask Ms. Taylor about her driving record.    43.  Ms. Taylor received a contingent offer from RTD and First Transit by email after  her interview.   45.  At the time Ms. Taylor applied for a position with RTD in 2017, none of the  points on her record were from convictions for moving violations in the prior seven years.   46.  At the time Ms. Taylor applied for a position with RTD and First Transit in March  2018, none of the points on her record were from convictions for moving violations in the prior  seven years. Rather, six were for driving a defective vehicle, eight were for not having proof of  insurance or driving without insurance, and one was for defective headlamps.   47.  Ms. Taylor believes that were she white, she would not have received many of the  points on her driving record.    48.  For example, Ms. Taylor was assessed points for not having proof of insurance  when two police cars pulled her over for no clear reason after having followed her out of a  convenience store parking lot.    49.  Had RTD and First Transit performed an individualized assessment of Ms.  Taylor’s driving record, she would not have been denied employment with RTD and First  Transit.    50.  Were it not for the automatic denial policy, Ms. Taylor would apply in the future  for a bus driver position with RTD or with First Transit to work for First Transit and RTD.   51.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference all previous and subsequent paragraphs of this  Complaint as if fully rewritten herein.    52.  Plaintiff asserts her Count I as a Fed R. Civ P. 23 class action on their own behalf  and on behalf of classes for which they seek certification.    54.  The classes are so numerous that joinder of all potential class members is  impracticable.     55.  There are questions of law or fact common to the classes that predominate over  any individual issues that might exist. Common questions of law and fact include whether  Defendants’ policy and practice of automatically rejecting applicants based on the number of  points on their driving records violates Title VII because it has a disparate impact on black and  Latino applicants.    57.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect and represent the interests of the class.  She applied to work for Defendants and was a victim of the same violations of law as the other  class members, including violations of the federal anti-discrimination laws.        58.  Plaintiff is represented by counsel experienced in litigating employment claims.    59.  The prosecution of separate actions by the individual putative class members  would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual potential  class members that would establish incompatible standards of conduct for Defendants.    6.  Plaintiff Shanita Taylor is a black African American woman who lives in the  Denver area.    60.  Each Class Member’s claim is relatively small. Thus, the interest of potential  Class Members in individually controlling the prosecution or defense of separate actions is  slight. In addition, public policy supports the broad remedial purposes of class actions in general  and that the pertinent federal laws are appropriate vehicles to vindicate the rights of those  employees with small claims as part of the larger class.     61.  Plaintiff is unaware of any members of the putative classes who are interested in  presenting their claims in a separate action.      62.  Plaintiff is unaware of any pending litigation commenced by putative class  members.    63.  It is desirable to concentrate this litigation in this forum because the positions  applied for existed in this jurisdiction and Plaintiff is domiciled in this jurisdiction.    65.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference all previous and subsequent paragraphs of this  Complaint.    66.  Plaintiff is black and African America and within the classes protected by Title  7.  Ms. Taylor worked hard to obtain her commercial driver’s license because she  believed it would allow her to obtain jobs that paid decent wages and provided good benefits.     8.  When she applied to work for RTD and First Transit as a bus driver, however,  Ms. Taylor was denied employment due to no other reason than that her driving record had more  than 10 points in the preceding seven years.    9.  The vast majority of those points arose from violations that have no bearing on  Ms. Taylor’s ability to drive safely or effectively for RTD, but Defendants did not undertake an  individualized assessment of Ms. Taylor’s driving record.    AUTOMATIC DENIAL POLICY   BUS DRIVER BUT WHOSE APPLICATIONS WERE  REJECTED BECAUSE THEY HAD MORE THAN TEN  POINTS ON THEIR DRIVER’S LICENSE IN THE SEVEN  DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF RACE AND COLOR,  TITLE VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000E ET SEQ.  Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Damages Class and Rule 23 Injunction Class vs. All Defendants   Defendants.  CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND  INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT  