throbber
Case: 1:23-cv-02735 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/01/23 Page 1 of 17 PageID #:1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 1:23-cv-02735
`
`
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EUGENE EDMOND AND QUINTON JONES, )
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`vs.
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`AMAZON.COM INC.,
`)
`
`AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`__________________________________________)
`
`
`
`
`
`NOW COMES the Plaintiffs, EUGENE EDMOND (“Edmond”) and QUINTON
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`JONES (“Jones”) (jointly “Plaintiffs”), by and through their attorneys, Lázaro Law Group,
`
`LLC and for their Complaint against AMAZON.COM, INC. and/or AMAZON.COM
`
`SERVICES LLC (“Amazon” or “Defendant”), state as follows:
`
`NATURE OF ACTION
`
`
`
`This action challenges pervasive race discriminatory and retaliatory practices at
`
`Amazon’s fulfillment center located in Waukegan, Illinois. While employed by Defendant,
`
`Plaintiffs and other similarly situated African-Americans were subjected to harassment,
`
`discrimination, and retaliation based on their race and their opposition to the harassment
`
`and discrimination they suffered.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:23-cv-02735 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/01/23 Page 2 of 17 PageID #:2
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`Plaintiffs’ claims arise under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (“Title
`
`1.
`
`VII”), Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (“Section 1981”)
`
`and the Illinois Human Rights Act. (“IHRA”), 775 ILCS 5 et seq.
`
`2.
`
`The Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and
`
`§1343 as this action involves federal questions regarding the deprivation of Plaintiff’s
`
`rights under Title VII and Section 1981.
`
`3.
`
`The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ related claims
`
`arising under state law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
`
`4.
`
`Venue is proper in the Northern District of Illinois pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
`
`1391(b). Defendant’s unlawful conduct took place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
`
`Court.
`
`5.
`
`Plaintiffs filed timely charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity
`
`Commission (“EEOC”) and the Illinois Department of Human Rights (“IDHR”) and
`
`received Notice of Right to Sue, thereby fully complying with the procedural requirements.
`
`PARTIES
`
`6.
`
`Eugene Edmond (“Edmond”) is an African American ex-manager of
`
`Amazon who was employed from September 2016 until his unlawful termination on April
`
`30, 2021.
`
`7.
`
`Quinton Jones (“Jones”) is an African American Human Resources
`
`professional who was employed by Amazon from September 2017 until January 2021.
`
`8.
`
`Amazon.com, Inc. and/or Amazon.com Services LLC (“Defendant” or
`
`“Amazon”) is a Delaware registered corporation with operations in Waukegan IL, and
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case: 1:23-cv-02735 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/01/23 Page 3 of 17 PageID #:3
`
`throughout the country. Amazon is the world’s largest online marketplace. To fulfill its
`
`needs, Amazon has an extensive distribution network consisting of at least 75 fulfillment
`
`centers and 25 sortation centers. One of these fulfillment centers is located in Waukegan,
`
`Illinois.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`Defendant engaged in Pervasive Systematic Race Discrimination, Harassment,
`and Retaliation against African Americans in its Distribution Centers
`
`During Plaintiffs’ employment with Defendant and to this day, Defendant
`
`9.
`
`engaged in a pattern of discriminatory conduct against African American. As described
`
`more fully below, Respondent has and continues to engage in a pattern and practice of
`
`discriminating
`
`against
`
`its African-American
`
`employees
`
`employed
`
`in
`
`their
`
`fulfillment/distribution centers, including Plaintiffs, and of failing to provide African-
`
`Americans with equal opportunities to advance in their careers.
`
`10.
`
`Defendant maintains stereotypical views about African-Americans that
`
`form the basis of personnel decisions and create an environment where occupational
`
`segregation, disparate treatment, and harassment are pervasive and condoned.
`
`11.
`
`Respondent’s pattern and practice of race discrimination is ongoing, as
`
`demonstrated in part by the dramatic, historic, and continued underrepresentation of
`
`African-Americans in the upper echelons of management.
`
`12.
`
`Respondent’s success and speed in the marketplace have been possible
`
`because Amazon and its founder, Jeff Bezos, pioneered new ways of mass-managing
`
`people through technology, relying on a maze of systems and metrics that treats employees
`
`as numbers.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case: 1:23-cv-02735 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/01/23 Page 4 of 17 PageID #:4
`
`13.
`
`In contrast to its precise, sophisticated processing of packages, Amazon’s
`
`model for managing people is uneven and strained, resulting in mistreatment and unfairness
`
`towards its minority employees – especially African Americans.
`
`14.
`
`Amazon’s human resources department is ineffective at resolving
`
`complaints of race discrimination and harassment and, as a result, many African-
`
`Americans recognize the futility of lodging internal complaints. Those who do come
`
`forward are retaliated against.
`
`15.
`
`Respondent is and has been aware of the past and current discriminatory
`
`impact of its actions, policies, and practices at the highest levels of the organization.
`
`16.
`
`Several former executives who helped design Amazon’s systems have made
`
`public comments to the effect that the Company’s pressure over productivity and
`
`consequences of scaling up has led to unfair results.
`
`17.
`
`David Niekerk, a former Amazon vice president who built the warehouse
`
`human resources operation, has said that Amazon’s problems stemmed from ideas the
`
`company had developed when it was much smaller. Mr. Bezos did not want an entrenched
`
`workforce, calling it “a march to mediocrity.” As Amazon rapidly grew, Mr. Niekerk said,
`
`its policies were harder to implement with fairness and care. “It is just a numbers game in
`
`many ways,” he has said.
`
`18.
`
`Amazon has intentionally instituted a policy or practice that limits the
`
`upward mobility of hourly workers and lower-level managers who – as a group -- are
`
`largely African American. The result of this policy is especially evident in Amazon’s
`
`warehouses where Amazon’s workforce is highly segregated. Whereas workers of color –
`
`especially African Americans fuel Amazon’s warehouse operation and comprise around
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case: 1:23-cv-02735 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/01/23 Page 5 of 17 PageID #:5
`
`60% of the lower-paying jobs (e.g., laborers and helpers); most managers (around 70%)
`
`are white or Asian.
`
`19.
`
`Indeed, Amazon’s diversity plan acknowledges that the company has an
`
`occupational segregation problem. In the pertinent part, the plan states that the company
`
`wants to “retain employees at statistically similar rates across demographics”.
`
`20.
`
`The Covid-19 pandemic only served to intensify Amazon’s discrimination
`
`against African American warehouse workers. Amid the pandemic, Amazon’s systems
`
`continued to track every minute of every worker’s shift. If productivity wanned, Amazon’s
`
`systems assumed the worker was to blame, thus fostering the stereotype that African
`
`American workers are lazy.
`
`21.
`
`During the Covid-19 pandemic, Amazon burned through workers –
`
`disproportionately terminating African American workers when compared to non-African
`
`American workers. African Americans are much more likely (some estimates go as high
`
`as 50% more likely) to be terminated than their white peers.
`
`22.
`
`Amazon’s pattern and practice of discrimination and retaliatory conduct
`
`against African Americans in its distribution centers include but is not limited to:
`
`
`
`a)
`
`
`b)
`
`c)
`
`d)
`
`
`e)
`
`
`
`the upward mobility of
`limit
`to promote and or
`failing
`AfricanAmericans, including to management;
`
`underutilizing African-Americans in high paying jobs;
`
`steering African-Americans into lower-paying positions;
`
`employing discriminatory recruiting, hiring, and promotion
`practices;
`
`taking race into account when making employment decisions,
`including but not limited to decisions regarding training;
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:23-cv-02735 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/01/23 Page 6 of 17 PageID #:6
`
`f)
`
`
`g)
`
`
`h)
`
`
`i)
`
`
`j)
`
`
`k)
`
`
`l)
`
`failing to credit African-Americans for their experience on the same
`basis as non-African-Americans and failing to consider African-
`Americans for timely promotions on the same basis as non-African-
`Americans;
`
`that disproportionately
`and practices
`employing policies
`disadvantage African-Americans and/or that reinforce and continue
`the disparate impact of past discrimination;
`
`failing to apply and enforce Amazon’s policies in a consistent, race-
`neutral fashion;
`
`systematically paying African-Americans lower wages and/or
`denying African-Americans opportunities to increase their earnings;
`
`individuals with known
`negligently hiring and/or retaining
`propensities to discriminate against or harass African-Americans;
`
`creating an environment that is hostile and offensive to African-
`Americans;
`
`complain of
`against African-Americans who
`retaliating
`discrimination by, among other things, subjecting them to further
`discrimination, retaliation, verbal attacks, discipline, reassignment,
`and/or termination;
`
`
`m) making employment decisions based on racial stereotypes;
`
`n)
`
`employing policies and practices that have a disparate impact
`against African-Americans.
`
`
`Amazon Subjected Plaintiffs to Unlawful Discrimination and Retaliation
`
`
`
`23.
`
`Consistent with Amazon’s pattern and practice of unlawful treatment
`
`towards African-Americans, Plaintiffs were subjected to race discrimination throughout
`
`their careers at Amazon.
`
`24. Amazon failed to provide Plaintiffs with the same opportunities to
`
`succeed and for promotion as non-African-Americans.
`
`25.
`
`Plaintiffs did not receive the same level of resources, mentoring, and
`
`managerial support as their white and/or non-African American counterparts.
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case: 1:23-cv-02735 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/01/23 Page 7 of 17 PageID #:7
`
`26. As a result, Plaintiffs received lower wages than similarly situated non-
`
`African-Americans.
`
`27.
`
`Like other African-Americans at Amazon’s distribution centers, Plaintiffs
`
`were subjected to a hostile work environment in which African-Americans are treated
`
`as inferior.
`
`A.
`
`28.
`
`Quinton Jones
`
`Jones was employed by Amazon at its Waukegan Illinois fulfillment
`
`center from September 27, 2017, until his unlawful termination on January 21, 2021.
`
`29.
`
`As soon as Jones commenced his employment with Amazon he noticed
`
`the stark racial disparities at the Waukegan location. Most -- if not all -- of the senior
`
`leadership at the location was white. In terms of leadership in general, out of about 18
`
`supervisors, there were only 3 to 4 minorities who held leadership positions.
`
`30.
`
`The numbers are equally dreadful at Human Resources. At the time of
`
`Jones’ employment all the leaders who work at Human Resources were white.
`
`31.
`
`During Jones’ employment a Human Resources Assistant (HRA) full-
`
`time position opened up. Even though Jones was highly qualified for the position, was
`
`the only HR person working at the location, and expressed interest in the same, Amazon
`
`denied him the promotion. Instead, Amazon promoted a white male. The reasons for
`
`the failure to promote Jones were a pretext for discrimination.
`
`32.
`
`Eventually, Jones applied again to the HRA position, and based on his
`
`past performance he was finally promoted in March 2019. Amazon however refused to
`
`pay Jones what other non-African American HRAs were making. Whereas the position
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case: 1:23-cv-02735 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/01/23 Page 8 of 17 PageID #:8
`
`was listed as a Level 4 position, for no justifiable reason Amazon placed Jones in a
`
`Level 3 position.
`
`33.
`
`As an HRA, Jones did not receive the necessary support from his
`
`superiors. At Amazon, Jones reported to six (6) Human resources managers – all of
`
`whom were white. All of Jones’ superiors were located outside Illinois.
`
`34.
`
`As the Assistant Human Resources for the Waukegan location, Jones
`
`became privy to acts of discrimination committed by Amazon leaders. At the Waukegan
`
`location, Jones observed that leaders belonged to a “club” and protected each other to
`
`the detriment of African-Americans.
`
`35.
`
`During his time at Human Resources, Jones learned of at least eight (8)
`
`complaints of discrimination and/or mistreatment brought by African American
`
`employees. Rather than appropriately investigate and take corrective action, Amazon
`
`brushed off the complaints and threw them under the rug.
`
`36. At times Jones would push back pointing out, for example, that the white
`
`manager subject to a complaint had been the subject of discrimination complaints in the
`
`past. Jones’ input was ignored.
`
`37. At one point, Brad Dietz, the Operations Manager called African-
`
`American females who were protesting the brutal working conditions “worthless” and
`
`asked Jones whether the females could be “terminated.” Jones was shaken by what is
`
`clearly retaliatory behavior.
`
`38.
`
`Leaders at the Waukegan location would overwork the two black
`
`managers of the location and give them the worst jobs.
`
`39.
`
`Jones observed the mistreatment of one of the African-American
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case: 1:23-cv-02735 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/01/23 Page 9 of 17 PageID #:9
`
`managers and co-plaintiff Eugene Edmond. The white leaders of the location would
`
`ignore his needs, not give him credit for the excellent job he was doing, sidetracked his
`
`career, and retaliated against him after he complained.
`
`40.
`
`Edmond was moved to the worst days to accommodate a white woman
`
`in clear retaliation for his complaints and eventually terminated.
`
`41.
`
`Jones has knowledge that: (a) Edmond’s termination violated Amazons’
`
`own established practices and (b) that at least two other white managers engaged in the
`
`same behavior that led to Edmond’s termination but were not terminated. In fact, the
`
`behavior was caught on camera, but white managers decided to protect their own and
`
`turn a blind eye. White managers were heard saying – “the footage does not exist – you
`
`never saw it”.
`
`42. On January 21, 2021, Jones was unlawfully terminated for the pretextual
`
`reason of “stealing time from the company.”
`
`43.
`
`Peak season would require warehouse employees to work 50-60 hours a
`
`week. Part of Jones’ duties included handling overtime changes for seven hundred
`
`employees and updating schedules for the twenty two different cohorts of the
`
`warehouse. On many occasions, Jones had less than twenty-four hours to make these
`
`changes.
`
`44. Without the necessary support, making the changes required Jones to
`
`work overtime, often from home. Indeed, throughout his time at Amazon, every year
`
`Jones had worked overtime during peak season to ensure business continuity.
`
`45.
`
`In the later part of 2020, Jones was asked by leaders in operations to do
`
`whatever was necessary – including working overtime -- to change schedules. Jones
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case: 1:23-cv-02735 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/01/23 Page 10 of 17 PageID #:10
`
`followed instructions and worked tirelessly to ensure that schedules were timely
`
`updated.
`
`46.
`
`Even though Jones was asked to work overtime, had worked overtime in
`
`past years, and had never been warned or disciplined relating to his prior overtime
`
`requests (or for any reason) he was summarily fired for “stealing time.”
`
`47.
`
`Jones requests for a full investigation that would have shown that he
`
`charged only time that he worked was denied. Other employees who are not African
`
`American also worked overtime but were not fired.
`
`B.
`
`48.
`
`Eugene Edmond
`
` Edmond was employed by Amazon from September 2016 until his
`
`unlawful termination on April 30, 2021.
`
`49.
`
`Edmond was originally hired by Amazon in an entry-level position at its
`
`Joliet location – a Level 1 position.
`
`50. During his job orientation, Edmond asked about the possibility of
`
`obtaining a more senior position as he has an undergraduate degree and had prior
`
`managerial experience. Edmond was immediately shot down by white managers who
`
`simply told him that “he wasn’t qualified.”
`
`51.
`
`Shortly thereafter Edmond obtained a seasonal process assistant position.
`
`Although normally the position is only held for about 90 days and individuals move to
`
`full-time positions thereafter Edmond stayed in the position for more than 180 days.
`
`52.
`
`In or around March 2017, Edmond interviewed for a full-time Process
`
`Assistant position. During the interview, the white manager – Robert Borges
`
`(“Borges”) – asked only one question which was related to football. Edmond was so
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case: 1:23-cv-02735 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/01/23 Page 11 of 17 PageID #:11
`
`concerned about the interview that he went to Human Resources and explained that he
`
`felt uncomfortable with the way Borges handled the interview.
`
`53. During the next several months Edmond continued to have contact with
`
`Borges. During these meetings, Borges would insist on calling Edmond by the name of
`
`another black associate. Edmond would correct Borges and Borges would respond “you
`
`guys all look alike” or words to that effect. Edmond would correct him that they did not,
`
`but Borges would continue to call him by the wrong name. It got to the point where
`
`Edmond’s manager – a black female – made a complaint to Human Resources on
`
`Edmond’s behalf.
`
`54.
`
`Eventually, Edmond found out that Human Resources had taken no action
`
`after he complained about the interview he had with Borges. He was told by the head of
`
`Human Resources that there was no record of him interviewing for the position.
`
`Edmond’s fears that the process was rigged were confirmed when ultimately the position
`
`was given to a white male who – in contrast to Edmond – only had a high school diploma
`
`and no previous experience.
`
`55.
`
`In 2018, Edmond finally moved to a full-time Process Assistant position.
`
`To obtain this position, however, Edmond was relegated to the night shift. Initially,
`
`Edmond received only 2 days of training (whereas others received 3 to 5 weeks).
`
`56.
`
`Edmond complained to the general manager about the lack of training as
`
`he was being blamed by his manager for “not being able to keep up”. Even though
`
`eventually Edmond received a few weeks of training his manager denied his request for
`
`additional cross-training that would have allowed better performance.
