`
`Jeffrey J. Hepworth, ISB No. 3455
`J. Grady Hepworth, ISB No. 10364
`HEPWORTH LAW OFFICES
`2229 W. State Street
`P.O. Box 2815
`Boise, ID 83702-2815
`Telephone: (208) 333-0702
`Facsimile: (208) 246-8655
`courtservice@idalawyer.com
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
`
`
` Case No._________________
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR
`JURY TRIAL
`
`
`MISTY D. Tucker, an individual
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`
`NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS, INC., a
`Delaware Corporation registered and doing
`business in the State of Idaho; JOHN DOE
`CORPORATIONS I-V, unknown
`corporations or business entities,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, Misty D. Tucker (“Plaintiff” or “Tucker”), by and through her
`
`counsel of record, Hepworth Law Offices, for causes of action arising from the discrimination,
`
`disparate treatment, and wrongful termination Ms. Tucker experienced in the course of her
`
`employment with Nutrien Ag Solutions, Inc. (“Nutrien”) (formerly known as Agrium/Crop
`
`Production Services, Inc.) Nutrien discriminated and wrongfully terminated Ms. Tucker in violation
`
`
`COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
` - 1
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00411-DCN Document 1 Filed 08/20/20 Page 2 of 10
`
`of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 et seq. and the Idaho Human Rights Act,
`
`I.C. § 67-5909 et seq. Ms. Tucker seeks monetary damages for her lost wages and general damages
`
`for her emotional distress.
`
`I.
`
` PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE
`
`1.
`
`The Plaintiff, Misty Tucker, is a white female born in November 1987. Ms. Tucker is a
`
`United States citizen currently residing in Buhl, Idaho. Ms. Tucker graduated with an Associate
`
`degree in biology from the College of Southern Idaho, as well as a bachelor’s degree in Agricultural
`
`Sciences from the University of Idaho.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant Nutrien Ag Solutions, Inc. (“Nutrien”) (formerly known as Agrium/Crop
`
`Production Services, Inc. and referred to as “CPS”) is a Delaware corporation registered and doing
`
`business in the State of Idaho, with a registered agent as C T Corporation System, 921 S. Orchard St.
`
`STE G. Boise, ID 83705. Nutrien is engaged in business in at least forty-eight states, including a
`
`facility in Wendell, Idaho (“Wendell Facility”) where Ms. Tucker was employed.
`
`3.
`
`Defendant John Doe Corporations I-V are unknown corporations or other forms of business
`
`entities that may have directly or indirectly employed Misty Tucker and are liable for the acts of
`
`discrimination alleged herein, but whose identities and true names are not known at this time.
`
`4.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The Plaintiff asserts federal subject
`
`matter jurisdiction pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2 et seq.
`
`5.
`
`This Court has supplemental jurisdiction of the state law claims under the Idaho Human
`
`Rights Act, and tortious causes of action asserted herein pursuant to 23 U.S.C. § 1367. The factual
`
`basis of the state law claims brought under the Idaho Human Rights Act and tortious conduct are
`
`identical to the operative facts underlying the federal claims.
`
`
`COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
` - 2
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00411-DCN Document 1 Filed 08/20/20 Page 3 of 10
`
`6.
`
`Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 1391 and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3). The United
`
`States District Court for the District of Idaho is the federal judicial district embracing the City of
`
`Wendell in Gooding County, Idaho, where the unlawful employment practices were committed, and
`
`where the employment records relevant to such practice are maintained and administered.
`
`7.
`
`Ms. Tucker filed a timely complaint with the Idaho Human Rights Commission (“IHRC”)
`
`and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) on or about July 24, 2018. The
`
`IHRC and EEOC issued their Notice of Right to Sue on May 29, 2020. Less than ninety-days has
`
`elapsed since both agencies issued the Notices of Right to Sue, and Ms. Tucker has exhausted all
`
`administrative remedies under law.
`
`II. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`8.
`
`Ms. Tucker was hired by Nutrien (at the time Agrium/Crop Production Services) in
`
`November 2016 as a crop consultant, working at the Wendell Facility located at 564 S Idaho St.
