Case 1:23-cv-03321-JRR Document 1 Filed 12/06/23 Page 1 of 13
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR MARYLAND
`
`Case No.
`
`PLAINTIFF DEMANDS A
`TRIAL BY JURY
`
`)
`)
`)
`
`)))
`
`))
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`)))))
`
`))
`
`Afnan Parker
`8181 Professional Place, Suite 207
`Hyattsville, MD 20785
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`Whole Foods Market Group, Inc.
`2405 York Road Ste 201
`Lutherville Timonium, Md 21093-2264
`
`Defendant.
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`COMES NOW, Plaintiff Afnan Parker (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), by and through the undersigned
`
`counsel files this Complaint for damages against Whole Foods Market Group (hereinafter
`
`“Defendant”) for cause would show that Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for sexual harassment,
`
`racial discrimination, religious discrimination, and failure to accommodate.
`
`1. Plaintiff is an adult resident of Maryland.
`
`PARTIES
`
`2. Defendant is a multinational supermarket chain that is widely known for its organic
`
`foods.
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR MARYLAND
`
`Case No.
`
`PLAINTIFF DEMANDS A
`TRIAL BY JURY
`
`)
`)
`)
`
`)))
`
`))
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`)))))
`
`))
`
`Afnan Parker
`8181 Professional Place, Suite 207
`Hyattsville, MD 20785
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`Whole Foods Market Group, Inc.
`2405 York Road Ste 201
`Lutherville Timonium, Md 21093-2264
`
`Defendant.
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`COMES NOW, Plaintiff Afnan Parker (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), by and through the undersigned
`
`counsel files this Complaint for damages against Whole Foods Market Group (hereinafter
`
`“Defendant”) for cause would show that Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for sexual harassment,
`
`racial discrimination, religious discrimination, and failure to accommodate.
`
`1. Plaintiff is an adult resident of Maryland.
`
`PARTIES
`
`2. Defendant is a multinational supermarket chain that is widely known for its organic
`
`foods.
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-03321-JRR Document 1 Filed 12/06/23 Page 2 of 13
`
`3. Defendants principal office in Maryland is 2405 York Road
`
`Suite 201 Lutherville Timonium MD, 21093.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`4. Plaintiff alleges the Defendant subjected him to unlawful discrimination, religious
`
`discrimination, and sexual discrimination. Plaintiff seeks relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1981
`
`and 42 U.S.C.§ 1983 for violations of his civil rights by Defendant.
`
`5. Venue is proper in that the alleged acts occurred in the District of Columbia.
`
`ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
`
`6. On October 14, 2022, Plaintiff filed with Maryland Commission on Civil Rights under
`
`claim 531-2023-00496 for charges of discrimination, sexual harassment, and religious
`
`discrimination.
`
`7. Plaintiff also filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) under
`
`claim EEOC Charge No. 570-2023-00388 for charges of discrimination, sexual
`
`harassment, and religious discrimination.
`
`8. Plaintiff initiated this action timely.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`9. On or about May 2, 2022, Plaintiff began working for Defendant as a full-time Service
`
`Member at its Glover Park Store located in Washington, DC.
`
`10. Plaintiff’s duties included assisting team leaders in controlling customer flow, maintaining
`
`back stock, providing customer service. See generally Exhibit A.
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-03321-JRR Document 1 Filed 12/06/23 Page 3 of 13
`
`11. Beginning on the first day of Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant’s, employee Zachary
`
`Smith (“Zachary”) began making advances towards Plaintiff asking: “Are you married;”
`
`and “Do you f*ck around?”
`
`12. On the second day of Plaintiff’s employment, Zachary began asking even more
`
`inappropriate questions and comments asking/stating: “do you go to gay bars;” stating he
`
`wanted to see the “tootsie roll” “between the Plaintiff’s legs;” and also stating he “wanted
`
`to see how big it is.”
`
`13. Plaintiff on both dates asked Zachary to cease making sexual advances to which Zachary
`
`responded stating that Plaintiff “better watch himself” because Plaintiff’s 90-day
`
`probation period “was not up yet.” Zachary further states that he could have Plaintiff fired
`
`if he continued to reject his advances.
`
`14. 3 weeks later, on or about May 27, 2022, Plaintiff was also called a “n*gger” by an
`
`Defendant’s Employee, Janelle. Janelle further stated that when she came to this country
`
`she was told to stay away from n*ggers.
`
`15. As a result of these actions, Plaintiff filed a formal complaint with Defendant’s employee
`
`Human Resources Department.
`
`16. Within one month of Plaintiff’s employment around with Defendant, on or around June 6,
`
`2022, Plaintiff was told by an employee, Syliva, that she did not like the Plaintiff and
`
`threatened to slash his tires and put sugar in his gas tank.
`
`17. As a direct result of these threats, Plaintiff became extremely fearful and called the police.
`
`18. Further, on June 8, 2022, Plaintiff requested accommodations for a religious observance
`
`since he was Muslim to attend Mosque services on Fridays. Plaintiff’s manager, Mike
`
`Boomley (“Mike”), agreed to this religious accommodation verbally and referred Plaintiff
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-03321-JRR Document 1 Filed 12/06/23 Page 4 of 13
`
`to supervisor Franny De Leon (“Franny”) for final approval but Plaintiff did not receive
`
`final approval from Franny.
`
`19. A few days later on or about June 10, 2022, Plaintiff injured his foot and he informed
`
`Mike that he not be able to wear regular shoes due to his foot injury but he was otherwise
`
`able to work.
`
`20. A few days later, on or about June 13, 2022, and in attempt to comply with his duties,
`
`Plaintiff filed an accommodation request to work with a medical boot with Franny but he
`
`never received an approval.
`
`21. A few days later, on or about June 18, 2022, Plaintiff was issued a new member
`
`counseling form which is a de facto warning for employees still in their probationary
`
`period.
`
`22. A few days after that, on or about June 23, 2022, Plaintiff was placed on administrative
`
`leave by the Defendant.
`
`23. A few days later, on or about June 30, 2022, Plaintiff was terminated for hearsay and
`
`gossip without affording Plaintiff the opportunity to explain the misunderstanding.
`
`24. As a result of the termination, Plaintiff experienced severe emotional distress and
`
`depression and was forced to have his foot amputated to which he needed the
`
`accommodation for.
`
`RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR
`
`25. In Maryland, an employer is held liable for the actions of their employees. Drug Fair of
`
`Maryland, Inc. v. Smith, 283 A.2d 392 (Md. 1971)
`
`26. In the instant matter, Defendant employed each of their store managers, supervisors, and
`
`employees who had the direct responsibility to train manage the staff, including but not
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-03321-JRR Document 1 Filed 12/06/23 Page 5 of 13
`
`limited to the Plaintiff, and had the authority to manage each of the sexual harassment,
`
`failure to accommodate, and discriminatory issues.
`
`27. Defendant is liable for the sexual harassment of the employee and the discriminatory
`
`actions of the employees, as each of the events occurred during and within the scope of
`
`the employee’s job functions for the benefit of the Defendant.
`
`NEGLIGENT HIRING
`
`28. Plaintiff re-alleges all prior and forthcoming paragraphs of the Complaint as if fully set
`
`forth herein.
`
`29. At all relevant times hereto, Defendant’s Zachary, Sylvia, Mike, Janelle, and Fran acted
`
`within the course and scope of their employment/agency by and through their
`
`employment/agent.
`
`30. Defendant negligently hired their supervisor, Zachary, that sexually harassed the Plaintiff
`
`that they knew or should have known had propensities to sexually harass employees, and
`
`was making sexual advances to new hires.
`
`31. Defendant owed Plaintiff and other staff including but not limited to the Plaintiff to
`
`protect him from sexual harassment and discrimination when hiring, and appropriately
`
`interview, investigate, and research that supervisor, Zachary had the propensity to
`
`sexually harass employees in the course and scope of his employment with Whole Foods.
`
`32. Defendant breached their duty to Plaintiff when his supervisor, Zachary, an employee of
`
`the Defendant made sexual advances, sexual comments, and otherwise harassed Plaintiff
`
`in a sexual and improper manner thereby abusing his authority.
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-03321-JRR Document 1 Filed 12/06/23 Page 6 of 13
`
`33. As a direct and proximate cause of the Defendant’s breach, Plaintiff suffered irreparable
`
`harm and damage because he was fired. But for Defendant’s negligence, sexual advances,
`
`and retaliation for dismissing the sexual advances, Plaintiff would be working in the
`
`position today. Plaintiff’s injuries were foreseeable and in fact preventable, because
`
`Defendant knew or should have known that Plaintiff would not be able to work once
`
`Zachary’s advances were denied and Plaintiff was retaliated against.
`
`34. Plaintiff suffered monetary losses, physical, and emotional damages as a result of
`
`Defendant’s negligent hiring of the employee Zachary.
`
`35. Defendant negligently hired their employee that sexually harassed the Plaintiff because
`
`they knew or should have known that he was making sexual advances to new hires.
`
`36. As the employer/principal responsible for the actions of its employee, supervisor Zachary,
`
`Whole Foods negligent hiring directly and proximately caused the Plaintiff to experience
`
`pain, suffering, severe mental anguish, embarrassment, lost wages, future wages, loss of
`
`future earning capacity, and was otherwise injured and damages.
