`
`Case 1:22-cv-02052-TWT-RGV Document 1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 1 of 26
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
`ATLANTA DIVISION
`
`Case No.
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`)))
`
`))
`
`)
`)
`
`))
`
`)
`
`EDWARD RHODES
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`SYSCO ATLANTA, LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`This is a case to enforce Plaintiff’s rights under the Americans with
`
`Disabilities Act Amendments Act (“ADA” or “ADAAA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, for
`
`disability discrimination in failure to accommodate and unlawful termination. It is
`
`also a claim for violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act, 29 CFR § 2601 et
`
`seq.
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-02052-TWT-RGV Document 1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 2 of 26
`
`2.
`
`As an employer covered under the ADA, Defendant has a legal obligation to
`
`provide all qualified employees with reasonable accommodations for a disability to
`
`allow the employee to perform the essential functions of their position.
`
`II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`3.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331
`
`(federal question), 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 (declaratory judgment).
`
`4.
`
`Venue is proper in this district and division pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 and
`
`O.C.G.A. § 14-3-510(b)(1) because Defendant is a foreign corporation with its
`
`registered office in Norcross, Gwinnett County, Georgia, which is in this district
`
`and division.
`
`5.
`
`Defendant may be served with process on its registered agent, Corporation
`
`Service Company, 2 Sun Court, Suite 400, Peachtree Corners, Gwinnett County,
`
`GA, 30092.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-02052-TWT-RGV Document 1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 3 of 26
`
`III. PRE-LITIGATION REQUIREMENTS
`
`6.
`
`Plaintiff exhausted his administrative requirements prior to initiating this
`
`lawsuit, as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(c).
`
`7.
`
`On January 16, 2021, Plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination with the
`
`Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
`
`(“EEOC”)
`
`for Disability
`
`discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
`
`8.
`
`On February 24, 2022, the EEOC issued a Right to Sue Letter.
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiff filed his claims within 90 days of the date of receiving the Right to
`
`Sue letter.
`
`IV. PARTIES
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiff is a resident of Fulton County, Atlanta, Georgia.
`
`11.
`
`Defendant is in the business of food service marketing and distribution.
`
`Defendant
`
`is a Foreign Limited Liability Company conducting business in
`
`Gwinnett County, Georgia.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-02052-TWT-RGV Document 1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 4 of 26
`
`12.
`
`Defendant may be served by way of its registered agent, Corporation Service
`
`Company, 2 Sun Court, Suite 400, Peachtree Courners, Gwinnett County, GA
`
`30092.
`
`V. STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`i. Background.
`
`13.
`
`Plaintiff was hired by the Company on November 19, 2019, into the position
`
`of Forklift Operator. As a Forklift Operator, he was responsible for receiving
`
`products into the warehouse, operating and maintaining equipment, and controlling
`
`the flow of products received into the warehouse.
`
`14.
`
`Plaintiff was paid at a rate of $17.75 per hour and he performed his job well.
`
`15.
`
`During Plaintiff’s employment, the Human Resource Representative that
`
`worked with Mr. Rhodes was Adjoa Banks (“Ms. Banks”).
`
`16.
`
`On or about March 27, 2020, Plaintiff’s position was impacted by the
`
`Covid-19 pandemic, and he (among others) was laid off.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-02052-TWT-RGV Document 1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 5 of 26
`
`17.
`
`In August 2020 the Company began recalling some of its employees back to
`
`work. On or about August 17, 2020 Plaintiff, in the first wave of call backs, was
`
`placed into the role of Order Selector and Fork Lift Operator on the night shift.
`
`18.
`
`As an Order Selector and Forklift Operator, Plaintiff was one of 50 to 60
`
`employees responsible for “operating an electric pallet jack or forklift, selecting
`
`the correct products from warehouse racking, labeling product using SOS bale
`
`technology, palletizing product as it is selected to build customer orders and
`
`delivering product to the deck in a safe and efficient manner.”[1] for approximately
`
`10 hours of work per day.
`
`19.
`
`Plaintiff performed in a diligent and skillful manner and up until his
`
`accident, he did not require any specific accommodations to perform his job.