`
`Wendell, ID 83355. Ms. Tucker’s job duties included selling company products and services,
`
`maintaining a sales program within her assigned territory and accounts, and monitoring competitive
`
`activities and trends. Ms. Tucker was hired by Facility Manager Mac Brown.
`
`9.
`
`Upon information and belief, Ms. Tucker was the first female crop consultant ever hired by
`
`Mr. Brown. At the time of her employment, Ms. Tucker was the only female employee at the
`
`Wendell facility who was not an administrative assistant.
`
`10. Ms. Tucker was hired at the same time as two other male employees. Ms. Tucker understood
`
`that the three new hires would be taking over consulting territories held by older male employees
`
`who were retiring. Whereas one of the new hires left for a different company not long after starting,
`
`Ms. Tucker trained with one of the male employees, Wyatt Andreasen. Ms. Tucker believes she and
`
`
`COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
` - 3
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00411-DCN Document 1 Filed 08/20/20 Page 4 of 10
`
`Mr. Andreasen were hired for materially the same position, and thus had substantially equal skills,
`
`abilities, and responsibilities, and performed duties under similar working conditions within the
`
`same establishment. However, both individuals had noticeably different career trajectories as a result
`
`of the disparate opportunities given to them by Defendants.
`
`11.
`
`As she and Mr. Andreasen were training, Ms. Tucker began to be treated differently than her
`
`male counterpart. For example, in January 2017, both new hires were required to obtain a CDL
`
`license for their positions. However, only Mr. Andreasen was told to get his Class A license. Mr.
`
`Andreasen was also required to get forklift trained, whereas Ms. Tucker was specifically told not to.
`
`Ms. Tucker was also not fit tested for chemical safety gear, such as a respirator, even though Mr.
`
`Andreasen was told that the equipment was mandatory for all crop consultants. Ms. Tucker was also
`
`never given a key to the office, despite the fact all new hires had a key. To her knowledge, Ms.
`
`Tucker was the only employee who never received one. Ultimately Mr. Andreasen was given
`
`substantially greater training and mentorship by his male colleagues throughout the course of his
`
`career, including a “book of business” and prospective clients. Ms. Tucker was never offered any
`
`mentorship or career opportunities because of her gender.
`
`12. Ms. Tucker also observed prejudice against women in the workplace. For example, one of the
`
`managers, Jeremy, refused to talk to or respond to Ms. Tucker’s emails for nearly the duration of her
`
`employment at CPS. Ms. Tucker also observed another manager, Chris Smith, refuse to work with a
`
`female consultant from Dow Chemical Company simply on the basis of her gender. When Mr. Smith
`
`was asked by Mr. Brown why he would not work with the Dow Chemical employee, Mr. Smith
`
`replied, “she would prefer me pussy-whipped.” Other employees followed Mr. Smith’s sexist lead.
`
`Ms. Tucker remembers Mr. Smith was struggling to replace a microwave at work, and one of the co-
`
`
`COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
` - 4
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00411-DCN Document 1 Filed 08/20/20 Page 5 of 10
`
`workers made fun of him by saying “hey, your skirt is showing.” Whereas Ms. Tucker tried to ignore
`
`the derogatory comments of her older, male colleagues, they are nonetheless indicative of how the
`
`company treated their only female crop consultant.
`
`13. Within months of being hired, Ms. Tucker and her husband became pregnant with their
`
`second child. Ms. Tucker continued training and working towards getting acclimated in her new job,
`
`including attending the winter sales meeting.
`
`14.
`
`In approximately April 2017, Ms. Tucker had complications with her pregnancy, which
`
`caused her to have trouble walking. Because of the complications, Ms. Tucker had to go on short-
`
`term disability leave that month. Ms. Tucker had her second child who was born on May 26, 2017,
`
`and Ms. Tucker returned to work on August 1, 2017.
`
`15.
`
`However, upon returning to work with full medical clearance, Ms. Tucker found that
`
`Defendant refused to give her the same opportunities as her male colleagues. Whereas a major
`
`portion of most crop consultant’s roles is done while making sales calls and spending time managing
`
`accounts in the field, Defendant asked Ms. Tucker to focus on implementing a new software that the
`
`company was rolling out. Ms. Tucker gladly complied, as she had experience with similar programs
`
`through her formal education and her previous job experience with other companies.