`
`NEGLIGENT TRAINING and NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION
`
`37. Plaintiff re-alleges all prior and forthcoming paragraphs of the Complaint as if fully set
`
`forth herein.
`
`38. At all relevant tines hereto, Zachary was acting in the course and scope of his
`
`employment/agency for Whole Foods by and through its employee/agent.
`
`39. Defendant negligently trained their supervisor, Zachary who used his position of
`
`authority to sexually harass the Plaintiff because Defendant knew or should have known
`
`that he was making sexual advances to new hires.
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-03321-JRR Document 1 Filed 12/06/23 Page 7 of 13
`
`40.
`
`41. Defendant negligently trained their employee, Janelle, who was discriminatory towards
`
`Plaintiff by calling him a racial slur because because Defendant knew or should have
`
`known that she was racially bias.
`
`42. Defendant owed Plaintiff a duty to Plaintiff to protect him from sexual harassment
`
`through their trainings, code of conduct, and management training. Defendant owed a
`
`duty to otherwise ensure the safety of new employees, including the Plaintiff from being
`
`sexually harassed by their supervisor employee and/or agent, including Zachary.
`
`43. In breach of Defendant’s duty to Plaintiff it failed to properly train their supervisors and
`
`allowed an employee to make sexual advances and otherwise harass the Plaintiff in a
`
`sexual and improper manner thereby abusing his authority.
`
`44. As a direct and proximate cause of the Defendant’s breach of their duty to train, Plaintiff
`
`suffered irreparable harm and damage because his employment for the position with the
`
`Defendant was terminated. But for Defendant’s negligence in training, the sexual
`
`advances and retaliation for ignoring the sexual advances, Plaintiff would be working in
`
`the position today. Plaintiff’s injuries were foreseeable because Defendant knew or should
`
`have known that Plaintiff would not be able to work once he caused Plaintiff’s
`
`employment to be terminated. And they knew or should have known that negligent
`
`training could result in this Plaintiff and other plaintiff’s being sexually harassed.
`
`45. Plaintiff suffered monetary losses, physical, and emotional damages as a result of
`
`Defendant’s negligent training of the employee.
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-03321-JRR Document 1 Filed 12/06/23 Page 8 of 13
`
`46. Defendant negligently trained heir employee that sexually harassed the Plaintiff because
`
`they knew or should have known that he was making sexual advances to new hires and by
`
`failing to properly train managers and all employees that sexual harassment would occur.
`
`47. As the employer/principal responsible for the actions of its employee, supervisor Zachary,
`
`negligent training and negligent supervision directly and proximately caused the Plaintiff
`
`to experience pain, suffering, severe mental anguish, embarrassment, lost wages, future
`
`wages, loss of future earning capacity, and was otherwise injured and damages.
`
`NEGLIGENT RETENTION
`
`48. Plaintiff re-alleges all prior and forthcoming paragraphs of the Complaint as if fully set
`
`forth herein.
`
`49. At all relevant tines hereto, Zachary was acting in the course and scope of his
`
`employment/agency for Whole Foods by and through its employee/agent.
`
`50. Defendant negligently retained their employee that sexually harassed the Plaintiff because
`
`they knew or should have known that he was abusing his supervisory authority and
`
`making sexual advances to new male hires.
`
`51. In breach of its duty of care, Defendant failed to use reasonable care in the supervision of
`
`their employee and breached its duty to their new employee by negligently retaining him
`
`on staff.
`
`52. Defendant negligently reviewed the matter and failed to otherwise failed to ensure the
`
`safety of its new-hire by retaining the new sexual assailant.
`
`53. As a direct and proximate cause of the Defendant’s breach of their duty to train and
`
`retain, Plaintiff suffered irreparable harm and damage because his employment was
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-03321-JRR Document 1 Filed 12/06/23 Page 9 of 13
`
`terminated. But for Defendant’s negligence in training and retaining, the sexual advances
`
`and retaliation for ignoring the sexual advances, Plaintiff would be working in the
`
`position today. Plaintiff’s injuries were foreseeable because Defendant knew or should
`
`have known that Plaintiff would not be able to work once he caused Plaintiff’s emotional
`
`distress due to the sexual advance. And they knew or should have known that negligent
`
`training could result in this Plaintiff and other plaintiff’s being sexually harassed.
`
`54. Plaintiff suffered monetary losses, physical, and emotional damages as a result of
`
`Defendant’s negligent hiring of the employee.
`
`55. Defendant negligently retained their employee that sexually harassed the Plaintiff because
`
`they knew or should have known that he was making sexual advances to new hires.
