Case 9:21-cv-00305-RC-CLS Document 1 Filed 12/21/21 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`LUFKIN DIVISION
`
`
`KACHADA WEBB,
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:21-cv-00305
`
`JURY DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`SANDERSON FARMS, INC.
`(Processing Division)
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiff Kachada Webb hereby files this, her Original Complaint, against Defendant
`
`Sanderson Farms, Inc. (Production Division) for violating federal law. The causes of action and
`
`summary of claims relating thereto are addressed below:
`
`I.
`
`PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff Kachada Webb (“Plaintiff” or “Webb”) is currently a citizen and resident
`
`of Palestine, Texas.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant Sanderson Farms, Inc. (Processing Division) (“Sanderson Farms” or
`
`“Defendant”) is a Mississippi corporation licensed to do business in Texas. Defendant’s main
`
`offices are located at 127 Flynt Road, Laurel, Mississippi 39443. Defendant operates a poultry
`
`processing plant in Palestine, Texas where Plaintiff was employed.
`
`3.
`
` Defendant Sanderson Farms, Inc. will be served by and through its registered agent
`
`for service, CT Corporation System, 1999 Bryan St #900, Dallas, TX 75201.
`
`4.
`
`This court has jurisdiction to hear the merits of Plaintiff’s claims under 28 U.S.C.
`
`§§1331 as Plaintiff is claiming violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the
`
`PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT – PAGE 1
`
`

`

`Case 9:21-cv-00305-RC-CLS Document 1 Filed 12/21/21 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 2
`
`Pregnancy Discrimination Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`Venue exists in this district and division as detailed in 28 U.S.C. §1391.
`
`Most of the acts alleged herein occurred in Anderson County, Texas.
`
`II.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`7.
`
`Plaintiff was employed by Sanderson Farms (Processing Division) in second
`
`processing to cut shoulders. In the hiring process, Plaintiff was required (as are all employees of
`
`Sanderson Farms) to complete a post-offer medical questionnaire which inquired of medical
`
`conditions unrelated to her job duties. Plaintiff worked second shift which is 4:30 p.m. to 1:30 a.m.
`
`On March 5, 2020. Plaintiff found out she was pregnant for the first time. Plaintiff requested
`
`accommodation because of the limitations imposed by her physician. Plaintiff was never moved
`
`from her position in second processing. Unfortunately, Plaintiff suffered a miscarriage and had a
`
`DNC procedure on August 20, 2020. Plaintiff took three days off for the DNC procedure and
`
`submitted a full duty release to return to her job, which was required by Sanderson Farms for her
`
`to return to work.
`
`8.
`
`On or about September 25, 2020 Plaintiff found out she was pregnant the second
`
`time. In October 2020 Plaintiff again requested to be moved to another position that was lighter
`
`duty because of her high-risk pregnancy. Plaintiff made the request to her supervisor, the
`
`superintendent, human resources, and the plant manager. Plaintiff’s request was again refused. She
`
`was told “if you cannot perform everything, you cannot work.”
`
`9.
`
`On October 16, 2020, Plaintiff learned that she, again, had suffered a miscarriage
`
`and she contacted the company to inform them of that fact. The following day Plaintiff underwent
`
`another DNC procedure. When Plaintiff returned to work two days later and presented a note from
`
`her doctor regarding her miscarriage and the DNC procedure which stated that she needed
`
`restricted duty. Plaintiff was again told that she needed a full duty release to return to work and
`
`PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT – PAGE 2
`
`

`

`Case 9:21-cv-00305-RC-CLS Document 1 Filed 12/21/21 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 3
`
`was refused the ability to go back to work. Plaintiff was also told that the doctor’s note was not
`
`specific enough and was questioned about the DNC procedure and whether it was actually a
`
`surgery. Plaintiff was put on a week’s suspension at that time due to attendance issues.
`
`10.
`
`On November 3, 2020 Plaintiff presented the full duty release forms from her doctor
`
`to Hope in HR which addressed her surgery/DNC. At that time, Plaintiff was terminated for
`
`missing too much time from work.
`
`III. CAUSES OF ACTION
`
`A.
`
`PREGNANCY DISCRIMINATION (TITLE VII & PDA)
`
`Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges all of the foregoing and further
`
`11.
`
`alleges as follows:
`
`12.
`
`Plaintiff is an employee within the meaning of Title VII and belongs to a class
`
`protected under the statute, namely she is/was pregnant. See 42 U.S.C. §2000e(k).
`
`13.
`
`Defendant is an employer within the meaning of Title VII. See 42 U.S.C.
`
`§2000e(b).
`
`14.
`
`Defendant intentionally discriminated against Plaintiff by terminating her
`
`employment because of or on the basis of pregnancy.
`
`15.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff suffered
`
`damages. Defendant’s conduct was willful and justifies an award of punitive damages.
`
`16.
`
`To the extent that Defendant contends that Plaintiff was fired for a legitimate non-
`
`discriminatory reason, said reason is a mere pretext for discrimination. Alternatively, the reason(s)
`
`given for Plaintiff’s termination, while true are only some of the reasons, and Plaintiff’s sex and
`
`pregnancy were motivating factors in the decision to terminate her employment. In other words,
`
`Defendant had mixed motives for Plaintiff’s termination.
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT – PAGE 3
`
`

`

`Case 9:21-cv-00305-RC-CLS Document 1 Filed 12/21/21 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 4
`
`B.
`
`AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
`
`17.
`
`The allegations contained in previous paragraphs are hereby incorporated by
`
`reference.
`
`18.
`
`As a result of her medical conditions described herein, Plaintiff has been an
`
`individual with a “disability” within the meaning of Section 3(2) of the Americans with Disabilities
`
`Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2). More particularly, Plaintiff had impairments that substantially limits
`
`one or more of her major life activities, has a record of such an impairment, and/or was regarded
`
`by Sanderson Farms as having such an impairment.
`
`19.
`
`Plaintiff is a “qualified individual with a disability” as that term is defined in §
`
`101(8) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8). More specifically, Plaintiff is an individual with a
`
`disability who, with reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of her job as
`
`a poultry processor for Sanderson Farms.
`
`20.
`
`The effect of these unlawful practices has been to deprive Plaintiff of equal
`
`employment opportunities, and to otherwise adversely affect her employment status as an
`
`individual with a disability within the meaning of the ADA. Based upon the stated allegations,
`
`Plaintiff asserts five claims under the ADA: (1) Disparate treatment based upon Defendant’s
`
`termination of Plaintiff based upon qualification standards and other criteria that screened her out
`
`as an individual with disabilities; (2) Disparate impact based upon the Fitness-for-Duty policy
`
`which requires a full-duty release which had an adverse impact on Plaintiff as an individual with
`
`disabilities by screening Plaintiff from employment by reason of her pregnancy related
`
`impairment; (3) Unlawful medical inquiry – alleging violation of 42 U.S.C. §12112(d)(4)(A),
`
`which provides that an employer “shall not require a medical examination an shall not make
`
`inquiries of an employee as to whether such employee is an individual with a disability or as to the
`
`nature or severity of the disability, unless such examination or inquiry is shown to be job-related
`
`PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT – PAGE 4
`
`

`

`Case 9:21-cv-00305-RC-CLS Document 1 Filed 12/21/21 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 5
`
`and consistent with business necessity;” (4) failure to make reasonable accommodation to
`
`Plaintiff’s disabilities, which constitutes discrimination against Plaintiff with respect to terms,
`
`conditions, or privileges of employment in violation of Section 102(b)(5)(A) of the ADA, 42
`
`U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A) and (5) regarded Plaintiff as disabled. In connection with Plaintiff’s
`
`accommodation claim, Sanderson Farms failed to undertake any good faith efforts, in consultation
`
`with Plaintiff, to identify and make a reasonable accommodation with Plaintiff.
`
`IV.
`
`DAMAGES
`
`21.
`
`As a result of Defendant’s violations of the law described herein, Plaintiff has
`
`suffered actual damages in the form of lost wages and benefits (past and future), in an amount that
`
`has not yet been fully established, but which will be provided at time of trial.
`
`22.
`
`As a result of this willful and malicious violation of the law described herein,
`
`Plaintiff requests that she be awarded all damages, to which she is entitled, including punitive
`
`damages. Plaintiff also requests any additional equitable relief to which he is entitled.
`
`23.
`
`Plaintiff also requests reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs.
`
`V.
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`24.
`
`Plaintiff requests trial by jury on all claims for which a jury trial is available.
`
`VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`
`
`Wherefore, Plaintiff requests that Defendant be cited to appear and answer, and that on
`
`final trial, Plaintiff have judgment against Defendant as follows:
`
`Judgment against Defendant for Plaintiff’s actual damages, including lost wages
`and benefits (both back pay and front pay), amount to be determined;
`
`Judgment against Defendant for punitive damages for the maximum amount
`allowed by law;
`
`An order that Defendant take such other and further actions as may be necessary to
`redress Defendant’s violation of the law;
`
`a.
`
`
`b.
`
`
`c.
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT – PAGE 5
`
`

`

`Case 9:21-cv-00305-RC-CLS Document 1 Filed 12/21/21 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 6
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum amount allowed by law;
`
`Costs of suit, including attorney’s fees;
`
`The award of such other and further relief, both at law and in equity, including
`injunctive relief and reinstatement, to which Plaintiff may be justly entitled.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ William S. Hommel, Jr.
`William S. Hommel, Jr.
`State Bar No. 09934250
`bhommel@hommelfirm.com
`Hommel Law Firm
`5620 Old Bullard Road, Suite 115
`Tyler, Texas 75703
`903-596-7100 Telephone and Facsimile
`
`ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT – PAGE 6
`
`