`
`16. Ms. Tucker understood the implementation of the software was in the course and scope of her
`
`duties as a crop consultant, and Ms. Tucker was never approached about changing her position title
`
`or her core duties.
`
`17. Ms. Tucker continued to complete sales calls, specifically by cold-calling account leads in
`
`her territory. Crop Consultants are entitled to commissions and/or bonuses based on sales and
`
`accounts opened. In an effort to make more sales, she began cold-calling more prospective clients,
`
`
`COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
` - 5
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00411-DCN Document 1 Filed 08/20/20 Page 6 of 10
`
`and performing other client outreach.
`
`18. Ms. Tucker filed multiple verbal complaints with Mac Brown regarding the adverse
`
`treatment she was experiencing. Ms. Tucker complained about male colleagues, such as Chris Smith,
`
`avoiding her emails and calls. Ms. Tucker requested that Mr. Brown assist in job shadow training
`
`with other employees (as he had for male colleagues), which he refused to do.
`
`19.
`
`As a result of Defendant’s gender bias, or as retaliation for Ms. Tucker’s complaints about
`
`disparate treatment, Ms. Tucker was also told she could not attend the CPS winter sales meeting in
`
`2018.
`
`20. Ms. Tucker was also excluded from many company or after-work social events. The male
`
`employees in the company would often get drinks after work or go to lunch together. CPS employees
`
`hosted a family fish smoke BBQ, in which many of the male employees invited their spouses, but
`
`Ms. Tucker was not invited.
`
`21.
`
`Unexpectedly, Ms. Tucker was given a Termination letter dated April 6, 2018. Whereas the
`
`letter did not provide a reason for the termination, Ms. Tucker followed up with Mr. Brown as to
`
`why she was being fired. Mr. Brown’s only response was “I have no use for you.” Ms. Tucker
`
`pressed him and mentioned that she had her CDL and that she knew there was a position open as a
`
`driver, but Mr. Brown told her that the decision was final. Mr. Brown refused to consider Ms. Tucker
`
`for other positions that she was preeminently qualified for because of her gender.
`
`22.
`
`Upon information and belief, Ms. Tucker’s crop consultant position was later filled by a male
`
`employee.
`
`23. Ms. Tucker alleges that her termination was motivated by bias and discrimination because of
`
`her gender as the only female crop consultant, and as result of the disparate treatment she received
`
`
`COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
` - 6
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00411-DCN Document 1 Filed 08/20/20 Page 7 of 10
`
`during the course of her employment.
`
`III. CAUSES OF ACTION
`
`COUNT ONE:
`
`DISCRIMINATION AND DISPARATE TREATMENT IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VII OF
`THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT
`
`Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all paragraphs set forth above.
`
`24.
`
`25.
`
`Plaintiff, a female, is a member of a protected class under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act,
`
`42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 et seq.
`
`26. Ms. Tucker was highly qualified to perform the duties of a crop consultant throughout the
`
`duration of her employment with Defendant.
`
`27. Ms. Tucker was subjected to numerous adverse employment actions because of her gender as
`
`a female employee. Ms. Tucker endured verbal disparagement and sexist comments exhibiting bias
`
`and animus towards female professionals.
`
`28. Ms. Tucker received disparate treatment throughout her employment, particularly in light of
`
`the objectively favorable treatment received by directly comparable male employees. Ms. Tucker
`
`received inferior training, inferior job opportunities, and was subject to disparate discipline and
`
`pretextual criticism.
`
`29.
`
`Defendants’ pretextual criticism of Ms. Tucker was based upon sexist and gendered
`
`stereotypes, and not consistent with bonafide occupational qualifications or performance and merit.
`
`30.
`
`Defendants refused to consider Ms. Tucker for other open positions in the company because
`
`of her gender, despite her qualifications.
`
`31.
