`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
`WESTERN DIVISION (CINCINNATI)
`
`
`TRAVIS WALKER
`2375 Montana Avenue,
`Cincinnati, OH 45211
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`KRAFT HEINZ FOODS CO., LLC
`7325 Snider Road,
`Mason, OH 45040
`
`
`Serve Also:
`Kraft Heinz Food Co., LLC
`c/o CT Corporation Systems
`Statutory Agent
`4400 Easton Commons Way, Suite 125
`Columbus, OH 43219
`
`-and-
`
`
` Kraft Heinz Foods Co., LLC
` Co-Headquarters
` 1 PPG Place, Suite 3200
` Pittsburgh, PA 15222
`
` -and-
`
` Kraft Heinz Foods Co., LLC
` Co-Headquarters
` 200 East Randolph Street, Suite 7600
` Chicago, IL 60601
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`CASE NO.
`
`JUDGE:
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`JURY DEMAND ENDORSED
`HEREIN
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff, Travis Walker, by and through undersigned counsel, as his Complaint against the
`
`Defendant, states and avers the following:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 1:22-cv-00316-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/03/22 Page: 2 of 16 PAGEID #: 2
`
`PARTIES
`
`1. Walker is a resident of the city of Cincinnati, Hamilton County, Ohio.
`
`2. Defendant Kraft Heinz Foods Co., LLC, (“Kraft”) is a foreign incorporated for-profit company
`
`that conducts business within the state of Ohio and others.
`
`3. The relevant location of the events and omissions of this Complaint took place was 7325 Snider
`
`Road, Mason, OH, 45040.
`
`4. Kraft is, and was at all times hereinafter mentioned, Walker’s employer within the meaning of
`
`Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) 42 U.S.C §2000e, R.C. §4101 et seq.,
`
`and R.C. § 4112.01 et seq.
`
`5. Within 300 days of the adverse employment actions described herein, Walker filed a Charge of
`
`Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), Charge No.
`
`473-2021-01184 (“EEOC Charge”).
`
`6. On or about March 15, 2022, the EEOC issues and mailed a Notice of Right to Sue letter to
`
`Walker regarding the EEOC Charge.
`
`7. Walker received the Notice of Right to Sue letter from the EEOC in accordance with 42 U.S.C.
`
`§ 200e-5(f)(1), which had been attached hereto as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1.
`
`8. Walker has filed this Complaint on or before the 90-day deadline set forth in the Notice of Right
`
`to Sue letter.
`
`9. Walker has properly exhausted all administrative remedies pursuant to 29 C.R.F. § 1614.407(b).
`
`JURISDICTION & VENUE
`
`10. All of the material events alleged in this Complaint occurred in or around Warren County,
`
`Ohio.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`Case: 1:22-cv-00316-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/03/22 Page: 3 of 16 PAGEID #: 3
`
`11. Therefore, personal jurisdiction is proper over Defendant pursuant to R.C. § 2307.382(A)(1)
`
`and/or (3).
`
`12. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 in that Plaintiff is
`
`alleging federal law claims under the Title VII.
`
`13. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
`
`§1367, as Plaintiff’s state law claims are so closely related to Plaintiff’s federal law claims that
`
`they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States
`
`Constitution.
`
`14. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391.
`
`FACTS
`
`15. Walker is a former employee of Kraft.
`
`16. At all times noted herein, Walker was fully qualified for, and could fully perform the essential
`
`functions of his position(s) with Kraft.
`
`17. Walker is African American and therefore in a protected class for his race.
`
`18. Walker worked for Kraft, ending as a Machine Operator and Food Processor, from on or
`
`around November 25, 2019, until Kraft wrongfully terminated his employment on or around
`
`January 22, 2021.
`
`19. In or around February 2020, a lead position had opened for the third shift, for which Walker
`
`applied.
`
`20. Walker did not get the job, and instead, it went to Kevin LNU (Asian-American). Kevin LNU
`
`resigned from the position shortly after receiving it.
`
`21. This failure to promote Walker was an adverse employment action against him.
`
`22. Kraft’s cited reason, or lack thereof, for passing over Walker for a promotion was pretext.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`Case: 1:22-cv-00316-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/03/22 Page: 4 of 16 PAGEID #: 4
`
`23. Kraft actually passed over Walker for a promotion discriminatorily against his race.
`
`24. In or around August 2020, another shift lead position became available.
`
`25. Walker applied again on or around August 11, 2020 and interviewed with Processing Manager
`
`Nate Hufferman (Caucasian) and Processing Supervisor Gene Myers (Caucasian).
`
`26. After the initial interview, Walker was called to come in for a few more interviews.
`
`27. However, Walker was once again passed over for the job, and third shift Jelly Lead Kenny
`
`LNU (Caucasian) was given the job.
`
`28. Kenny LNU was hired only one week prior to Walker.
`
`29. Kenny LNU required more training than Walker.
`
`30. Not giving Walker the position and giving it instead to an employee who was much less
`
`experienced was an adverse employment action against Walker.
`
`31. This failure to promote Walker was another adverse employment action against him.
`
`32. Kraft’s cited reason, or lack thereof, for passing over Walker for a promotion was pretext.
`
`33. Kraft actually passed over Walker for a promotion discriminatorily against his race.
`
`34. Walker felt the decision was based on racial discrimination and made a complaint to Myers,
`
`Hufferman, and head of Human Resources (“HR”) Sam Collins (Caucasian). This was a
`
`protected complaint of racial discrimination.
`
`35. In or around late August 2020, Walker was called to a meeting with the head of the company
`
`(name unknown, Caucasian), Myers, and Hufferman to discuss his protected complaint of
`
`racial discrimination.
`
`36. At the meeting, Walker was told why the other candidate was purportedly chosen over him
`
`and Walker left the meeting just wanting to move forward from the situation.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`Case: 1:22-cv-00316-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/03/22 Page: 5 of 16 PAGEID #: 5
`
`37. Kraft disregarded Walker’s complaint and failed to take any action with respect to racial
`
`discrimination.
`
`38. After the meeting, Walker’s employment got worse.
`
`39. Walker was reprimanded for wearing a personal face mask instead of those provided by the
`
`employer, but Caucasian employees and supervisors were not.
`
`40. Later, Kraft suspended Walker for allegedly missing one initial on some paperwork, but
`
`employees such as Billy LNU (Caucasian), Fabian Thompson (Caucasian), and Brian Hand
`
`(Caucasian) also missed initials and were disparately not suspended.
`
`41. On or around January 10, 2021, Walker caught COVID-19 and started his two-week
`
`quarantine. He gave notice thereof immediately after.
`
`42. On or around January 12 or 13, 2021, Walker received a call from Kraft Processor Levi LNU
`
`(African American) asking why he quit.
`
`43. Surprised, Walker said he did not quit but was under quarantine, to which Levi LNU
`
`informed him that his job had been posted open for bid.
`
`44. Walker immediately called Collins, who didn’t pick up, and emailed him asking what
`
`happened.
`
`45. Collins emailed back to tell Walker that his employment was not terminated, but he was
`
`under investigation for an incident of insubordination on January 11, 2021.
`
`46. January 11, 2021 was the first day of Walker’s quarantine.
`
`47. Collins did not specify what the insubordination was.
`
`48. Walker suspected it may have been an incident involving Genevie LNU (Filipina).
`
`49. Kenny LNU (the person hired instead of Walker) needed some assistance, so Genevie LNU
`
`asked Walker to train him.
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`Case: 1:22-cv-00316-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/03/22 Page: 6 of 16 PAGEID #: 6
`
`50. Walker knew how to help but was not a shift lead and was not a trainer, so he declined to
`
`help Kenny LNU.
`
`51. A few minutes later, Walker went back to Kenny LNU and completed the task anyway.
`
`52. After Walker’s quarantine ended on or around January 22, 2021, he returned to work.
`
`53. Walker was then sent to Hufferman’s office.
`
`54. At the meeting, Walker was given termination papers and informed the reason for his
`
`termination was “insubordination in refusing to help Genevie LNU the first time.” This reason
`
`was pretext.
`
`55. Walker was actually terminated discriminatorily against his race and/or in retaliation for his
`
`protected complaints of race discrimination.
`
`56. As a result of being treated disparately on the basis of race during his employment at Kraft,
`
`Kraft’s refusals to promote Walker because of his race and/or protected complaints, and being
`
`wrongfully terminated from Kraft, Walker has suffered severe emotional distress, anxiety, and
`
`depression.
