Case 2:21-cv-00308 Document 1 Filed on 12/23/21 in TXSD Page 1 of 14
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISION
`
`
`§
`
`
`
`LAWRENCE DIKE,
`§
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF
`§
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`§
`VS.
`§
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COLUMBIA HOSPITAL CORPORATION OF §
`BAY AREA, INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A
`§
`CORPUS CHRISTI MEDICAL CENTER;
`§
`BAY AREA HEALTHCARE GROUP, LTD.,
`§
`INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A CORPUS
`§
`CHRISTI MEDICAL CENTER; AND HCA
`§
`HEALTHCARE, INC.,
`
`
`
`§
`
`DEFENDANTS
`
`
`
`§
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. ___________
`
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`1.
`
`This is a civil action against Defendants, Columbia Hospital Corporation of Bay Area,
`
`Individually and d/b/a Corpus Christi Medical Center; Bay Area Healthcare Group, Ltd.,
`
`Individually and d/b/a Corpus Christi Medical Center; and HCA Healthcare, Inc., for damages in
`
`violation of rights guaranteed to Plaintiff under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as
`
`amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e, et seq. in accordance with its provisions against race, color, and
`
`national origin discrimination and retaliation. More specifically, this action seeks monetary
`
`damages, including mental anguish, and all other appropriate relief to which Plaintiff is entitled
`
`under the law on account of race, color, and national origin discrimination and retaliation.
`
`2.
`
`This is a civil action against Defendants, Columbia Hospital Corporation of Bay Area,
`
`Individually and d/b/a Corpus Christi Medical Center; Bay Area Healthcare Group, Ltd.,
`
`Individually and d/b/a Corpus Christi Medical Center; and HCA Healthcare, Inc., for damages in
`
`violation of rights guaranteed to Plaintiff under 42 U.S.C. §1981, §1981a regarding the right to
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00308 Document 1 Filed on 12/23/21 in TXSD Page 2 of 14
`
`make and enforce contracts and full and equal benefits under the statute. More specifically, this
`
`action seeks monetary damages, including mental anguish, and all other appropriate relief to which
`
`Plaintiff is entitled under the law on account of race and color discrimination, hostile work
`
`environment, and retaliation.
`
`3.
`
`The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(f)(3), 42 U.S.C.
`
`§1981, 28 U.S.C. §1343(a), 28 U.S.C. §1331, as amended and venue is proper pursuant to 28
`
`U.S.C. §1391(b) for acts committed within this judicial district.
`
`II. PARTIES
`
`4.
`
`Lawrence Dike, (hereinafter Plaintiff), a Black African male and former employee, was an
`
`individual employed by an employer as contemplated by Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act,
`
`as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e(a). Plaintiff was a resident of Corpus Christi, Nueces County, Texas
`
`at the time of the incident. Plaintiff is a citizen of the United States and at all times relevant to this
`
`complaint was a resident of this division.
`
`5.
`
`Defendant, Columbia Hospital Corporation of Bay Area, Individually and d/b/a Corpus
`
`Christi Medical Center (hereinafter Medical Center or Defendant), is a corporation organized and
`
`registered to do business under the laws of the State of Texas and doing business in Nueces County,
`
`Texas and is an employer as contemplated under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, as
`
`amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e(b). This entity is identified as Plaintiff’s employer on his pay stub
`
`issued to him because of the employment made the basis of this lawsuit and this entity is being
`
`sued as Plaintiff’s employer in this lawsuit. Service of process may be served upon CT Corporation
`
`System, registered agent of Bay Area Healthcare Group, Ltd., d/b/a Corpus Christi Medical Center,
`
`whose address is 1999 Bryan Street, Suite 900, Dallas, Texas 75201-3136. This Defendant is an
`
`independent legal entity, and it is an affiliate under the corporate umbrella of HCA Healthcare,
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00308 Document 1 Filed on 12/23/21 in TXSD Page 3 of 14
`
`Inc. a publicly traded entity which owns and operates over 180 hospitals at multiple sites, including
`
`surgery and urgent care centers, in multiple states and internationally.
`
`6.
`
`Defendant, Bay Area Healthcare Group, Ltd., Individually and d/b/a Corpus Christi
`
`Medical Center, (hereinafter Medical Center or Defendant), is a domestic limited partnership
`
`registered to do business under the laws of the State of Texas and doing business in Nueces County,
`
`Texas and is an employer as contemplated under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, as
`
`amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e(b). It has two general partners, Columbia Hospital Corporation of Bay
`
`Area and South Texas Surgicare, Inc. This Defendant is Plaintiff’s employer and/or joint employer
`
`and it owns and operates hospital facilities located at Corpus Christi Medical Center Doctors
`
`Regional, 3315 Alameda, Corpus Christi, Texas; Corpus Christi Medical Center – The Heart
`
`Hospital, 700 Williams Dr., Corpus Christi, Texas 78412; Corpus Christi Medical Center Bay
`
`Area, 7101 South Padre Island Drive, Corpus Christi, Texas 78412; Corpus Christi Medical Center
`
`– Bayview, 6629 Wooldridge Road, Corpus Christi, Texas 78414 and Corpus Christi, Medical
`
`Center – Cancer Center, 1625 Rodd Field Road, Suite 200, Corpus Christi, Texas 78412; ER 24/7
`
`Northwest located at 13725 Northwest Blvd., Corpus Christi, Texas 78410; ER 24/7 Portland
`
`located at 1702 Highway 181 North, Suite A-11, Portland, Texas 78374; and ER 24/7 Rockport
`
`located at 400 Enterprise Blvd., Rockport, Texas 78382. Service of process will be served as
`
`provided under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
`
`7.
`
`Defendant, HCA Healthcare, Inc. (“HCA”), is a business incorporated under the laws of
`
`the State of Delaware and doing business in Nueces County, Texas (hereinafter Medical Center or
`
`Defendant). This Defendant is Plaintiff’s joint employer and/or it was an integrated enterprise with
`
`Columbia Hospital Corporation of Bay Area, individually and d/b/a Corpus Christi Medical
`
`Center, at all times made the basis of this lawsuit and is an employer as contemplated under Title
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00308 Document 1 Filed on 12/23/21 in TXSD Page 4 of 14
`
`VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e(b). This Defendant may be served
`
`by serving its registered agent: the Corporation Trust Company, Corporation Trust Center, 1209
`
`Orange St., Wilmington, DE 19801. This Defendant may alternatively be served by waiver
`
`pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
`
`III. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS
`
`8.
`
`On or about December 22, 2017, Plaintiff filed his initial written charge of discrimination
`
`on the basis of race, color national origin and retaliation with the U.S. Equal Employment
`
`Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which was amended on or about April 27, 2018.
`
`9.
`
`Subsequently, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued and sent a
`
`Dismissal and Notice of Rights, dated September 30, 2021, to Plaintiff, which he subsequently
`
`received.
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies with EEOC and has timely filed this
`
`action.
`
`IV. FACTS
`
`11.
`
`Plaintiff Lawrence Dike is a Black African who was born in Nigeria, a country in West
`
`Africa. Mr. Dike’s ethnicity, cultural and linguistic characteristics are of the Black African people
`
`of Nigeria. Although fluent in English, Mr. Dike speaks Igbo and speaks with a Nigerian accent.
`
`12.
`
`On or about June 27, 2016, Plaintiff, Lawrence Dike, was hired by the Corpus Christi
`
`Medical Center (hereinafter Medical Center or Defendant) to work as a Certified Nurse Assistant
`
`and paid $13.52 an hour, along with benefits, including medical and dental coverage. When he
`
`was initially hired by the Medical Center, Plaintiff was assigned to the Bariatric Unit and Plaintiff’s
`
`immediate supervisor was Christine Goodwine, who was a charge nurse for the Medical Center
`
`located at 7010 South Padre Island Drive, Corpus Christi, Texas 78412. Ms. Goodwine reported
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00308 Document 1 Filed on 12/23/21 in TXSD Page 5 of 14
`
`to Ms. Merissa Zamora, Nursing Manager, whose immediate supervisor was Mr. Jason Sewell,
`
`Director of Nursing.
`
`13.
`
`As a Certified Nurse Assistant for the Medical Center, Plaintiff’s duties and responsibilities
`
`were to work closely and directly with medical patients in a number of different circumstances
`
`under the guidance and direction from medical staff responsible for the care of patients within the
`
`medical facility. Generally, Plaintiff was responsible for working with and helping patients with
`
`various activities, monitoring the vital signs of patients, and reporting the condition of patients,
`
`including their physical and emotional conditions, to name a few.
`
`14. While Employed at the Medical Center, Plaintiff satisfactorily performed his duties as a
`
`Certified Nurse Assistant and met the performance standards established by the Medical Center.
`
`For Plaintiff’s Initial 90 Day Appraisal, on October 7, 2016, Mike Conwill, Director, Human
`
`Resources for the Medical Center noted that Plaintiff satisfactorily completed the “initial
`
`competencies” and demonstrated satisfactory performance of duties per job description during 90-
`
`day evaluation period. What’s more, Mr. Conwill commented in Plaintiff’s Initial 90 Day
`
`Appraisal that Plaintiff was an “Exceptional CNA Asset to the Unit”.
`
`15.
`
`The following year, on or about July 5, 2017, Plaintiff was evaluated by his supervisor,
`
`Ms. Zamora who documented Plaintiff’s annual evaluation wherein it noted “Satisfactory
`
`Completion of Employment Year”, where his Summary of Strengths noted, “Team player, helpful,
`
`customer-service oriented and dependable”, to name a few. This was backed up by numerous
`
`“Kudos 2 U” . . . “for making a difference in our patients’ lives” issued by Ms. Zamora. Moreover,
`
`for his first-year anniversary, Ms. Zamora wrote a personal note to Plaintiff “Just want to say
`
`thank-you for all your hard work & to let you know I do appreciate you”.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00308 Document 1 Filed on 12/23/21 in TXSD Page 6 of 14
`
`16.
`
`Despite Plaintiff’s satisfactory work performance and positive contributions to the Medical
`
`Center’s workplace objectives, for reasons motivated by racial animus, Plaintiff was subjected to
`
`concerted efforts by several employees at the Medical Center to undermine and subvert Plaintiff’s
`
`employment status at the Medical Center. Even worse, on account of his race, color and national
`
`origin, Plaintiff was subjected to repeated unsubstantiated claims of employee misconduct, which
`
`created a hostile work environment. Moreover, when Plaintiff objected to the disparate
`
`discriminatory treatment, he was retaliated against when, on March 30, 2018, Plaintiff was
`
`wrongfully terminated.
`
`17.
`
`The discrimination toward Plaintiff took on many forms. In or around August 2016, the
`
`Medical Center staff routinely changed Plaintiff’s work assignments on the premise that certain
`
`patients did not want Plaintiff involved in their medical care because he is black. To make matters
`
`worse, Plaintiff was constantly ridiculed by the Medical Center’s charge nurses and some of its
`
`Filipino nurses that African food stinks. Moreover, as a manifestation at the Medical Center’s
`
`establish practice, on a regular basis Plaintiff was informed by the charge nurse Monica Rivera
`
`that she prefers Filipino employees to black employees. These comments and actions were
`
`reported by Plaintiff to Ms. Zamora on or about November 2016. However, instead of denouncing
`
`or rejecting the preference expressed by Ms. Rivera, Ms. Zamora dismissed Plaintiff’s report and
`
`complaint and failed to investigate Plaintiff’s complaint and take appropriate effective action. For
`
`Ms. Zamora, her attitude was that Plaintiff’s complaint was noting more than a joke and by her
`
`silence, Ms. Zamora adopted Ms. Rivera’s practice and attitude.
`
`18.
`
`The following month, on or around December 2016, Plaintiff reported to Ms. Zamora that
`
`a co-worker, Kevin Hernandez told Plaintiff to keep a 12-feet distance from him on account of
`
`Plaintiff’s culture and orientation. Another opportunity to articulate clearly the Medical Center’s
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00308 Document 1 Filed on 12/23/21 in TXSD Page 7 of 14
`
`practice and policy on its standards involving employee racial and ethnic issues was ignored. Ms.
`
`Zamora’s solution to Mr. Hernandez’s comment was for Plaintiff to ignore Mr. Hernandez and
`
`“Kill him with kindness”. When Plaintiff explained to Ms. Zamora how her response would be
`
`difficult as a practical matter and comprise patient safety, surprisingly, Ms. Zamora insisted that
`
`Plaintiff ignore Mr. Hernandez. Even so, the Medical Center failed to take or implement
`
`appropriate action against Mr. Hernandez.
`
`19.
`
`In response to Plaintiff’s discrimination complaints, on or about January 2017, Ms. Zamora
`
`wrongfully wrote up Plaintiff for clocking out after 7:30 a.m. However, this was another instance
`
`where Plaintiff was singled out to work with a restrictive time frame not applied to other non-black
`
`CNAs. Other non-black CNAs were allowed to work the same time period and clock out as
`
`Plaintiff, but they were not disciplined.
`
`20.
`
`As part of the evolving scheme to discriminate against Plaintiff on account of his race,
`
`color, and national origin, the Medical Center management made false claims against Plaintiff that
`
`he was rude, unprofessional, and disrespectful toward co-workers and staff. Plaintiff denied these
`
`unfounded assertions and allegations and asked Ms. Zamora for supporting documentation or proof
`
`but Ms. Zamora did not provide Plaintiff with any credible documentation of her allegations.
`
`Moreover, Plaintiff asked Ms. Zamora to review or exam video recordings available to the Medical
`
`Center but Ms. Zamora declined the request from Plaintiff. Consequently, the behavior and
`
`conduct permitted by the Medical Center made working conditions for Plaintiff difficult and
`
`stressful, which grew worse over time.
`
`21.
`
`The hostile work environment Plaintiff was forced to work in was tolerated by the Medical
`
`Center. For example, on or about February 6, 2017, Plaintiff reported to Ms. Zamora that a patient
`
`told Plaintiff that she did not “want a black Nigger to take care of her”. Ms. Zamora was informed
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00308 Document 1 Filed on 12/23/21 in TXSD Page 8 of 14
`
`this information was reported to the patient’s nurse who responded to Plaintiff to “get over it” and
`
`the nurse switched Plaintiff’s patient assignment. Even worse, Ms. Zamora told Plaintiff “there is
`
`nothing wrong with what the patient said”. Ms. Zamora then explained to Plaintiff that “if a patient
`
`doesn’t want a black person” then the response is “to give that patient somebody who is not black”.
`
`In support of the Medical Center’s policy or practice, Ms. Zamora instructed the charge nurse not
`
`to assign any black employee to that patient because that patient does not want black employees.
`
`22.
`
`The Medical Center’s efforts to impose its discriminatory scheme against Plaintiff was
`
`perpetuated by its false and unsubstantiated claims that Plaintiff left his unit without permission.
`
`Before leaving his unit, Plaintiff consistently and regularly got permission from and notified his
`
`nurse. Another false narrative postulated by the Medical Center claimed that Plaintiff was sleeping
`
`on the job which he denied. In reality, Plaintiff had reported to a charge nurse or the supervisor
`
`that non-black employees were sleeping on the job. What’s more, Ms. Zamora and Mr. Jason
`
`Sewell, Director of Nursing, refused to review stored video and records to verify Plaintiff’s claims
`
`or take action against non-black employees.
`
`23. Mr. Sewell and other Medical Center management officials consistently pressured Plaintiff
`
`to transfer to another unit as their solution to address the racial discrimination problem that was
`
`endemic in the unit. Plaintiff rejected this option inasmuch as it was not favorable to him. In
`
`response, on or about August 11, 2017, Mr. Sewell informed Plaintiff about an alleged incident
`
`that Plaintiff had thrown papers at Kat Ibarra at the nurse’s station. Plaintiff unequivocally denied
`
`this claim and Plaintiff implored Mr. Sewell to look at the Medical Center video recording records.
`
`However, without an explanation, Mr. Sewell informed Plaintiff that he would accept Ms. Ibarra’s
`
`word and not look at the video recording.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00308 Document 1 Filed on 12/23/21 in TXSD Page 9 of 14
`
`24.
`
`Having committed to a course of action to undermine Plaintiff’s employment with the
`
`Medical Center, Mr. Sewell devised and orchestrated a plan to monitor clandestinely Plaintiff’s
`
`work duties to see if he could find Plaintiff sleeping while at work. To implement this scheme, on
`
`or about June 15, 2017, Mr. Sewell instructed Mr. Kevin Hernandez to follow Plaintiff throughout
`
`his work shift to see if he could catch Plaintiff sleeping. This tactic was not used or applied to non-
`
`black Medical Center employees under Mr. Sewell’s supervision. Plaintiff learned about Mr.
`
`Hernandez’s project after Mr. Hernandez informed Plaintiff that Mr. Sewell had asked him to spy
`
`on Plaintiff and other black employees.
`
`25.
`
`For a considerable period of time, Mr. Sewell contemplated and took steps to destabilize
`
`and subvert Plaintiff’s employment at the Medical Center. To do so, on or about July 16, 2017,
`
`Mr. Sewell falsely made a claim that Plaintiff had hit a patient the night before. With this serious
`
`charge, an investigation was conducted that revealed and uncovered that the allegation was not
`
`true. The patient and his wife told the Medical Center management that the patient had made no
`
`such complaint against Plaintiff. Without explanation, the Medical Center did not take any
`
`corrective action against Mr. Sewell for his intentional actions to inflict emotional distress on
`
`Plaintiff for promoting a false claim.
`
`26.
`
`Not to be deterred by a failed attempt to discriminate against Plaintiff with a concocted
`
`patient complaint, Mr. Sewell, on or about September 22, 2017, issued a final warning to Plaintiff
`
`after he had notified Mr. Sewell about a complaint about a switched patient assignment by the
`
`charge nurse who claimed the patient did not want Plaintiff because he is black.
`
`27.
`
`After a prolonged period of discriminatory treatment, on or about December 22, 2017,
`
`Plaintiff filed a discrimination complaint through the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
`
`(EEOC) against the Medical Center. Notwithstanding notice from the EEOC, the Medical Center
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00308 Document 1 Filed on 12/23/21 in TXSD Page 10 of 14
`
`continued its discriminatory treatment of Plaintiff when he was not given the customary coverage
`
`for his breaks. Several months later, on or about March 18, 2018, at a meeting, Plaintiff was asked
`
`about his whereabouts at work on February 28, 2018. Although Plaintiff asked for information
`
`from the Medical Center about the inquiry, the Medical Center management refused to provide
`
`Plaintiff with the requested information. During the meeting, Mr. Sewell was asked to explain why
`
`other non-black employees were held to a different standard. However, Mr. Sewell refused to
`
`respond, and he refused to allow Plaintiff an opportunity to review the alleged video recording of
`
`Plaintiff’s whereabouts on February 28, 2018. What’s more, without giving Plaintiff a chance to
`
`review and comment on the February 28, 2018, video recording held by the Medical Center, Mr.
`
`Vine Goodwine called Plaintiff and terminated him on March 18, 2018.
`
`V. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`28.
`
`Plaintiff repeats, realleges and incorporates herein as part of his First Cause of Action
`
`paragraphs 1 through 27 of this Complaint, inclusive and in their entirety, and further alleges:
`
`29.
`
`he was a member of a protected calls by reason of his race;
`
`30.
`
`he suffered and adverse employment action;
`
`31.
`
`he was qualified for the position; and
`
`32.
`
`he was replaced by someone outside the protected calls or was treated differently than
`
`similarly situated, non-protected employees.
`
`VI. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`33.
`
`Plaintiff repeats, realleges and incorporates herein as part of his Second Cause of Action
`
`paragraphs 1 through 27 of this Complaint, inclusive and in their entirety, and further alleges:
`
`34.
`
`he was a member of a protected calls by reason of his color;
`
`35.
`
`he suffered and adverse employment action;
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00308 Document 1 Filed on 12/23/21 in TXSD Page 11 of 14
`
`36.
`
`he was qualified for the position; and
`
`37.
`
`he was replaced by someone outside the protected calls or was treated differently than
`
`similarly situated, non-protected employees.
`
`VII. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`38.
`
`Plaintiff repeats, realleges and incorporates herein as part of his Third Cause of Action
`
`paragraphs 1 through 27 of this Complaint, inclusive and in their entirety, and further alleges:
`
`39.
`
`he was a member of a protected class by reason of her national origin;
`
`40.
`
`he suffered an adverse employment action;
`
`41.
`
`he was replaced by someone outside the protected class or was treated differently than
`
`similarly-situated, non –protected employees;
`
`42.
`
`he was treated differently than similarly situated, non-protected employees.
`
`VIII. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`43.
`
`Plaintiff repeats, realleges and incorporates herein as part of his Fourth Cause of Action
`
`paragraphs 1 through 27 of this Plaintiff’s Original Complaint, inclusive and in their entirety, and
`
`further alleges:
`
`44.
`
`Defendant engaged in retaliation towards Plaintiff. The retaliation against Plaintiff can be
`
`shown in the following manner:
`
`45.
`
`Plaintiff was an employee who engaged in protected activity or conduct involving a
`
`discriminatory practice as it related to conduct covered under the law or participating in any
`
`manner in an investigation or protestation of proscribed conduct.
`
`46.
`
`The Defendant took an adverse employment action against Plaintiff.
`
`47.
`
`There is a casual connection between the protected activity and the adverse employment
`
`action.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00308 Document 1 Filed on 12/23/21 in TXSD Page 12 of 14
`
`IX. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`48.
`
`Plaintiff repeats, realleges and incorporates herein as part of his Fifth Cause of Action
`
`paragraphs 1 through 27 of this Plaintiff’s Original Complaint, inclusive and in their entirety, and
`
`further alleges:
`
`49.
`
`Plaintiff is a black male and a covered person as contemplated by 42 U.S.C. §1981.
`
`50.
`
`Plaintiff was denied his right to make and enforce contracts and full and equal benefits as
`
`contemplated under 42 U.S.C. §1981 with respect to Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant.
`
`51.
`
`Plaintiff has been forced to work in a hostile environment on account of his race by the
`
`Defendant and as a result of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff was damaged and sustained injuries
`
`consistent with those available under 42 U.S.C. §1981.
`
`X. SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`52.
`
`Plaintiff repeats, realleges and incorporates herein as part of his Sixth Cause of Action
`
`paragraphs 1 through 27 of this Plaintiff’s Original Complaint, inclusive and in their entirety, and
`
`further alleges:
`
`53.
`
`Plaintiff will show that Defendant retaliated against him in violation 42 U.S.C. §1981.
`
`54.
`
`Plaintiff engaged in statutory protected activity.
`
`55.
`
`Defendant took adverse employment action against Plaintiff.
`
`56.
`
`There is a causal connection between Plaintiff’s protected activity and the adverse
`
`employment action.
`
`XI. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`57.
`
`Plaintiff repeats, realleges and incorporates herein as part of his Seventh Cause of Action
`
`paragraphs 1 through 29 of this Plaintiff’s Original Complaint, inclusive and in their entirety, and
`
`further alleges:
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00308 Document 1 Filed on 12/23/21 in TXSD Page 13 of 14
`
`58.
`
`Defendant created a hostile work environment in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1981 and Plaintiff
`
`would show that the harassment was based upon the following:
`
`59.
`
`The harassment was based on race.
`
`60.
`
`The harassment was subjectively and objectively hostile.
`
`61.
`
`The harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to interfere with Plaintiff’s ability to
`
`perform his assigned duties.
`
`62. Plaintiff hereby demands and requests a jury trial.
`
`X11. JURY DEMAND
`
`WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff requests that Plaintiff have:
`
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Judgment entered for the Plaintiff against Defendant for damages.
`
`2.
`
`Award Plaintiff equitable relief and actual damages, including back pay and
`
`benefits pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-
`
`5(f)(g) et seq and 42 U.S.C. §1981a.
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Award Plaintiff front pay pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as
`
`amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-(f)(g).
`
`
`
`4.
`
`Award Plaintiff damages for physical and mental pain and suffering, including
`
`compensatory and punitive damages in connection with those claims made herein pursuant to 42
`
`U.S.C. §2000e, et seq and 42 U.S.C. §1981a(b).
`
`5.
`
`Attorney’s fees and costs as provided by 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(k), 42 U.S.C. §1988.
`
`6.
`
`Pre-judgment interest were permitted by law.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`Interest at the legal rate on the foregoing sums from the date of judgment until paid.
`
`Such other and further relief to which Plaintiff may be justly entitled.
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00308 Document 1 Filed on 12/23/21 in TXSD Page 14 of 14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`LAW OFFICE OF CHARLES C. SMITH, PLLC
`
`/s/Charles C. Smith
`Charles C. Smith
`615 N. Upper Broadway, Suite 1710
`Corpus Christi, Texas 78401
`State Bar No.: 18550210
`Admission No.: 4312
`Telephone No.: (361) 883-1055
`Facsimile No.: (361) 883-4041
`Attorney for Plaintiff
`
`14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`