`
`As a result of Defendant’s discrimination and disparate treatment, Ms. Tucker suffered
`
`substantial damages, including past and future lost wages, loss of earning capacity, lost retirement
`
`COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
` - 7
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00411-DCN Document 1 Filed 08/20/20 Page 8 of 10
`
`and insurance benefits, lost healthcare and child support benefits, and general damages of pain,
`
`suffering, emotional distress, and loss of enjoyment of life.
`
`COUNT TWO:
`
`VIOLATION OF I.C. § 67-5909 et seq. (“IHRA”)
`
` Ms. Tucker realleges and incorporates by reference all paragraphs set forth above.
`
`The IHRA prohibits employers from discriminating because of gender. Ms. Tucker was
`
`32.
`
`33.
`
`among a protected class as a minority of female employees, and the only female crop consultant.
`
`34. Ms. Tucker was subjected to numerous adverse employment actions because of her gender as
`
`a female employee. Ms. Tucker endured verbal disparagement and sexist comments exhibiting bias
`
`and animus towards female professionals.
`
`35. Ms. Tucker received disparate treatment throughout her employment, particularly in light of
`
`the objectively favorable treatment received by directly comparable male employees. Ms. Tucker
`
`received inferior training, inferior job opportunities, and was subject to disparate discipline and
`
`pretextual criticism.
`
`36.
`
`37.
`
`Defendants’ pretextual criticism of Ms. Tucker was based in sexist and gendered stereotypes.
`
`Defendants refused to consider Ms. Tucker for other open positions in the company because
`
`of her gender.
`
`38.
`
`As a result of Defendant’s discrimination and disparate treatment, Ms. Tucker suffered
`
`substantial damages, including past and future lost wages, loss of earning capacity, lost retirement
`
`and insurance benefits, lost healthcare and child support benefits, and general damages of pain,
`
`suffering, emotional distress, and loss of enjoyment of life.
`
`
`COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
` - 8
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00411-DCN Document 1 Filed 08/20/20 Page 9 of 10
`
`IV. ATTORNEY’S FEES
`
`39.
`
`As a result of the wrongful conduct of Defendants, as alleged above, Misty Tucker has been
`
`reasonably required to hire the law firm of Hepworth Law Offices to prosecute this action. Pursuant
`
`to I.C. 12–120(3), I.C. 12-121, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k), 42 U.S.C. § 1988, and Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)–
`
`(e), Ms. Tucker is entitled to a reasonable award of costs and attorney’s fees. A reasonable attorney’s
`
`fee rate is $400.00 per hour for all time worked.
`
`V. DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY
`
`40. Ms. Tucker demands a trial by jury pursuant to Fed. R. of Civ. P. 38, U.S. Const.
`
`Amendment VII, and Idaho Const. art. I, § 7 for all claims and all issues related to liability and
`
`damages.
`
`VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Misty Tucker respectfully prays for judgment against Nutrien Ag Solutions, Inc. as
`
`follows:
`
`A.
`
`For money judgment as compensation for all past and future lost income, liquidated
`
`damages, and other special and general damages sustained by Ms. Tucker which will be
`
`proven at trial, but which damages will be substantial and more than $75,000.00;
`
`B.
`
`Reasonable value of all lost employment benefits, child care and medical benefits, as well as
`
`retirement benefits;
`
`C.
`
`For reinstatement to her previous position or an equivalent, or in lieu of reinstatement, future
`
`lost wages in an amount to be proven at trial;
`
`D.
`
`For all reasonable court costs, expert fees, and attorney fees incurred by the Plaintiff in
`
`prosecution of the present action pursuant to Federal law and the laws of the State of Idaho;
`
`
`COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
` - 9
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-00411-DCN Document 1 Filed 08/20/20 Page 10 of 10
`
`E.
`
`Monetary compensation for any additional tax liability incurred because of lump-sum
`
`judgment or other remuneration recovered;
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`Pre-and/or post-judgment interest pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1961 and I.C. § 28-22-104;
`
`For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable.
`
`DATED this 20th Day of August, 2020
`
`
`
`HEPWORTH LAW OFFICES
`
`/s/ J. Grady Hepworth_________
`Jeffrey J. Hepworth, ISB No. 3455
`J. Grady Hepworth, ISB No. 10364
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
` - 10
`
`