`
`57. The above facts demonstrate that the Defendant engaged in a pattern and practice of race
`
`discrimination.
`
`58. The above facts demonstrate that the Defendant engaged in a pattern and practice of unlawful
`
`retaliation.
`
`59. There was a causal connection between Walker’s race and the Defendant’s termination of
`
`Walker.
`
`60. As a result of Kraft’s acts and omissions described herein, Walker has suffered and will
`
`continue to suffer damages.
`
`COUNT I: FAILURE TO PROMOTE BASED ON RACIAL DISCRIMINATION IN
`VIOLATION OF R.C. §4112, et seq.
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`Case: 1:22-cv-00316-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/03/22 Page: 7 of 16 PAGEID #: 7
`
`
`61. Walker restates each and every prior paragraph of this Complaint, as if it were fully
`
`restated herein.
`
`62. Walker is African American, and thus is in a protected class for his race.
`
`63. R.C. § 4112 et seq. provides that it is an unlawful discriminatory practice for an employer to
`
`discriminate against an employee on the basis of the employee’s race.
`
`64. Defendant treated Walker differently than other similarly situated employees based upon his
`
`race.
`
`65. In or around February 2020, Walker applied for a shift lead position.
`
`66. Walker did not get the position, and it went to Kevin LNU (Asian-American).
`
`67. In or around August 11, 2020, Walker applied again for a shift lead position.
`
`68. Walker interviewed for this position multiple times.
`
`69. The shift lead position went to Kenny LNU (Caucasian).
`
`70. Kenny LNU was hired only one week prior to Walker and required much more training.
`
`71. Kraft chose to promote a less experienced Caucasian man over a more experienced African
`
`American man.
`
`72. Walker felt this was racial discrimination, and made a protected complaint to management and
`
`HR.
`
`73. Defendant’s failure to adequately address Walker’s complaints of racism in the workplace was
`
`an adverse employment action against him.
`
`74. Defendant’s purported reason(s) for failing to promote Walker was pretextual.
`
`75. Defendant actually chose not to promote Walker because of his race.
`
`76. Defendant violated R.C. § 4112 et seq. by failing to promote Walker because of his race.
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`Case: 1:22-cv-00316-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/03/22 Page: 8 of 16 PAGEID #: 8
`
`77. Defendant violated R.C. § 4112.02 et seq. by treating Walker differently from other similarly
`
`situated employees outside his protected class.
`
`78. Defendant violated R.C. § 4112.02 et seq. by applying their employment policies in a disparate
`
`manner based on Walker’s race.
`
`79. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s acts and omissions, Walker has suffered and
`
`will continue to suffer damages.
`
`COUNT II: FAILURE TO PROMOTE BASED ON RACIAL DISCRIMINATION IN
`VIOLATION OF TITLE VII
`
`80. Walker restates each and every prior paragraph of this Complaint, as if it were fully
`
`restated herein.
`
`81. Walker is African American, and thus is in a protected class for his race.
`
`82. Title VII provides that it is an unlawful discriminatory practice for an employer to discriminate
`
`against an employee on the basis of the employee’s race.
`
`83. Defendant treated Walker differently than other similarly situated employees based upon his
`
`race.
`
`84. In or around February 2020, Walker applied for a lead position.
`
`85. Walker did not get the position, and it went to Kevin LNU (Asian-American).
`
`86. In or around August 11, 2020, Walker applied again for a lead position.
`
`87. Walker interviewed for this position multiple times.
`
`88. The shift lead position went to Kenny LNU (Caucasian).
`
`89. Kenny LNU was hired only one week prior to Walker and required much more training.
`
`90. Kraft chose to promote a less experienced Caucasian man over a more experienced African
`
`American man.
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`Case: 1:22-cv-00316-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/03/22 Page: 9 of 16 PAGEID #: 9
`
`91. Walker felt this was racial discrimination, and made a protected complaint to management and
`
`HR.
`
`92. Defendant’s failure to adequately address Walker’s complaints of racism in the workplace was
`
`an adverse employment action against him.
`
`93. Defendant’s failure to promote Walker because of his race was an adverse employment action
`
`against him.
`
`94. Defendant’s purported reason(s) for failing to promote Walker was pretextual.
`
`95. Defendant actually chose not to promote Walker because of his race.
`
`96. Defendant violated Title VII by failing to promote Walker because of his race.