`
`56. As the employer/principal responsible for the actions of its employee, supervisor Zachary,
`
`Whole FOods negligent retention directly and proximately caused the Plaintiff to
`
`experience pain, suffering, severe mental anguish, embarrassment, lost wages, future
`
`wages, loss of future earning capacity, and was otherwise injured and damages.
`
`INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
`
`57. Plaintiff re-alleges all prior and forthcoming paragraphs of the Complaint as if fully set
`
`forth herein.
`
`58. At all relevant tines hereto, Zachary was acting in the course and scope of his
`
`employment/agency for Whole Foods by and through its employee/agent, the Defendant’s
`
`conduct of sexually harassing Plaintiff was intentional and in deliberate disregard for the
`
`high probability for the high degree of probability that Plaintiff would suffer emotional
`
`distress as a result.
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-03321-JRR Document 1 Filed 12/06/23 Page 10 of 13
`
`59. Defendant’s conduct by and through its agent, acted in sexually harassing Plaintiff which
`
`was extreme and outrageous.
`
`60. Defendant’s conduct and actions were the direct and proximate cause of the severe and
`
`emotional distress to Plaintiff.
`
`61. As a direct and proximate result of the intentional acts of the Defendant, the Plaintiff
`
`experienced pain, suffering, severe mental anguish, embarrassment, lost wages, future
`
`wages, loss of future earning capacity, and was otherwise injured and damages.
`
`SEXUAL HARASSMENT
`
`62. Plaintiff re-alleges all prior and forthcoming paragraphs of the Complaint as if fully set
`
`forth herein.
`
`63. In the instant matter, Plaintiff told his supervisor this his actions were unwelcomed and
`
`even had his job threatened for disregarding the sexual advances, and as a result his
`
`employment was ultimately terminated for being the victim of sexual harassment.
`
`64. Because Zachary’s sexual advances were unwelcomed sexual advances and other verbal
`
`sexual advances were denied, Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for sexual harassment in
`
`Maryland.
`
`MARYLAND HUMAN RIGHTS ACT (HRA)
`
`65. Plaintiff re-alleges all prior and forthcoming paragraphs of the Complaint as if fully set
`
`forth herein.
`
`66. In the instant matter, Plaintiff was harassed sexually, subjected to racial discrimination by
`
`being called a n*gger, subjected to religious discrimination by never having his religious
`
`accommodation granted to attend Mosque on Fridays, denied reasonable
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-03321-JRR Document 1 Filed 12/06/23 Page 11 of 13
`
`accommodations for an injury to his foot which he would later need amputated, and
`
`ultimately terminated for the Defendant’s discriminatory practices and unfair
`
`employment practices.
`
`TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964
`
`67. Plaintiff re-alleges all prior and forthcoming paragraphs of the Complaint as if fully set
`
`forth herein.
`
`68. Defendant violated Defendant Title VII because Plaintiff was denied employment
`
`opportunity with Defendant because she declined numerous unwanted and inappropriate
`
`sexual advances from Zachary.
`
`69. Defendant violated Defendant Title VII because Plaintiff was discriminated based on his
`
`race and called a widely-known derogatory slur.
`
`70. Defendant violated Defendant Title VII because Plaintiff was subjected to religious
`
`discrimination when his reasonable accommodation was denied because he is a practicing
`
`Muslim.
`
`71. Finally, Plaintiff subjected to racial discrimination by being called a n*gger, subjected to
`
`religious discrimination by never having his religious accommodation granted to attend
`
`Mosque on Fridays, denied reasonable accommodations for an injury to his foot which he
`
`would later need amputated, and ultimately terminated for the Defendant’s discriminatory
`
`practices and unfair employment practices.
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-03321-JRR Document 1 Filed 12/06/23 Page 12 of 13
`
`72. As a direct and proximate result of the intentional acts of the Defendant, the Plaintiff
`
`experienced pain, suffering, severe mental anguish, embarrassment, lost wages, future
`
`wages, loss of future earning capacity, and was otherwise injured and damages.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff respectfully requests the entry of
`
`judgment against Defendant pursuant to an Order awarding:
`
`a. Compensatory damages to be determined by the trier of fact;
`
`b. Nominal damages to be determined by the trier of fact;
`
`c. Punitive damages to be determined by the trier of fact;
`
`d. Declaratory and injunctive relief; and
`
`e. Award attorney’s fees.
`
`f. Grant that relief, which is fair, just, and equitable under the circumstances of this case.
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Dated: December 6, 2023
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Charles Tucker, Jr.
`Charles Tucker, Jr.
`TuckerMoore Group
`8181 Professional Place, Suite 207
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cv-03321-JRR Document 1 Filed 12/06/23 Page 13 of 13
`
`Hyattsville, MD 20785
`Phone: 301-577-1175
`Email: Charles@tuckerlawgroupllp.com
`ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