`
`57.
`
`Edmond spent two years on the night shift. During this time, Edmond
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case: 1:23-cv-02735 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/01/23 Page 12 of 17 PageID #:12
`
`would repeatedly ask his managers for better opportunities. Edmond however was told
`
`that “he was not a leader.”
`
`58.
`
`Edmond noticed the stark racial disparities at the Waukegan location for
`
`those that were considered “leaders”. Most -- if not all -- of the senior leadership at the
`
`location was white. In terms of leadership in general, out of about 18, there were only 3
`
`to 4 minorities who held leadership positions.
`
`59.
`
`Edmond strived to obtain a manager position but was consistently shot
`
`down. He was told he needed two years of experience and a bachelor’s degree. Even
`
`though Edmond amply complied with the requirements for a promotion, white leaders
`
`would often tell him that he was “not qualified” as he was “not a leader”.
`
`60.
`
`Even though his numbers were excellent, Amazon hired several outside
`
`white managers instead of Edmond. At one point a white operations manager told
`
`Edmond that his numbers were “ok” and that “in his case” he needed to deep dive.
`
`61.
`
`Edmond complained and specifically stated that he wasn’t being
`
`promoted due to his race. He asked the general manager why others were being hired to
`
`better positions while he was being left behind even though he had excellent numbers.
`
`The general manager provided no viable explanations.
`
`62. Ultimately, Edmond became a Level 4 manager in or around December
`
`2019. Without the benefit of support or training, Edmond persisted. Edmond came up
`
`with a new process. Under his leadership, he took the Waukegan distribution center from
`
`one of the highest defect rates to zero defects. Edmond wrote a white paper which was
`
`recognized nationally, and his process was incorporated throughout Amazon.
`
`63.
`
`Edmond desired and commenced training for an operations manager
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case: 1:23-cv-02735 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/01/23 Page 13 of 17 PageID #:13
`
`position. His white managers, however, set him up for failure. They moved Edmond to
`
`the most excruciating position in the whole operation (outbound), failed to support him
`
`and train him, and gave him an unrealistic amount of work. The general manager, as
`
`well as his direct manager, would overwork Edmond, change his goals constantly and
`
`not even talk to Edmond except to provide criticism.
`
`64.
`
`Edmond complained to the Operations Manager Mike Casale as well as
`
`to Human Resources.
`
`65.
`
`Eventually Edmond was moved to inbound where he ran 2 shifts during
`
`the night shift. Even though his numbers were excellent, and he had obtained the shift
`
`plant manager position, Edmond was passed over for promotion and moved again to
`
`outbound where he was told he would need to “start from the bottom and move up.”
`
`66. During this time, Edmond was given the worst schedule, he was again
`
`denied the appropriate training, denied a transfer request, given higher goals than his
`
`colleagues, given more difficult end of shift requirements and exposed to racial
`
`comments. For example, his manager would make negative comments about the black
`
`lives matter movement stating such things as “the Black Lives Matter movement is just
`
`a façade to get free stuff” and “your friends are protesting to loot and get free stuff.”
`
`67.
`
`Edmond complained again to Mike Casale and specifically stated that he
`
`was being targeted because he is black.
`
`68.
`
`Rather than protect Edmond, Amazon leaders permitted the same
`
`individuals against who Edmond had complained about to falsely accuse Edmond of
`
`theft, and proceeded to conduct a shoddy investigation against Edmond. Edmond was
`
`told that he was allegedly observed taking food from the kiosk and not paying for it.
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case: 1:23-cv-02735 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/01/23 Page 14 of 17 PageID #:14
`
`69. On April 30, 2021, Edmond received a voice mail from his direct manager
`
`(a person who he had accused of discrimination) stating that his employment was being
`
`terminated. The reasons for the termination were a pretext for discrimination and
`
`retaliation.
`
`70.
`
`Edmond has uncovered evidence that (a) his termination violated
`
`Amazons’ own established practice and/or policy and (b) that at least two other white
`
`employees engaged in the same behavior that led to his termination but were not
`
`terminated.
`
`71.
`
`Indeed, the behavior of a white employee was caught on camera, but white
`
`managers decided to protect their own and turn a blind eye. White managers were heard
`
`saying – “the footage does not exist – you never saw it”.