`
`ii. Plaintiff sustains life-changing injuries in a non-work-related accident.
`
`20.
`
`On August 25, 2020, at approximately 7:30 pm, Plaintiff was involved in a
`
`serious motor vehicle accident that rendered him temporarily disabled. Indeed, his
`
`vehicle struck a tree traveling at a rate of 30 m.p.h.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-02052-TWT-RGV Document 1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 6 of 26
`
`21.
`
`On August 26, 2020, at approximately 2:55 pm, Plaintiff reported to the
`
`emergency department presenting with low back pain, right wall chest pain,
`
`bilateral midline thoracic and lumbar spine pain and paraspinal thoracic and
`
`lumbar pain. Plaintiff had been on crutches because he suffered pain in his left
`
`flank which radiates to the left hip and down his left leg.
`
`22.
`
`The Plaintiff’s injuries were extremely painful and essentially rendered him
`
`unable to walk without assistance.
`
`23.
`
`Following eight hours of diagnostic tests, Plaintiff was diagnosed to have
`
`suffered acute neck pain, chest wall trauma, and a compression fracture of the
`
`lumbar spine at the L1 level.
`
`24.
`
`The Plaintiff was placed in an abdominal brace to stabilize the fracture, and
`
`ordered out of work with no heavy lifting for one week.
`
`25.
`
`The Plaintiff was advised to also follow up with Orthopedic & Spine
`
`Surgery, and to obtain a lumbar x ray in six to eight weeks.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-02052-TWT-RGV Document 1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 7 of 26
`
`iii. Plaintiff requests a reasonable accommodation under the ADA.
`
`26.
`
`The Defendant’s Company’s handbook provides the following with
`
`regarding accommodations for disabilities,
`
`“The Company will endeavor to make a reasonable accommodation
`for known physical or mental limitations of qualified associates with
`disabilities, without regard to any protected classifications, unless the
`accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of
`our business. Any associate who needs assistance to perform their job
`duties because of a physical or mental condition should contact the
`Company’s Human Resources Business Partner.”
`
`27.
`
`Under information and belief, the defendant delegates some of its
`
`human resources duties including its responsibilities for administering the
`
`Company’s medical leaves and reasonable accommodation requests to The
`
`Hartford.
`
`28.
`
`Plaintiff was unable to work due to his injury and asked that the
`
`company provide him with a reasonable accommodation to take time from
`
`work to allow his injuries to heal. To that end on or about August 31, 2020,
`
`Plaintiff’s primary medical provider, Dr. Sandra Goldring, ordered that he
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-02052-TWT-RGV Document 1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 8 of 26
`
`remain off work from August 25, 2020, until October 6, 2020 and any
`
`further restrictions will come from a neurosurgeon.
`
`29.
`
`Plainitff’s request was submitted to the Defendant in accordance with the
`
`Defendant’s policies and procedures.
`
`30.
`
`In submitting his request for a leave of absence, Plaintiff was asking that the
`
`Company provide him with a reasonable accommodation. Through his request, the
`
`Company was made aware that Plaintiff suffered from a medical condition that
`
`limited major life activities, like walking, standing, and lifting, to name a few.
`
`31.
`
`Likewise, the Company was aware that Plaintiff could not perform the
`
`essential functions of his job without a reasonable accommodation, i.e., the leave
`
`of absence.
`
`32.
`
`The Company, through The Hartford, notified Plaintiff that his request for
`
`the accommodation, i.e., the leave, was approved.
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-02052-TWT-RGV Document 1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 9 of 26
`
`33.
`
`During his leave, Plaintiff continued to convalesce from his injuries,
`
`including receiving primary care, orthopedic care and neurology care. Plaintiff also
`
`was prescribed medications to manage his pain and inflammation.
`
`34.
`
`When it became apparent that he would need additional time to recover, on
`
`September 21, 2020, Plaintiff notified the Company that he needed additional time
`
`off. His neurology provider, Dr. Matthew Gery, supported the request with medical
`
`documentation submitted to the Company through the same channel he had before.
`
`35.
`
`On September 22, 2020,
`
`the Company,
`
`through The Hartford, notified
`
`Plaintiff that his request for the accommodation was pending while the Company
`
`made a decision with regard to his request for additional leave.
`
`36.
`
`On September 24, 2020, Plaintiff submitted medical documentation of Dr.
`
`Hassan Monfared, Emory Spine & Orthopedic, for his accommodation for leave.
`
`The report, provided that, “patient is under my care and is unable to do daily
`
`work activities due to having a L1 compression fracture. Patient will be out of
`
`work for 3 weeks until follow up visit.”, on or about October 15, 2020.
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-02052-TWT-RGV Document 1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 10 of 26
`
`37.
`
`The extension was approved by the Company until November 1, 2020.
`
`38.
`
`On October 27, 2020, Plaintiff notified Defendant that Dr. Monfared, Emory
`
`Orthopedic & Spine, issued his return to work release effective November 25,
`
`2020—in less than 30 days.
`
`39.
`
`Also on October 27, 2020, Ms. Banks texted Plaintiff and asked if he would
`
`need any restrictions upon his return on November 25.
`
`40.
`
`Plaintiff assured Ms. Banks that he would not need any additional
`
`accommodations beyond the medical leave through November 25, 2020, and that
`
`when he returned to his position he would do so without restrictions.
`
`41.
`
`Ms. Banks approved Plaintiff’s time off and informed him that he would
`
`need to be examined by the Company nurse prior to returning to work.
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-02052-TWT-RGV Document 1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 11 of 26
`
`The Company denies Plaintiff’s Request for a reasonable accommodation
`iv.
`of a medical leave, after first approving it.
`
`42.
`
`On or about November 2, 2020, Plaintiff received a letter from The Hartford,
`
`on behalf of Defendant Sysco, notifying him that his request for an accommodation
`
`vis a vis a 24-day medical leave from November 1, 2020, through November 25,
`
`2020 was denied.
`
`43.
`
`Plaintiff was told in the November 2, 2020 letter from The Hartford that he
`
`would need to contact his “HR Business Partner” regarding the specifics of the
`
`“accommodations of [his] request.” He was also told that once he is ready to return
`
`to work, he was to present to his manager and/or HR Business Partner with a
`
`Return to Work Fitness for Duty release.
`
`44.
`
`The letter also notified Plaintiff that he may be able to use PTO or vacation
`
`time and included a document to make that option.
`
`45.
`
`Finally,
`
`the
`
`letter
`
`informed Plaintiff
`
`that
`
`the decision would be
`
`communicated to the Company and that if he did not return the IPQ within 15
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-02052-TWT-RGV Document 1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 12 of 26
`
`calendar days, the Company would make a decision on his request based on the
`
`information available.
`
`46.
`
`Plaintiff was never told that he had to return to work immediately or face
`
`termination. He wasn’t even told that he had to contact the Company right away.
`
`47.
`
`Defendant did not reach out to Plaintiff any further to discuss his need for an
`
`accommodation or to discuss if an alternate accommodation could be made. In fact,
`
`Defendant never told Plaintiff the accommodation would cause a hardship or
`
`explained why the Company could not accommodate him. Defendant has not
`
`shown how the accommodation requested by Plaintiff would cause an undue
`
`hardship on the defendant.
`
`v. Plaintiff is terminated from his position.
`
`48.
`
`Instead, four days after The Hartford’s issuance of the notice of denial of his
`
`reasonable accommodation request, and even less time from Plaintiff receiving the
`
`notice, the Company sent him an “Employee Attendance Disciplinary Notice”
`
`dated November 5, 2020.
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-02052-TWT-RGV Document 1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 13 of 26
`
`49.
`
`Other than the November 5, 2020 Disciplinary Notice, Defendant did not
`
`contact Plaintiff to let him know he was going to be terminated if he did not return
`
`and no discussion was held about whether an alternative accommodation could be
`
`provided.
`
`50.
`
`Instead, the Company arbitrarily denied the short medical leave requested by
`
`Plaintiff as an accommodation for his disability.
`
`51.
`
`Moreover, the November 5, 2020 Disciplinary Notice put Plaintiff on notice
`
`that he was being terminated due to alleged excessive absenteeism. In support,
`
`Defendant
`
`listed the following dates of “previous and most current recorded
`
`occurrences:”
`
`· November 1, 2020
`
`· November 2, 2020
`
`· November 3, 2020
`
`· November 4, 2020
`
`· November 5, 2020
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-02052-TWT-RGV Document 1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 14 of 26
`
`52.
`
`At least two of the dates listed in the Disciplinary Notice were dates that
`
`Plaintiff had not yet received notification that his request for an accommodation
`
`was denied. Indeed, The Hartford did not notify Plaintiff that his request for the
`
`medical leave was denied until November 2, 2020, yet the Company terminated
`
`Plaintiff for absences occurring before he was even aware of the denial.
`
`53.
`
`It would not have placed an undue hardship on Defendant to permit Plaintiff
`
`the additional 24 days of leave, as requested. After all, Defendant had yet to recall
`
`all of its laid off staff, and several employees were still waiting to be called back to
`
`work from the Covid layoff.
`
`54.
`
`The Defendant is a subsidiary of a corporation that has 60,000 employees
`
`worldwide and earns approximately $60 billion in annual revenue. The Defendant
`
`has the requisite number of employees to subject
`
`it
`
`to the Americans with
`
`Disabilities Act and the Family and Medical Leave Act.
`
`55.
`
`Plaintiff was understandably distressed over the termination, especially
`
`given that he only needed 24 days before he could return to work without
`
`restrictions. He was also concerned because at the time he was notified of the
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-02052-TWT-RGV Document 1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 15 of 26
`
`denial from The Hartford, he had not heard from the Company, other than the
`
`human resources’s approval of his leave, her inquiry into whether he would need
`
`restrictions upon his leave, and her request that he be examined by the Company
`
`nurse prior to returning.
`
`56.
`
`The Defendant, knowing that it would require Plaintiff to provide a medical
`
`clearance before returning to work, failed to engage in any discussion, let alone an
`
`interactive one, with Plaintiff, as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act.
`
`57.
`
`At
`
`the time of his termination, Plaintiff was just two weeks from his
`
`one-year anniversary with the Company, and he would have been eligible for
`
`certain benefits, including eligibility for FMLA, a pay raise, and 10 days’ vacation.
`
`58.
`
`Defendant’s actions were willful and in intentional disregard for Plaintiff’s
`
`rights.
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-02052-TWT-RGV Document 1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 16 of 26
`
`VI. LEGAL CLAIMS
`
`COUNT I
`VIOLATION OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
`DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION –FAILURE TO ACCOMMODATE
`
`59.
`
`Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if
`
`fully set forth herein.
`
`60.
`
`Congress enacted the ADA (and ADAAA as amended) after recognizing
`
`that “physical or mental disabilities in no way diminish a person’s right to fully
`
`participate in all aspects of society.” Congress also recognized that many
`
`individuals with disabilities face discrimination in the workplace and saw a critical
`
`need to provide protection for those needing it.
`
`61.
`
`The ADA provides that no covered entity "shall discriminate against a
`
`qualified individual on the basis of disability in regard to job application
`
`procedures,
`
`the hiring .
`
`.
`
`. or discharge of employees .
`
`.
`
`. and other terms,
`
`conditions, and privileges of employment." 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a).
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-02052-TWT-RGV Document 1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 17 of 26
`
`62.
`
`An employer unlawfully discriminates against a qualified individual with a
`
`disability when the employer fails to provide “reasonable accommodations for the
`
`disability, unless doing so would impose undue hardship on the employer.”[2]
`
`63.
`
`A qualified individual with a disability under the ADA is defined as a person
`
`with a “physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major
`
`life activities,” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)(A).
`
`64.
`
`Plaintiff’s fractured vertebrae qualified as a “disability”, as defined under the
`
`ADA. Indeed, his condition was extremely painful and impacted his ability to
`
`walk, sit for prolonged periods of time and his ability to work without a reasonable
`
`accommodation.
`
`65.
`
`The ADA requires that employers engage in an interactive process with an
`
`employee making a request
`
`for an accommodation to ascertain whether a
`
`reasonable accommodation can be provided. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3).
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-02052-TWT-RGV Document 1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 18 of 26
`
`66.
`
`On or about August 31, 2020, Plaintiff notified Defendant of his disability
`
`and made a request for a reasonable accommodation. Defendant ultimately granted
`
`his request until November 1, 2020.
`
`67.
`
`On October 27, 2020, Plaintiff
`
`requested a short extension of his
`
`accommodation, and requested to remain off work 24 additional days beyond his
`
`then-existing accommodation. His doctor provided medical support demonstrating
`
`that the additional 24 days of leave was a reasonable accommodation for his
`
`disability and would allow him to return to work after November 25, 2020 without
`
`any further restrictions.
`
`68.
`
`The request for an accommodation was reasonable and could have been
`
`made without an undue hardship to Defendant.
`
`69.
`
`Despite the reasonable request, Defendant denied Plaintiff’s request for the
`
`accommodation and denied the additional 24 days of medical leave.
`
`70.
`
`The accommodation requested by Plaintiff would not have placed an undue
`
`hardship on Defendant or its operational needs.
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-02052-TWT-RGV Document 1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 19 of 26
`
`71.
`
`Defendant failed to engage in any interactive discussion with Plaintiff
`
`regarding his request. Indeed, at no time was Plaintiff told by the Company that his
`
`accommodation would not be granted. Instead, The Hartford communicated the
`
`decision to Plaintiff.
`
`72.
`
`Defendant is an employer and Plaintiff is an employee as those terms are
`
`defined under the ADA.
`
`Defendant’s actions were intentional and willful.
`
`73.
`
`74.
`
`The effect of the practices complained of in Paragraphs 59-73 above, has
`
`been to deprive Plaintiff of equal employment opportunities and otherwise
`
`adversely affect his status as an employee because of his disability.
`
`75.
`
`As a result of Defendant’s unlawful actions as described in this Complaint,
`
`Plaintiff has sustained (and continues to sustain) damages, including lost wages,
`
`emotional distress, and attorney fees.
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-02052-TWT-RGV Document 1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 20 of 26
`
`COUNT II
`
`VIOLATION OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILTIIES ACT
`DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION—UNLAWFUL TERMINATION
`
`76.
`
`Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as if
`
`fully set forth herein.
`
`77.
`
`The ADA provides that no covered entity "shall discriminate against a
`
`qualified individual on the basis of disability in regard to job application
`
`procedures,
`
`the hiring .
`
`.
`
`. or discharge of employees .
`
`.
`
`. and other terms,
`
`conditions, and privileges of employment." 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a).
`
`78.
`
`A qualified individual with a disability under the ADA is defined as a person
`
`with a “physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major
`
`life activities,” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)(A).
`
`79.
`
`Plaintiff’s fractured vertebrae qualified as a “disability”, as defined under the
`
`ADA.
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-02052-TWT-RGV Document 1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 21 of 26
`
`80.
`
`Defendant’s decision to terminate Plaintiff because of his disability is a
`
`violation of the ADA.
`
`81.
`
`Had Plaintiff not been disabled, he would not have been terminated from his
`
`position.
`
`82.
`
`Defendant’s actions were willful and intentional.
`
`83.
`
`The effect of the practices complained of in Paragraphs 76-82 above, has
`
`been to deprive Plaintiff of equal employment opportunities and otherwise
`
`adversely affect his status as an employee because of his disability.
`
`84.
`
`As a result of Defendant’s unlawful actions as described in this Complaint,
`
`Plaintiff has sustained (and continues to sustain) damages, including lost wages,
`
`emotional distress, and attorney fees.
`
`21
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-02052-TWT-RGV Document 1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 22 of 26
`
`COUNT III
`
`VIOLATION OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
`UNLAWFUL RETALIATION
`
`85.
`
`Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as if
`
`fully set forth herein.
`
`86.
