OF C
`
`ti
`
`0
`
`?t,
`*1"
`COU
`PAVAN PARIKH
`HAMILTON COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS
`
`COMMON PLEAS DIVISION
`
`RAMON BAEZ
`vs.
`SMITHFIELD FOODS INC
`
`A 2201692
`
`EFR200
`
`

`

`13110C Form 161.8 (11/09)
`
`To: Mr. Ramon Baez
`3762 Charfield Lane
`Fairfield, OH 45011
`
`EF,OC Charge No.
`473-2021-00729
`
`U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
`NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUE (ISSUED ON REQUEST)
`From: Cincinnati Area Office
`550 Main Street, Suite 10191
`Cincinnati, Ohio ,45202
`
`EEOC Representative
`William Coleman,
`Investigator
`
`•
`
`Telephone No.
`513-914-6013
`
`(See also the additional information enclosed with this form)
`
`NOTICE TO THE PERSON AGGRIEVED:
`Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), or the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination
`Act (GINA): This is your Notice of Right to Sue, issued under Title VII, the ADA or GINA based on the above-numbered charge. It has
`• been issued at your request. Your lawsuit under Title VII, the ADA or GINA must be filed in a federal or state court WITHIN 90 DAYS
`of your receipt of this notice; or your right to sue based on this charge will be lost. (The time limit for filing suit based on a claim under
`state law may be different.)
`More than 180:days have passed since the filing of this charge.
`The EEOC is terminating its processing of this charge.
`
`If you file suit, based on this charge, please send a copy of your court complaint to this office.
`
`On behalf of the Commission
`
`Ramiro utierrez,
`Cincinnati, Area Director
`
`Feb. 25.2022
`(Date Mailed)
`
`Enclosures(s)'
`
`cc:
`
`Evan McFarland
`Spitz Law Firm
`Spectrum Office Tower
`11260 Chester Road, Suite 825
`Cincinnati, OH 45246
`
`Amy Keegan
`Hunton Andrews Kurth
`951 E Byrd St, Ste 200
`Richmond, VA 23219
`
`=FILED 05/11/2022 03:27 PM
`
`/ CONFIRMATION 1188654
`
`/ A 2201692
`
`/ COMMON PLEAS DIVISION / NOTC
`
`