`
` COUNT I
`
`Title VII—Discrimination and Retaliation on the Basis of Race
`
`72.
`
` Plaintiffs reallege the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth
`
`herein.
`
`73.
`
`Plaintiffs are members of a protected class on the basis of race. They are
`
`African-Americans.
`
`74.
`
`Plaintiffs, in all respects, were performing their jobs in a manner that was
`
`consistent with Defendant’s legitimate business expectations.
`
`75.
`
`Amazon discriminated against Plaintiffs as described above, including but
`
`not limited to subjecting them to a hostile work environment, denying them promotions and
`
`terminating their employment.
`
`76.
`
`Amazon also retaliated against Plaintiffs as described above.
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case: 1:23-cv-02735 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/01/23 Page 15 of 17 PageID #:15
`
`77.
`
`Amazon’s actions were taken with a willful and wanton disregard of
`
`Plaintiffs’ rights under Title VII.
`
`78.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of said unlawful employment practices and
`
`in disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights, Plaintiffs have suffered humiliation, degradation,
`
`emotional distress, other consequential damages, and lost wages.
`
`COUNT II
`Illinois Human Rights Act —Discrimination and Retaliation
`on the Basis of Race
`
`Plaintiffs reallege the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
`
`Plaintiffs are members of a protected class on the basis of race.
`
`Plaintiffs, in all respects, were performing their job in a manner that was
`
`79.
`
`80.
`
`81.
`
`consistent with Defendant’s legitimate business expectations.
`
`82.
`
`Amazon discriminated against Plaintiffs as described above, including but
`
`not limited to subjecting them to a hostile work environment, denying them promotions and
`
`firing them.
`
`83.
`
`84.
`
`Amazon also retaliated against Plaintiffs as described above.
`
`Amazon’s actions were taken with a willful and wanton disregard of
`
`Plaintiffs’ rights under the IHRA.
`
`85.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of said unlawful employment practices and
`
`in disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights and sensibilities, Plaintiffs have suffered humiliation,
`
`degradation, emotional distress, other consequential damages, and lost wages.
`
`COUNT III
`Section 1981—Discrimination and Retaliation on the Basis of Race
`
`86.
`
`Plaintiffs reallege the foregoing paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case: 1:23-cv-02735 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/01/23 Page 16 of 17 PageID #:16
`
`87.
`
`88.
`
`Plaintiffs are members of a protected class on the basis of race.
`
`Plaintiffs, in all respects, were performing their job in a manner that was
`
`consistent with Amazon’s legitimate business expectations.
`
`89.
`
`Amazon discriminated against Plaintiffs as described above, including but
`
`not limited to subjecting them to a hostile work environment, denying them promotions and
`
`firing them.
`
`90.
`
`91.
`
`Amazon also retaliated against Plaintiffs as described above.
`
`Amazon’s actions were taken with a willful and wanton disregard of
`
`Plaintiffs’ rights under Section 1981.
`
`92.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of said unlawful employment practices and
`
`in disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights and sensibilities, Plaintiffs have suffered humiliation,
`
`degradation, emotional distress, other consequential damages, and lost wages.
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment
`
`in their favor and against Defendant, and enter an Order awarding the following relief:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`g.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`All wages and benefits he would have received but for the
`discrimination and prejudgment interest;
`
`Reinstatement to their positions or, in the alternative, front pay for a
`reasonable period of time;
`
`Compensatory damages;
`
`An award of costs and reasonable attorney’s fees;
`
`Damages as provided under Illinois law;
`
`Such other relief as the Plaintiff may be entitled to under the Title VII,
`Section 1981 and the IHRA and any other statute or law which the Court
`deems equitable and just.
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case: 1:23-cv-02735 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/01/23 Page 17 of 17 PageID #:17
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMAND
`
`Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial as provided by Rule 38(a) of the Federal Rules
`
`of Civil Procedure.
`
`RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.
`
`
`In Chicago, Illinois this 1st day of May 2023.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LÁZARO LAW GROUP, LLC
`
`Attorneys for Eugene Edmond and Quinton Jones
`321 S. Plymouth Ct. Ste. 1250
`Chicago, IL 60604
`Tel. 312-461-9900
`Fax. 312-858-6735
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`____________________________
`
`Rafael E. Lázaro
`
` Pedro Giner
`
`
`rlazaro@lazarolawgroup.com
`
` Pginer@lazarolawgroup.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket