`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`HOUSTON DIVISION
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`Civil Action No. 4:20-cv-03715
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`ROBERT SULAK,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`vs.
`
`
`
`BASF CORPORATION
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Robert Sulak (“Plaintiff” or “Sulak”) now files this Complaint against Defendant
`
`PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`BASF Corporation (“Defendant” or “BASF”). In support, Plaintiff states as follows.
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff Robert Sulak is a citizen of the United States and a resident of Orange,
`
`PARTIES
`
`Texas.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant BASF Corporation is a Delaware corporation authorized to transact
`
`business in the State of Texas. It may be served with process through its registered agent for
`
`service of process, CT Corporation System, 1999 Bryan St. Ste. 900, Dallas, Texas 75201 or as
`
`may otherwise be permitted under Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and/or the Texas
`
`long-arm statute.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`3.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims described in this
`
`Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because Plaintiff’s claim arises under federal law.
`
`4.
`
`The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claim under the Texas
`
`Commission on Human Rights Act pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
`
`5.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because it has continuously
`
`
`
`Case 4:20-cv-03715 Document 1 Filed on 10/29/20 in TXSD Page 2 of 6
`
`and systematically performed a substantial amount of business within the state of Texas and,
`
`moreover, is being sued herein for illegal conduct against the Plaintiff that occurred within the
`
`State of Texas. Accordingly, this Court has both general and specific jurisdiction over the
`
`Defendant.
`
`6.
`
`Venue is proper in this Court because all of the unlawful employment practices
`
`committed by the Defendants occurred within this state.
`
`FACTS
`
`7.
`
`Plaintiff was previously employed by BASF as a staff engineer in its manufacturing
`
`plant in Beaumont, Texas.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiff began working at the plant in or around February 1, 2014.
`
`Plaintiff reported to Mark Screen, the FFP Manager.
`
`10.
`
`In the summer of 2018, a female intern, Emily Ochoa, was assigned to Sulak’s
`
`group. Sulak was assigned to be her mentor.
`
`11.
`
`In June 2018, Ms. Ochoa approached Plaintiff expressing concern that Screen was
`
`making unwanted sexual advances towards her. Ms. Ochoa told Plaintiff about a time where
`
`Screen met with her alone outside at the back of the plant near the waste wells and made
`
`unwelcome advances towards her.
`
`12.
`
`Plaintiff believed it was his obligation to assist Ms. Ochoa in making a report to
`
`Human Resources about Screen’s misconduct.
`
`13.
`
`BASF did not have an on-site Human Resources representative at the plant. So,
`
`Plaintiff called BASF’s confidential Corporate Compliance Hotline to report Ms. Ochoa’s concern
`
`about Screen’s advances. Contacting the Corporate Compliance Hotline was an avenue for
`
`employees to report what they believed to be discrimination and/or retaliation.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 4:20-cv-03715 Document 1 Filed on 10/29/20 in TXSD Page 3 of 6
`
`14.
`
`After Sulak made this initial contact to Corporate Compliance, Ms. Ochoa wanted
`
`to file a more formal complaint. Plaintiff then allowed her to use his office to make a call to the
`
`Corporate Compliance Hotline, and he gave her the name and phone number of the person he had
`
`spoken to.
`
`15.
`
`On September 6, 2018, less than three months later, Plaintiff attended a Site Wide
`
`Communication meeting led by Judy Brinkman, the plant’s Site Director.
`
`16.
`
`During this meeting, Brinkman gave a speech admonishing plant personnel that
`
`calls to BASF’s Corporate Human Resources (i.e., calls to the Corporate Compliance Hotline)
`
`were causing negative attention. She urged that any complaints should be kept within the plant.
`
`Brinkman also threatened that “there would be consequences” if someone called the Corporate
`
`Compliance Hotline again.
`
`17.
`
`Brinkman’s comments greatly concerned Sulak. He was concerned that Brinkman
`
`was trying to keep employees from reporting discrimination or retaliation out of concern that such
`
`reports might reflect negatively on her.
`
`18.
`
` A few days later, around September 11, 2018, Plaintiff approached Brinkman and
`
`expressed his concern about her comments. He told her that her comments had left a firm
`
`impression that employees were not to bring complaints to corporate HR. Brinkman became very
`
`agitated and denied that she had said any such thing. Sulak pointed out her statement about there
`
`being “consequences” if someone called corporate HR, which she then conceded she had said.
`
`19.
`
`Two days later, on September 13, Sulak received word that Mark Screen had been
`
`terminated the prior evening for “violating company policy.”
`
`20.
`
`That afternoon, Sulak was in a colleague’s office discussing a work issue. The
`
`colleague’s phone rang. It was Brinkman, calling to speak to Sulak. She asked him to come by
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 4:20-cv-03715 Document 1 Filed on 10/29/20 in TXSD Page 4 of 6
`
`her office when he finished his meeting.
`
`21.
`
`Plaintiff proceeded to Brinkman’s office. When he got there, Brinkman’s office
`
`door was closed and the plant’s head of security was waiting outside it. He asked Sulak to take a
`
`seat. But Plaintiff was too unnerved by security’s presence so he went to the hall and began pacing.
`
`22.
`
`Eventually, the security chief came to get him and escorted him to Brinkman’s
`
`office. She was there with Clay Gilbert, the Operations Execution Manager. Brinkman motioned
`
`for Sulak to go into her private conference room. They went inside and Brinkman fired him.
`
`EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
`
`23.
`
`On or about February 27, 2019, Plaintiff timely filed a charge of discrimination
`
`with the EEOC and the Texas Workforce Commission Civil Rights Division.
`
`24.
`
`25.
`
`The EEOC issued Plaintiff a right to sue letter on or about August 24, 2020.
`
`This lawsuit has been filed within 90 days of the EEOC’s issuance of that Notice.
`
`Consequently, this lawsuit has been filed within 90 days of Plaintiff’s receipt of that Notice.
`
`26.
`
`The TWC has never issued Plaintiff a right to sue letter, but his charge has been on
`
`file for more than 180 days.
`
`27.
`
`Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff has exhausted all administrative remedies required
`
`by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and/or the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act.
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (RETALIATION)
`
`Plaintiff incorporates each of the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.
`
`Plaintiff engaged in a protected activity in June 2018 when he contacted BASF’s
`
`28.
`
`29.
`
`Corporate Compliance Hotline to report Ms. Ochoa’s concern about Screen’s unwelcome
`
`advances towards her.
`
`30.
`
`Plaintiff engaged in a protected activity again when he approached Ms. Brinkman
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 4:20-cv-03715 Document 1 Filed on 10/29/20 in TXSD Page 5 of 6
`
`on around September 11, 2018, to express his concern about her comments threatening employees
`
`with “serious consequences” if they made reports to Human Resources.
`
`31.
`
`It was reasonable for Plaintiff to believe that Ms. Brinkman’s comments about
`
`“serious consequences” for calling the hotline was unlawful conduct in violation of Title VII,
`
`whether or not her comments were actually unlawful.
`
`32.
`
`Defendant took a materially adverse employment action against Plaintiff by
`
`terminating him.
`
`33.
`
`Defendant took this materially adverse action against Plaintiff within a fairly short
`
`time following both Plaintiff’s report to HR about the sexual harassment towards Ms. Ochoa, and
`
`just two days after expressing her concern to Brinkman that she was stifling employees’ rights to
`
`bring complaints to HR.
`
`34.
`
`Such conduct violates Title VII and/or the Texas Commission on Human Rights
`
`Act.
`
`35.
`
`36.
`
`Plaintiff has been damaged by the retaliation against him.
`
`BASF retaliated against Sulak with malice and/or reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s
`
`statutory right to be free from retaliation. An award of exemplary damages is therefore warranted.
`
`ATTORNEYS’ FEES
`
`37.
`
`If Plaintiff prevails, he is entitled to an award of reasonable and necessary
`
`attorneys’ fees.
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`38.
`
`Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all claims that may be tried to a jury.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`Plaintiff hereby prays that Defendant be cited to appear and that, upon trial, the Court enter
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 4:20-cv-03715 Document 1 Filed on 10/29/20 in TXSD Page 6 of 6
`
`a judgment in his favor for the following:
`
`a) Back pay;
`b) Compensatory damages;
`c) Punitive Damages;
`d) Reinstatement and/or front pay;
`e) Taxable court costs;
`f) Attorney’s fees; and
`g) Such other and further relief to which he may show himself entitled.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`DOW GOLUB REMELS & GILBREATH, PLLC
`
`
`/s/ Andrew S. Golub
`Andrew S. Golub
`Attorney-in-Charge
`S.D. Tex. No. 13812
`Texas Bar No. 08114950
`asgolub@dowgolub.com
`Connor Throckmorton
`S.D. Tex. No. 3065092
`Texas Bar No. 24103965
`2700 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 1750
`Houston, Texas 77056
`Telephone: (713) 526-3700
`Facsimile: (713) 526-3750
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`