`

`Et=losutt with EEOC
`Form 16143 (11/09)
`
`INFORMATION RELATED TO FILING SUIT
`UNDER THE LAWS ENFORCED BY THE EEOC
`
`(This information relates to filing suit in Federal or State court under Federal law.
`If you also plan to sue claiming violations of State law, please be aware that time limits and other
`provisions of State law may be shorter or more limited than those described below.)
`
`PRIVATE SUIT RIGHTS — Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the
`Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), or the Age Discrimination in
`Employment Act (ADEA):
`
`In order to pursue this matter further, you must file a lawsuit against the respondent(s) named in the charge within 90 days of
`the date you receive this Notice. Therefore, you should keep a record of this date. Once this 90-day period is over, your right
`to sue based on the charge referred to in this Notice will be lost. If you intend to consult an attorney, you should do so promptly.
`Give your attorney a copy of this Notice, and its envelope, and tell him or her the date you received it. Furthermore, in order to
`avoid any question that you did not act in a timely manner, it is prudent that your suit be filed within 90 days of the date this
`Notice was mailed to you (as indicated where the Notice is signed) or the date of the postmark, if later.
`
`Your lawsuit may be filed in U.S. District Court or a State court of competent jurisdiction. (Usually, the appropriate State court
`is the general civil trial court.) Whether you file in Federal or State court is a matter for you to decide after talking to your
`attorney. Filing this Notice is not enough. You must file a "complaint" that contains a short statement of the facts of your case
`which shows that you are entitled to relief. Your suit may include any matter alleged in the charge or, to the extent permitted
`by court decisions, matters like or related to the matters alleged in the charge. Generally, suits are brought in the State where
`the alleged unlawful practice occurred, but in some cases can be brought where relevant employment records are kept, where
`the employment would have been, or where the respondent has its main office. If you have simple questions, you usually can
`get answers from the office of the clerk of the court where you are bringing suit, but do not expect that office to write your
`complaint or make legal strategy decisions for you.
`
`PRIVATE SUIT RIGHTS — Equal Pay Act (EPA):
`
`EPA suits must be filed in court within 2 years (3 years for willful violations) of the alleged EPA underpayment: back pay due
`for violations that occurred more than 2 years (3 years) before you file suit may not be collectible. For example, if you were
`underpaid under the EPA for work performed from 7/1/08 to 12/1/08, you should file suit before 7/1/10 — not 12/1/10 — in order
`to recover unpaid wages due for July 2008. This time limit for filing an EPA suit is separate from the 90-day filing period under
`Title VII, the ADA, GINA or the ADEA referred to above. Therefore, if you also plan to sue under Title VII, the ADA, GINA
`or the ADEA, in addition to suing on the EPA claim, suit must be filed within 90 days of this Notice and within the 2- or 3-year
`EPA back pay recovery period.
`
`ATTORNEY REPRESENTATION — Title VII, the ADA or GINA:
`
`If you cannot afford or have been unable to obtain a lawyer to represent you, the U.S. District Court having jurisdiction in your case
`may, in limited circumstances, assist you in obtaining a lawyer. Requests for such assistance must be made to the U.S. District Court
`in the form and manner it requires (you should be prepared to explain in detail your efforts to retain an attorney). Requests should
`be made well before the end of the 90-day period mentioned above, because such requests do not relieve you of the requirement to
`bring suit within 90 days.
`
`ATTORNEY REFERRAL AND EEOC ASSISTANCE
`
`— All Statutes:
`
`You may contact the EEOC representative shown on your Notice if you need help in finding a lawyer or if you have any questions
`about your legal rights, including advice on which U.S. District Court can hear your case. If you need to inspect or obtain a copy of
`information in EEOC's file on the charge, please request it promptly in writing and provide your charge number (as shown on your
`Notice). While EEOC destroys charge files after a certain time, all charge files are kept for at least 6 months after our last action on
`the case. Therefore, if you file suit and want to review the charge file, please make your review request within 6 months of this
`Notice. (Before filing suit, any request should be made within the next 90 days.)
`
`IF YOU FILE SUIT, PLEASE SEND A COPY OF YOUR COURT COMPLAINT TO THIS OFFICE.
`
`-:-FILED 05/11/2022 03:27 PM
`
`/ CONFIRMATION 1188654
`
`/ A 2201692
`
`/ COMMON PLEAS DIVISION / NOTC
`
`

`

`4.° Co
`
`Cots
`
`COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
`HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
`
`CLASSIFICATION FORM
`
`VVIVW.COURTCLERK.ORG
`
`AFTAB PUREVAL
`CLERK OF COURTS
`
`CASE NUMBER:
`
`PLAINTIFF: Ramon Baez
`
`PURSUANT TO SUPERINTENDENCE RULE 4, THIS CASE WAS ORIGINALLY FILED AND DISMISSED
`
`UNDER CASE NUMBER:
`
`BY JUDGE
`
`Other Tort — C360
`Personal Injury C310
`Wrongful Death — C320
`Vehicle Accident — C370
`
`Professional Tort — A300
`Personal Injury — A310
`Wrongful Death — A320
`El Legal Malpractice — A330
`ri Medical Malpractice — A340
`
`Product Liability — 8350
`ni Personal Injury — B310
`Wrongful Death — B320
`
`PLEASE INDICATE CLASSIFICATION INTO WHICH THIS CASE FALLS (please only check one):
`a/ Other Civil — H700-34
`Appropriation — H710
`Accounting — 11720
`Beyond Jurisdiction —730
`Breach of Contract — 740
`Cancel Land Contract — 750
`Change of Venue — H760
`Class Action — H770
`Convey Declared Void — H780
`Declaratory Judgment — H790
`Discharge Mechanics Lien — H800
`Dissolve Partnership — H810
`CONSUMER SALES ACT (1345 ORC) —11820
`Check here if relief includes declaratory
`judgment, injunction or class action
`recovery — 14825
`Habeas Corpus — 11830
`Injunction — H840
`Mandamus — H850
`On Account — 11860
`Partition — H870
`Quiet Title — 11880
`Replevin — H890
`Sale of Real Estate — H900
`Specific Performance — 910
`Restraining Order — H920
`Testimony — 11930-21
`Environmental — H940
`Cognovit — 11950
`Menacing by Stalking — H960
`j Repo Title — Transfer of Title Only — 970
`Repo Title — With Money Claim — H980
`Injunction Sexual Predator — 990
`SB 10 — Termination —11690
`SB 10 — Reclassification — 11697
`
`Worker's Compensation
`Non-Compliant Employer — D410
`Appeal — D420
`
`1
`
`r7 Administrative Appeals — F600
`Appeal Civil Service — F610
`Appeal Motor Vehicle — F620
`Appeal Unemployment — F630
`Appeal Liquor — F640
`Appeal Taxes — F650
`Appeal Zoning — F660
`
`ni Certificate of Qualification — H600
`
`DATE:05/11/2022
`
`Revised 01/02/2017
`
`ATTORNEY (PRINT): Brianna Carden
`OHIOSUPREME COURT NUMBER: 0097961
`
`

`

`Print
`
`Common Pleas Court of Hamilton County,
`Ohio Clerk of Courts
`
`INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE
`
`Ramon Baez
`
`PLAINTIFF(S)
`
`Vs.
`
`Smithfield Foods, Inc.
`
`CASE NO.
`
`DEFENDANT(S)
`
`TO THE CLERK OF COURTS, YOU ARE INSTRUCTED TO MAKE:
`
`CERTIFIED MAIL SERVICE 3
`
`ORDINARY MAIL SERVICE
`
`PERSONAL SERVICE BY THE SHERIFF OF
`
`RESIDENCE SERVICE BY THE SHERIFF OF
`
`PERSONAL SERVICE BY PROCESS SERVER
`
`RESIDENCE SERVICE BY PROCESS SERVER
`
`COUNTY
`
`COUNTY
`
`OF THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS: Timestamped Complaint
`
`UPON:
`Smithfield Foods, Inc.
`
`805 E Kemper Rd.
`
`(NAME #1)
`
`(ADDRESS)
`
`Cincinnati, OH 45246
`(CITY—STATE—ZIP CODE)
`
`Smithfield Foods,
`
`Corp. Headquarters
`
`(NAME #3)
`
`(ADDRESS)
`
`200 Commerce Street
`
`Smithfield Foods, Inc.
`(NAME #2)
`
`c/o CT Corporation System (Stat. Agent)
`(ADDRESS)
`
`4400 Easton Commons Way, Suite 125
`
`Columbus, OH 43219
`(CITY—STATE—ZIP CODE)
`
`
`
`
`
`(NAME #4)
`
`(ADDRESS)
`
`Smithfield, VA 23430
`(CITY—STATE—ZIP CODE)
`
`(CITY—STATE—ZIP CODE)
`
`Brianna Carden 0097961
`Attorney Name and Supreme Court I.D. No.
`
`11260 Chester Rd, Suite 825, Cincinnati, OH 45246
`Address, City, State, Zip Code
`
`216-291-4744
`Phone Number
`
`Reset
`
`

`

`IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
`FOR HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
`
`RAMON BAEZ
`3762 Charfield Ln.
`Fairfield Township, OH 45011
`
`CASE NO.
`
`JUDGE:
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SMITHFIELD FOODS, INC.
`805 E Kemper Rd.
`Cincinnati, OH 45246
`
`Serve also:
`
`Smithfield Foods, Inc.
`c/o CT Corporation System (Stat. Agent)
`4400 Easton Commons Way, Suite 125
`Columbus, OH 43219
`
`-and-
`
`Smithfield Foods, Inc.
`Corp. Headquarters
`200 Commerce Street
`Smithfield, VA 23430
`
`Defendant.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR
`DAMAGES AND
`INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`JURY DEMAND ENDORSED
`HEREIN
`
`Plaintiff Ramon Baez by and through undersigned counsel, as his Complaint against the
`
`Defendant, states and avers the following:
`
`PARTIES
`
`. Plaintiff is a resident of the city of Fairfield Township, Butler County, Ohio.
`
`2. Defendant SMITHFIELD FOODS, INC. ("Smithfield") is a foreign-incorporated, for-
`
`profit company that conducts business throughout the state of Ohio and others.
`
`E-FILED 05/11/2022 03:27 PM
`
`/ CONFIRMATION 1188654
`
`/ A 2201692
`
`/ COMMON PLEAS DIVISION
`
`/ IFOJ
`
`

`

`3. The relevant location of the events and omissions of this Complaint took place was 805 E
`
`Kemper Rd., Cincinnati, OH 45246.
`
`4. Smithfield is, and was at all times hereinafter mentioned, Plaintiff's employer within the
`
`meaning of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA") 42 U.S.C. § 12101,
`
`Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA") 29 U.S.C. § 2617 et seq., Title VII of the Civil
`
`Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII") 42 U.S.0 §2000e, and O.R.C. § 4112 et seq.
`
`5. Within 300 days of the adverse employment actions described herein, Plaintiff filed a
`
`Charge of Discrimination with
`
`the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
`
`("EEOC"), Charge No. 473-2021-00729 ("EEOC Charge").
`
`6. On or around February 25, 2022, the EEOC issued and mailed a Notice of Right to Sue
`
`letter to Plaintiff regarding the EEOC Charge.
`
`7. Plaintiff received the Right to Sue letter from the EEOC in accordance with 42 U.S.C. §
`
`2000e-5(f)(1), which had been attached hereto as Plaintiff's Exhibitl.
`
`8. Plaintiff has filed this Complaint on or before the 90-day deadline set forth in the Notice
`
`of Right to Sue letter.
`
`9. Plaintiff has properly exhausted all administrative remedies pursuant to 29 C.F.R. §
`
`1614.407(b).
`
`JURISDICTION & VENUE
`
`10. All of the material events alleged in this Complaint occurred in or around Hamilton County,
`
`Ohio.
`
`11. Therefore, personal jurisdiction is proper over Defendant pursuant to R.C. § 2307.382(A)(1)
`
`and/or (3).
`
`12. Venue is proper pursuant to Civ. R. 3(C)(1), (3), and/or (6).
`
`E-FILED 05/11/2022 03:27 PM / CONFIRMATION 1188654
`
`/ A 2201692 / COMMON PLEAS DIVISION / IFOJ
`
`2
`
`

`

`13. This Court is a court of general jurisdiction over the claims presented herein, including all subject
`
`matters of this Complaint.
`
`14. Plaintiff is a former employee of Smithfield.
`
`FACTS
`
`15. At all times noted herein, Plaintiff was qualified for his position(s) with Smithfield.
`
`16. At all times noted herein, Plaintiff could fully perform the essential functions of his job(s),
`
`with or without a reasonable accommodation.
`
`17. Plaintiff worked for Smithfield, ending as a manufacturing mechanic and supervisor, from
`
`2013 until Smithfield unlawfully terminated Plaintiff's employment on December 18,
`
`2020.
`
`18. Plaintiff is Hispanic was originally born in the Dominican Republic, placing him in
`
`protected classes for his race and national origin, respectively.
`
`19. Plaintiff's wife was pregnant during his employment with Smithfield, placing him also in
`
`the protected pregnancy class by association.
`
`20. Plaintiff is also a father to an asthmatic child. He is thus in the protected class for disability
`
`by association as well.
`
`21. Plaintiff had an exemplary employment record in the years that Plaintiff worked for
`
`Smithfield. He regularly received positive reviews and pay raises.
`
`22. Smithfield even promoted Plaintiff from manufacturing mechanic to manufacturing
`
`supervisor in 2014.
`
`23. Plaintiff was working happily in his new role without a hitch until he caught a pair of
`
`employees engaged in inappropriate conduct at work.
`
`E-FILED 05/11/2022 03:27 PM / CONFIRMATION 1188654
`
`/ A 2201692 / COMMON PLEAS DIVISION
`
`/ IFOJ
`
`3
`
`

`

`24. Plaintiff reported his observations to Brett Smith, a Caucasian male in human resources,
`
`and sent the involved employees home.
`
`25. The next day, Smith contacted Plaintiff and accused him of making an error the day before. ,
`
`26. Smith disciplined Plaintiff in writing for his alleged error, and although Plaintiff had done
`
`nothing wrong, he tried to put the incident behind him.
`
`27. In February 2020, Plaintiff and his family decided it was in their best interest for several
`
`members of their household to work from home due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.
`
`28. Plaintiff did not have such an option due to his essential worker status, and continued
`
`reporting to work each day.
`
`29. Because of the known impact of COVED-19 on the respiratory system and the fact that his
`
`child had a respiratory condition, Plaintiff took it upon himself to begin wearing a face
`
`covering in and around the Smithfield facility as a safety precaution.
`
`30. On May 1, 2020, Plaintiff reported to work as normal while wearing a mask. Upon entering
`
`the facility, Plaintiff passed Smith.
`
`31. Instead of acknowledging Plaintiff's concern for the safety of himself and his family, Smith
`
`admonished Plaintiff for wearing a mask, instructing him not to wear it at work or near the
`
`building because it could stir up "paranoia" and "create panic."
`
`32. Plaintiff tried to explain his child's condition, but Smith would have none of Plaintiff's
`
`reasoning.
`
`33. This constituted notice of Plaintiff's protected disability class to Smithfield and was a
`
`protected complaint regarding safety surrounding the COVED-19 pandemic.
`
`E-FILED 05/11/2022 03:27 PM
`
`/ CONFIRMATION 1188654
`
`/ A 2201692 / COMMON PLEAS DIVISION / IFOJ
`
`4
`
`

`

`34. Smith then ordered Plaintiff to take off the mask and threatened to involve Brad Keyfavor,
`
`the plant manager, if Plaintiff did not comply with his instructions. Plaintiff removed his
`
`mask as demanded.
`
`35. Even though Plaintiff had followed instructions, Smith refused to drop the mask issue.
`
`36. Smith met with Rafael Baez, the manufacturing manager and Plaintiff's brother, and asked
`
`Rafael Baez to make sure that Plaintiff was not wearing a mask.
`
`37. Even though Rafael Baez knew about the danger of exposure to COVID-19 for his
`
`asthmatic family, he reminded Plaintiff that masks were not to be worn in the facility due
`
`to internal policy.
`
`38. Plaintiff's compliance with Smith's instructions proved to be to his own detriment.
`
`39. A few weeks later, on or about May 23, 2020, Smithfield notified its employees that they
`
`were offering free COVID-19 testing.
`
`40. Plaintiff had been feeling like he may have symptoms, so he took one of these offered tests.
`
`It returned a positive result for COVID-19, and Plaintiff was sent home.
`
`41. Less than one week later, Smith called Plaintiff and demanded that he return to work.
`
`42. Even though he knew that Plaintiff had only tested positive for COVID-19 a few days prior,
`
`Smith threatened to stop paying Plaintiff if he did not return to work.
`
`43. Although Plaintiff did not feel like his symptoms had subsided, he relied on the income
`
`from Smithfield to support his family, so he submitted himself to another COVID-19 test
`
`the next day. This test again returned a positive result, and again Plaintiff was sent home.
`
`44. Although both tests were performed at Smithfield facilities, Smith refused to accept the
`
`validity of Plaintiff's test results and demanded another test less than a week later.
`
`E-FILED 05/11/2022 03:27 PM / CONFIRMATION 1188654
`
`/ A 2201692
`
`/ COMMON PLEAS DIVISION
`
`/
`
`IFOJ
`
`5
`
`

`

`45. Smith's harassment of Plaintiff did not stop at two tests. It continued for the next two and
`
`a half months.
`
`46. At Smith's request, Plaintiff was subject to weekly tests from his initial positive test on
`
`May 23, 2020 until nearly the end of August 2020, when he finally tested negative and was
`
`able to return to work.
`
`47. During this period, all of Plaintiffs weekly tests came back positive, and the repeated
`
`invasive nature of the testing procedure caused Plaintiff to develop other symptoms
`
`including sinus pain, headaches, and nosebleeds.
`
`48. When Plaintiff returned to work in August, it had become common practice at the facility
`
`to wear masks at work.
`
`49. Smithfield had instituted a policy requiring employees to wear company-provided masks
`
`while in the building.
`
`50. Because of his first-hand experience with this deadly disease, Plaintiff erred on the side of
`
`caution and wore his own mask underneath the company-provided disposable mask at
`
`work.
`
`51. Even though many other employees were taking similar precautions, Plaintiff was stopped
`
`and again admonished for his commitment to safety.
`
`52. Allison Jones, a supervisor in the quality control department, stopped Plaintiff in the
`
`hallway and told him not to wear both masks at once.
`
`53. Jones informed him that Smithfield's rules stated that employees were to wear only
`
`company-provided disposable masks in the facility.
`
`E-FILED 05/11/2022 03:27 PM / CONFIRMATION 1188654
`
`/ A 2201692
`
`/ COMMON PLEAS DIVISION / IFOJ
`
`6
`
`

`

`54. Again, Plaintiff complied with Smithfield's policy despite the potential consequences to
`
`his own safety, though he also made a protected complaint of unsafe working conditions
`
`caused by refusing to allow him to wear the extra mask.
`
`55. Plaintiff settled back into his new routine of wearing only company provided masks and
`
`reporting to work at the facility each day.
`
`56. Plaintiff hoped to put the past few months behind him and was optimistic that Smith's
`
`discriminatory targeting had come to an end. Unfortunately, this was not the case.
`
`57. About a week after Plaintiff returned to work, he was vaping outside during break next to
`
`a designated smoking area and Smith approached him.
`
`58. Even though Plaintiff had been only person in the area, Smith targeted him, reminding
`
`Plaintiff that he was not in the designated smoking area.
`
`59. When Plaintiff responded and explained that he believed the matter was a non-issue
`
`because of his solitude and the fact that he was vaping and not smoking, Smith physically
`
`grabbed Plaintiff's shoulders and moved him to the designated smoking area.
`
`60. Plaintiff took this opportunity to ask Smith why he only applied these types of rules to
`
`Plaintiff (another protected complaint of discrimination) but received no response.
`
`6 l . Plaintiff again tried to put the incident behind him and returned to work.
`
`62. A few weeks later, Whitney Jackson, an hourly employee of mixed-race descent, was
`
`transferred to work under Plaintiff.
`
`63. Jackson had a reputation as a troublemaker and had been transferred to different
`
`departments multiple times during her employment with Smithfield.
`
`E-FILED 05/11/2022 03:27 PM / CONFIRMATION 1188654
`
`/ A 2201692
`
`/ COMMON PLEAS DIVISION /
`
`IFOJ
`
`7
`
`

`

`64. Jackson's reputation was acknowledged by Superintendent Mike Khuman, a Caucasian
`
`male, who took it upon himself to warn Plaintiff and his supervisory staff that Jackson was
`
`likely to cause trouble in their department.
`
`65. The next day, Jackson reported to work to find that the other hourly workers were watching
`
`her.
`
`66. A significant majority of the hourly workers were of Hispanic heritage and it was common
`
`for these employees to speak Spanish in and around the Smithfield facility.
`
`67. As a new hire in the department, it is likely that other employees would observe Jackson
`
`more closely than their more familiar colleagues.
`
`68. Jackson joked with the other hourly employees, asking them if they've ever seen a new
`
`hire before.
`
`69. Both Jackson's direct supervisor, Joe Okwoko, and Plaintiff (who was never her direct
`
`supervisor but did split Saturday shifts with Okwoko as supervisor, discussed infra)
`
`laughed at her joke, and the department staff continued about their business.
`
`70. Over the next few weeks, Jackson and Okwoko became close colleagues. Okwoko is of
`
`African descent.
`
`71. Jackson regularly stopped by the office to converse with Okwoko on breaks.
`
`72. Plaintiff, who shared office space with Okwoko, noticed their relationship, and even
`
`overheard them talking about going to a casino together.
`
`73. Khuman also noticed the relationship between Okwoko and Jackson but elected not to
`
`mention it.
`
`74. Plaintiff followed Khuman's example, decided not to mention their relationship, and
`
`instead continued to carry out his work duties.
`
`E-FILED 05/11/2022 03:27 PM / CONFIRMATION 1188654
`
`/ A 2201692
`
`/ COMMON PLEAS DIVISION /
`
`IFOJ
`
`8
`
`

`

`75. On or around Saturday, December 5, 2020, Plaintiff reported to work as usual.
`
`76. Plaintiff and Okwoko usually split Saturday shifts to allow for each of them to spend some
`
`much-needed time with their families.
`
`77. On this Saturday, Plaintiff was charged with oversight of the hourly employees' operations.
`
`78. Several hours into the shift, an hourly employee came to Plaintiff and informed him that
`
`Jackson was not wearing her personal protective equipment ("PPE") in the correct manner.
`
`79. Plaintiff spoke with Jackson and found that her face shield was up, not covering her face
`
`as intended.
`
`80. Plaintiff asked her to fix the shield's position and wear it properly, but Jackson immediately
`
`took a bad attitude with Plaintiff, responding "if I have to pull the stupid shield down, I'd
`
`rather go home."
`
`81. Plaintiff informed her that if she cannot or will not comply with PPE requirements, she
`
`should go home.
`
`82. Realizing that Plaintiff took safety seriously, Jackson instead asked for a new face shield.
`
`83. While Plaintiff turned to look for someone to cover Jackson's position and allow her to fix
`
`her shield, Jackson said, "fuck this" and stormed off from her workspace, throwing the
`
`helmet and expensive cut-resistant gloves into the handwashing station trash can.
`
`84. Instead of following her, Plaintiff set to work finding someone to replace Jackson's spot
`
`that day.
`
`85. After staffing Jackson's spot, Plaintiff returned to the office to report Jackson's conduct
`
`and the incident that had just taken place.
`
`86. Along the way, Plaintiff washed his hands and noticed Jackson's expensive PPE in the
`
`trash.
`
`E-FILED 05/11/2022 03:27 PM / CONFIRMATION 1188654
`
`/ A 2201692
`
`/ COMMON PLEAS DIVISION / IFOJ
`
`9
`
`

`

`87. Plaintiff attempted to reach Khuman by phone, and unable to do so, he contacted Rafael.
`
`Baez.
`
`88. After Plaintiff explained Jackson's conduct, Rafael Baez assured Plaintiff that the incident
`
`was solely Jackson's problem and instructed Plaintiff to write an email detailing Jackson's
`
`conduct.
`
`89. At the same time as Plaintiff's conversation with Rafael Baez, Jackson moved to a facility
`
`hallway and began calling out about wanting "someone to fuck him [referring to Plaintiff]
`
`up."
`
`90. Jackson continued to exclaim bigoted remarks about her fellow co-workers, including that
`
`they likely hate her because she can't speak Spanish and making comments about
`
`immigrants of Hispanic heritage.
`
`91. Monica Morehaus, a quality control supervisor, was able to calm Jackson and convince her
`
`to contact human resources regarding the incident.
`
`92. Human resources instructed Jackson to collect her helmet and other articles of PPE, but
`
`she lied to them, stating that they were left at her workstation when in reality they had been
`
`thrown in the trash as the result of her violent tantrum.
`
`93. The following Monday, Smith met with Plaintiff to inquire about the events of the Saturday
`
`before.
`
`94. Smith asked Plaintiff for a report, and Plaintiff responded, providing information that
`
`Jackson had thrown her helmet and walked off from her workspace.
`
`95. At the conclusion of their meeting, Smith asked Plaintiff if there was anything else he
`
`wished to report, and Plaintiff responded that he had nothing further.
`
`96. Plaintiff then left Smith's office and carried on with his workday.
`
`E-FILED 05/11/2022 03:27 PM
`
`/ CONFIRMATION 1188654
`
`/ A 2201692
`
`/ COMMON PLEAS DIVISION
`
`/
`
`IFOJ
`
`10
`
`

`

`97. One day later, Smith called another meeting, this time with both Khuman and Plaintiff.
`
`98. At this meeting, Smith asked Plaintiff and Khuman for more information regarding
`
`Jackson's previous reports that people were staring at her.
`
`99. Plaintiff responded, informing Smith that both he and Okwoko, Jackson's direct
`
`supervisor, were aware of her comments on people staring.
`
`100.
`
`Smith inquired why the issue had not been reported, and Plaintiff informed Smith
`
`that he felt Okwoko was in a better position to provide complete information about the
`
`incident as Jackson's direct supervisor.
`
`101.
`
`Smith then accused Plaintiff of harassing Jackson and asked for another written
`
`statement by Plaintiff on the incident, to which Plaintiff responded by denying any
`
`harassment of Jackson and reminding Smith to take steps to investigate the matter further
`
`as he was not the only supervisor involved in the situation.
`
`102.
`
`103.
`
`Okwoko later denied having a close relationship with Jackson.
`
`Almost two weeks after Plaintiffs meeting with Khuman and Smith, on December
`
`18, 2020, Smithfield terminated Plaintiffs employment for allegedly harassing Jackson.
`
`104.
`
`Throughout his employment, Plaintiff made numerous complaints about unsafe
`
`working conditions to himself and others, failing to follow PPE requirements, and general
`
`failures to prevent the spread of COViD-19.
`
`105.
`
`106.
`
`Plaintiff also made multiple complaints of discrimination during his employment.
`
`Shortly after Plaintiffs protected complaints, Smithfield
`
`terminated his
`
`employment.
`
`107.
`
`Throughout Plaintiffs employment with Smithfield, he was frequently singled out
`
`because of his race and national origin.
`
`E-FILED 05/11/2022 03:27 PM / CONFIRMATION 1188654
`
`/ A 2201692 / COMMON PLEAS DIVISION / IFOJ
`
`11
`
`