`
`97. Defendant violated Title VII by treating Walker differently from other similarly situated
`
`employees outside his protected class.
`
`98. Defendant violated Title VII by applying their employment policies in a disparate manner
`
`based on Walker’s race.
`
`99. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s acts and omissions, Walker has suffered and
`
`will continue to suffer damages.
`
`COUNT III: RACE DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF R.C. § 4112 et seq.
`
`100. Walker restates each and every prior paragraph of this Complaint, as if it were fully
`
`restated herein.
`
`101. Throughout his employment, Walker was fully competent to perform his essential job duties.
`
`102. Kraft treated Walker differently than other similarly situated employees based on his race.
`
`103. Walker was not given the same job opportunities as his Caucasian counterparts.
`
`104. Walker was targeted for policy violations that similarly situated Caucasian employees were
`
`not punished for.
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`Case: 1:22-cv-00316-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/03/22 Page: 10 of 16 PAGEID #: 10
`
`105. Kraft violated R.C. § 4112 et seq.by discriminating against Walker due to his race.
`
`106. On or about January 22, 2021, Kraft terminated Walker without just cause.
`
`107. At all times material herein, similarly-situated non-African-American employees were not
`
`terminated without just cause.
`
`108. Defendant terminated Walker based on his race.
`
`109. Defendant violated R.C. § 4112.01 et. seq. when they terminated Walker based on his race.
`
`110. Walker suffered emotional distress as a result of Defendant’s conduct, and is entitled
`
`emotional distress damages pursuant to R.C. § 4112.01 et seq.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s conduct, Walker has suffered and will continue
`
`to suffer damages, including economic, emotional distress and physical sickness damages.
`
`COUNT IV: RACE DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VII
`
`111. Walker restates each and every prior paragraph of this Complaint, as if it were fully
`
`restated herein.
`
`112. Throughout his employment, Walker was fully competent to perform his essential job duties.
`
`113. Kraft treated Walker differently than other similarly situated employees based on his race.
`
`114. Walker was not given the same job opportunities as his Caucasian counterparts.
`
`115. Walker was targeted for policy violations that similarly situated Caucasian employees were
`
`not punished for.
`
`116. Kraft violated Title VII by discriminating against Walker due to his race.
`
`117. On or about January 22, 2021, Kraft terminated Walker without just cause.
`
`118. At all times material herein, similarly-situated non-African-American employees were not
`
`terminated without just cause.
`
`119. Defendant terminated Walker based on his race.
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`Case: 1:22-cv-00316-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/03/22 Page: 11 of 16 PAGEID #: 11
`
`120. Defendant violated Title VII when it terminated Walker based on his race.
`
`121. Walker suffered emotional distress as a result of Defendant’s conduct, and is entitled
`
`emotional distress damages pursuant to Title VII.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s conduct, Walker has suffered and will continue
`
`to suffer damages, including economic, emotional distress and physical sickness damages.
`
`COUNT V: RETALIATORY DISCRIMINATION
`
`122. Walker restates each and every prior paragraph of this complaint, as if it were fully restated
`
`herein.
`
`123. As a result of the Defendant’s discriminatory conduct described above, Walker complained
`
`about the racial discrimination he was experiencing, including, but not limited to, passing him
`
`over discriminatorily for multiple promotions.
`
`124. Subsequent to Walker reporting the racial discrimination to his supervisor and employer,
`
`Walker started receiving reprimands for actions his Caucasian counterparts did not get
`
`punished for.
`
`125. Subsequent to Walker’s reporting the racial discrimination to his supervisor and employer,
`
`Walker’s employment was terminated.
`
`126. Defendant’s actions were retaliatory in nature based on Walker's opposition to the unlawful
`
`discriminatory conduct.
`
`127. Pursuant to R.C. §4112.02(I) and Title VII, it is an unlawful discriminatory practice to
`
`discriminate in any manner against any other person because that person has opposed any
`
`unlawful discriminatory practice.
`
`128. Walker suffered emotional distress as a result of Defendant’s conduct, and is entitled
`
`emotional distress damages pursuant to Title VII and R.C. § 4112.01 et seq.
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`Case: 1:22-cv-00316-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/03/22 Page: 12 of 16 PAGEID #: 12
`
`129. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s retaliatory discrimination against and
`
`termination of Walker, he suffered and will continue to suffer damages, including economic,
`
`emotional distress and physical sickness damages.
`
`COUNT VI: WRONGFUL TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY
`
`130. Walker restates each and every prior paragraph of this Complaint, as if it were fully
`
`restated herein.
`
`131. A clear public policy exists and is manifested in Ohio statutes and/or administrative
`
`regulations, or in the common law, against terminating an employee for taking sick leave when
`
`the employee had COVID-19.
`
`132. A clear public policy exists and is manifested in Ohio statutes and/or administrative
`
`regulations, or in the common law, against terminating and/or retaliating against an employee
`
`because he/she engages in protected activity under Ohio law.
`
`133. A clear public policy exists and is manifested in the Families First Coronavirus Relief Act
`
`(“FCCRA”) in which employers are required to provide paid sick leave and expand medical
`
`and family leave for employees who are adversely affected by COVID-19.
`
`134. The day after Walker began his quarantine, his job was posted as open for bids, and his
`
`employment was subsequently terminated for pretextual reasons.
`
`135. Defendant’s termination of Walker jeopardizes this public policy.
`
`136. Defendant’s termination of Walker was motivated by conduct related to these public policies.
`
`137. Defendant had no overriding business justification for terminating Walker.
`
`138. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s conduct, Walker has suffered and will
`
`continue to suffer damages, including economic, emotional distress and physical sickness
`
`damages.
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`Case: 1:22-cv-00316-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/03/22 Page: 13 of 16 PAGEID #: 13
`
`DEMAND FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Walker demands from Defendant the following:
`
`a) Issue a permanent injunction:
`
`i. Requiring Defendant to abolish discrimination, harassment, and retaliation;
`
`ii. Requiring allocation of significant funding and trained staff to implement all
`
`changes within two years;
`
`iii. Requiring removal or demotion of all supervisors who have engaged in
`
`discrimination, harassment, or retaliation, and failed to meet their legal
`
`responsibility to promptly investigate complaints and/or take effective action to
`
`stop and deter prohibited personnel practices against employees;
`
`iv. Creating a process for the prompt investigation of discrimination, harassment,
`
`or retaliation complaints; and
`
`v. Requiring mandatory and effective training for all employees and supervisors
`
`on discrimination, harassment, and retaliation issues, investigations, and
`
`appropriate corrective actions;
`
`b) Issue an order requiring Defendant to expunge Walker’s personnel file of all negative
`
`documentation;
`
`c) An award against each Defendant for compensatory and monetary damages to
`
`compensate Walker for physical injury, physical sickness, lost wages, emotional
`
`distress, and other consequential damages, in an amount in excess of $25,000 per claim
`
`to be proven at trial;
`
`d) An award of punitive damages against each Defendant in an amount in excess of
`
`$25,000;
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`Case: 1:22-cv-00316-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/03/22 Page: 14 of 16 PAGEID #: 14
`
`e) An award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and non-taxable costs for Walker’s claims as
`
`allowable under law;
`
`f) An award of the taxable costs of this action; and
`
`g) An award of such other relief as this Court may deem necessary and proper.
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`__/s/ Evan R. McFarland____
`Evan R. McFarland (0096953)
`Matthew G. Bruce (0083769)
`
`Trial Attorney
`Evan R. McFarland (0096953)
`Brianna R. Carden (0097961)
`THE SPITZ LAW FIRM, LLC
`Spectrum Office Tower
`11260 Chester Road, Suite 825
`Cincinnati, OH 45246
`Phone: (216) 291-0244 x173
`Fax: (216) 291-5744
`Email: Matthew.Bruce@SpitzLawFirm.com
`Email: Evan.McFarland@SpitzLawFirm.com
`Email: Brianna.Carden@SpitzLawFirm.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Travis Walker
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`Case: 1:22-cv-00316-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/03/22 Page: 15 of 16 PAGEID #: 15
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`Plaintiff Travis Walker demands a trial by jury by the maximum number of jurors permitted.
`
`
`
`__/s/ Evan R. McFarland____
`Evan R. McFarland (0096953)
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`Case: 1:22-cv-00316-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/03/22 Page: 16 of 16 PAGEID #: 16
`Case: 1:22-cv-00316-MRB Doc#: 1 Filed: 06/03/22 Page: 16 of 16 PAGEID #: 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`