`
`The ADA prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee for
`
`asserting his rights under the ADA. 42 U.S.C. § 12132.
`
`87.
`
`An employee participates in a protected activity under the ADA when he
`
`makes a request for a reasonable accommodation.[3]
`
`88.
`
`Defendant
`
`terminated Plaintiff
`
`because
`
`of
`
`his
`
`request
`
`for
`
`the
`
`accommodation, in violation of the ADA.
`
`89.
`
`Defendant’s actions in terminating Plaintiff for asserting his rights under the
`
`ADA is a violation of the ADA.
`
`22
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-02052-TWT-RGV Document 1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 23 of 26
`
`90.
`
`Plaintiff has sustained damages as a result of Defendant’s actions described
`
`herein.
`
`COUNT IV
`
`VIOLATION OF THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT
`UNLAWFUL TERMINATION
`
`91.
`
`Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as if
`
`fully set forth herein.
`
`92.
`
`The FMLA prohibits an employer from interfering with, restraining, or
`
`denying the exercise of, or the attempt to exercise, any FMLA right. 29 CFR §
`
`2601 et seq.
`
`93.
`
`Defendant violated the FMLA by terminating Plaintiff to avoid providing
`
`him with benefits afforded to him under the FMLA.
`
`94.
`
`Defendant is an “employer” and Plaintiff is an “employee”, as those terms
`
`are defined by the FMLA.
`
`23
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-02052-TWT-RGV Document 1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 24 of 26
`
`95.
`
`The termination was in interference of Plaintiff’s rights under the FMLA.
`
`96.
`
`Defendant’s actions were intentional and willful.
`
`97.
`
`As a result of Defendant’s actions, Plaintiff has sustained damages in the
`
`form of lost wages, lost benefits and attorney fees.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`Wherefore, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:
`
`A.
`
`Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Sysco Atlanta, LLC, its
`
`officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons in active concern
`
`or participation with it, from denying reasonable accommodations for disabilities
`
`to employees.
`
`B.
`
`Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Sysco Atlanta, LLC, its
`
`officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons in active concern
`
`or participation with it, from dismissing employees from employment because of
`
`their disabilities.
`
`C.
`
`Order Defendant to institute and carry out policies, practices and programs
`
`which provide equal employment opportunities for individuals with disabilities,
`
`24
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-02052-TWT-RGV Document 1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 25 of 26
`
`and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment
`
`practices.
`
`D.
`
`Order Defendant to provide an annual training program regarding the
`
`anti-discrimination policy to all of
`
`its owners, managers, supervisors and
`
`employees.
`
`E.
`
`Grant a judgment requiring Defendant to pay appropriate lost wages and
`
`benefits, to be determined at trial.
`
`F.
`
`Grant a judgment requiring Defendant to pay compensatory and punitive
`
`damages to Plaintiff in an amount to compensate him for the egregious violations
`
`inflicted upon him.
`
`G.
`
`Order Defendant to make Plaintiff whole by providing the affirmative relief
`
`necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful practices, including but not limited
`
`to providing Plaintiff with front pay to Plaintiff.
`
`H.
`
`Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the
`
`public interest.
`
`I. Award Plaintiff the cost of this action, including reasonable attorney fees.
`
`25
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cv-02052-TWT-RGV Document 1 Filed 05/23/22 Page 26 of 26
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMAND
`
`Plaintiff requests a jury trial in this matter.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`s/Benjamin F. Barrett Jr.
`Benjamin F. Barrett Jr.
`Georgia Bar No. 039586
`
`Ben Barrett Law
`1050 Crown Pointe Pkwy., Suite 500
`Atlanta, GA 30338
`Phone: 404-845-7449
`Ben@BenBarrettLaw.com
`
`Attorney for Edward Rhodes
`
`[1] Quoted directly from the Company’s Job Description for the position of Order
`Selector.
`[2] See for example, W.W. Grainger, Inc., 257 F.3d 1249, 1255 (11th Cir. 2001).
`[3] Frazier-White v. Gee, 818 F.3d 1249, 1258 (11th Cir. 2016).
`
`26
`
`