`

`108.
`
`Plaintiff was most frequently targeted by Smith, a member of the plant's human
`
`resources.
`
`109.
`
`Smith forced Plaintiff to remove his own personal protective equipment when
`
`similarly situated employees of other races were not required to do so.
`
`110.
`
`Once Plaintiff was confirmed to be infected with COVED-19, Smith made a practice
`
`of further targeting Plaintiff by requiring repetitive testing to prove his positive status
`
`during his recovery.
`
`111.
`
`Upon information and belief, this requirement was not forced upon his U.S.-born,
`
`Caucasian colleagues.
`
`112.
`
`After spending nearly two months in recovery, Plaintiff returned to work and faced
`
`further discrimination.
`
`113.
`
`Within one week of his return, Allison Jones, a supervisor in a different department,
`
`stopped Plaintiff and informed him that company policy was to only wear disposable masks
`
`provided by the plant.
`
`114.
`
`Jones instructed him to remove the second mask that he had been wearing
`
`underneath his company-provided disposable face covering.
`
`115.
`
`Although many other employees were wearing the same PPE as Plaintiff, he was
`
`disparately the only person told to change his face covering.
`
`116.
`
`Demanding that Plaintiff jeopardize his own personal safety was not enough for
`
`management at Smithfield.
`
`117.
`
`In or around late summer 2020, the disparate treatment continued when Smith went
`
`out of his way to physically move Plaintiff a few steps into a designated smoking area.
`
`E-FILED 05/11/2022 03:27 PM
`
`/ CONFIRMATION 1188654
`
`/ A 2201692
`
`/ COMMON PLEAS DIVISION
`
`/ IFOJ
`
`12
`
`

`

`118.
`
`Although Plaintiff was the only person in the plant's outdoor break area at the time
`
`and was vaping instead of smoking, Smith chose to single him out and enforce rules on
`
`Plaintiff much more strictly than on other employees.
`
`119.
`
`Plaintiff responded, informing Smith that other employees frequently violate the
`
`smoking area rules, but Smith insisted on singling Plaintiff out, and moved him to the
`
`smoking area by his shoulders.
`
`120.
`
`Had Smith chosen to focus on his job duties instead of hyper-scrutinizing Plaintiff's
`
`every move, this incident would have gone completely unnoticed.
`
`121.
`
`To continue this pattern of discriminatory behavior, Smithfield allowed Jackson
`
`and Okwoko, two employees of non-Hispanic descent, to have a relationship that led to
`
`obvious favoritism in the workplace.
`
`122.
`
`Although Okwoko and Jackson's relationship crossed multiple boundaries,
`
`including talk of fraternization outside of work at a casino, Plaintiff was accused of
`
`harassing Jackson by sharing details about his life with her and showing her the scar from
`
`his appendix removal (which she asked him to show her).
`
`123.
`
`Jackson got along with other supervisory staff, but did not agree with many of her
`
`co-workers or Plaintiff because of their heritage.
`
`124.
`
`Indeed, after destroying expensive PPE out of anger, Jackson called out that she
`
`"wanted someone to fuck [Plaintiff] up," and accusing him of hating her for only speaking
`
`English.
`
`125.
`
`Jackson further commented on the fact that many of her co-workers were
`
`immigrants in a derogatory way.
`
`E-FILED 05/11/2022 03:27 PM / CONFIRMATION 1188654
`
`/ A 2201692
`
`/ COMMON PLEAS DIVISION /
`
`IFOJ
`
`13
`
`

`

`126.
`
`When Plaintiff reported this incident to human resources (a protected complaint),
`
`Smith continued to target him.
`
`127.
`
`Despite that both Plaintiff and Khuman were in the meeting to discuss Jackson's
`
`outburst, Smith asked only Plaintiff questions about his own conduct.
`
`128.
`
`Instead of investigating the situation in an unbiased manner, Smith made
`
`assumptions about fault and assumed that Plaintiff was in the wrong because of his race.
`
`129.
`
`Rather than fire or even reprimand Jackson, a known troublemaker who clearly
`
`harbored discriminatory attitudes toward Hispanic people, Smith chose to allege
`
`harassment violations against Plaintiff and terminate his employment with Smithfield for
`
`discriminatory reasons.
`
`130.
`
`At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, Plaintiff decided to err on the side of
`
`caution and wear a protective face covering at work.
`
`131.
`
`Plaintiff did so in order to protect his asthmatic child from COVID-19, a virus
`
`known to have harsh respiratory symptoms.
`
`132.
`
`Since Plaintiff's child was at higher risk for COVID-19 complications due to their
`
`asthma, Plaintiff felt it was best to wear a mask.
`
`133.
`
`When