throbber
Case 4:21-cv-04189 Document 16 Filed on 04/18/22 in TXSD Page 1 of 34
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`HOUSTON DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`§
`C. R. PERKINS,
`
`§
`
`
`
`§
`Plaintiff,
`§ Case No.: 4:21-cv-4189
`
`
`§
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`§
`
`
`STARBUCKS, INC. IND. and DBA §
` STARBUCKS COFFEE COMPANY, §
` STARBUCKS CORPORATION, §
` and STARBUCKS COFFEE §
` COMPANY,
`§
`
`
`§ TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED
`Defendants.
`§
`______________________________________§
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`TO THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE:
`
`
`
`COMES NOW, Plaintiff, C. R. PERKINS, through his undersigned attorneys,
`
`and complains of Defendants STARBUCKS, INC. IND. and dba STARBUCKS
`
`COFFEE COMPANY, STARBUCKS CORPORATION, and STARBUCKS COFFEE
`
`COMPANY and files this Amended Complaint showing the Court as follows:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1. Plaintiff demands a jury trial in this case as to any and all issues triable to a
`
`jury.
`
`2. Plaintiff files this Complaint and complains of discrimination on the basis of
`
`race under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 42 U.S.C. § 2000e and under 42
`
`U.S.C. § 1981; on the basis of religion under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-04189 Document 16 Filed on 04/18/22 in TXSD Page 2 of 34
`
`42 U.S.C. § 2000e; and on the basis of disability under Americans with
`
`Disabilities Act As Amended (“ADAAA”) 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. and in
`
`retaliation for his complaints of discrimination on the basis of race under Title
`
`VII of the Civil Rights Act 42 U.S.C. § 2000e and under 42 U.S.C. § 1981; on
`
`the basis of religion under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 42 U.S.C. § 2000e;
`
`on the basis of disability under Americans with Disabilities Act As Amended
`
`(“ADAAA”) 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. and for hostile work environments under
`
`Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the
`
`ADAAA 42 U.S.C. § 12101.
`
`3. This action seeks compensatory and punitive damages, lost wages (past,
`
`present, and future), attorneys’ fees, taxable court costs, pre-judgment and
`
`post-judgment interest.
`
`PARTIES
`
`4. Plaintiff, C. R. Perkins, is a resident of Houston, Texas.
`
`5. Defendant, Starbucks, Inc. Ind. and dba Starbucks Coffee Company, is an
`
`international for-profit corporation formed in the State of Washington and
`
`registered to do business in Texas. Defendant may be served with process by
`
`mail or in person on its registered agent, Corporation Service Company DBA
`
`CSC – Lawyers Inc., at 211 E. 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, TX 78701, in
`
`accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.
`
`6. Defendant, Starbucks Corporation, is an international for-profit corporation
`
`formed in the State of Washington and registered to do business in Texas.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-04189 Document 16 Filed on 04/18/22 in TXSD Page 3 of 34
`
`Defendant may be served with process by mail or in person on its registered
`
`agent, Corporation Service Company DBA CSC – Lawyers Inc., at 211 E. 7th
`
`Street, Suite 620, Austin, TX 78701, in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.
`
`7. Defendant, Starbucks Coffee Company,
`
`is an
`
`international
`
`for-profit
`
`corporation formed in the State of Washington and registered to do business
`
`in Texas. Defendant may be served with process by mail or in person on its
`
`registered agent, Corporation Service Company DBA CSC – Lawyers Inc., at
`
`211 E. 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, TX 78701, in accordance with Fed. R. Civ.
`
`P. 4.
`
`VENUE
`
`8. Venue is appropriate in the United States District Court for the Southern
`
`District of Texas, Houston Division, because Plaintiff lives and worked in
`
`Houston, Texas, a substantial part of the events or omissions that gave rise to
`
`the claims in this Complaint happened in Houston, Texas, and the Defendants
`
`conducted business in Texas, as required under 28 U.S.C. §1391.
`
`JURISDICTION
`
`9. This Court has original jurisdiction of this action, inter alia, pursuant to 28
`
`U.S.C. §1331 (federal question jurisdiction), under 42 U.S.C. §2000e, et seq.
`
`and other statutes named herein.
`
`10. The unlawful employment practices were committed within the jurisdiction of
`
`this Court.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-04189 Document 16 Filed on 04/18/22 in TXSD Page 4 of 34
`
`PROCEDURAL PREREQUISITES
`
`11. All conditions precedent to the filing of this action have been met by Plaintiff.
`
`Plaintiff began his employment for Defendants in 2008, was fired on October
`
`15, 2020, immediately appealed, and was officially told that his appeal of the
`
`termination would not be granted by Defendants on February 18, 2021.
`
`12. Defendants have well over 15 employees and had well over 15 employees
`
`throughout the entirety of Plaintiff’s employment with Defendants.
`
`13. Plaintiff filed a detailed intake questionnaire with the Houston Equal
`
`Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) office on May 12, 2021 and
`
`scheduled an interview with an EEOC Officer at the earliest possible
`
`appointment slot, July 23, 2021. Plaintiff was told that the backlog was due to
`
`COVID-related delays.
`
`14. Plaintiff’s EEOC intake questionnaire included detailed information on the
`
`discrimination he faced, his name and contact information, that of the
`
`employer, confirmation that the employer had over fifteen employees, and
`
`Plaintiff checked the box that indicated that he wanted to file a charge of
`
`discrimination.
`
`15. At the July 23 interview with the EEOC officer, Officer Banda informed
`
`Plaintiff that there was no urgency to file the EEOC Charge because the date
`
`of submission would relate back to his May 12 questionnaire, so he was inside
`
`the 300-day limit.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-04189 Document 16 Filed on 04/18/22 in TXSD Page 5 of 34
`
`16. At the July 23 interview, Plaintiff discussed with the EEOC officer the various
`
`instances of discrimination and disparate action he faced, including the appeal
`
`denial.
`
`17. The EEOC Office notified Plaintiff that his EEOC Charge was ready to be filed
`
`on or around September 7, 2021.
`
`18. Plaintiff filed a verified charge with the Houston EEOC office on September
`
`28, 2021.
`
`19. The EEOC office in Houston issued a Notice of Right to Sue letter on
`
`September 30, 2021, entitling Plaintiff to file suit based on race, religion, and
`
`disability discrimination and retaliation against Plaintiff for complaining
`
`about race, religion, and disability discrimination, without ever conducting an
`
`investigation.
`
`20. This lawsuit has been filed within ninety (90) days of Plaintiff’s receipt of the
`
`Notice of Right to Sue letter from the EEOC.
`
`FACTS
`
`21. Plaintiff C.R. Perkins (“Plaintiff”) began working for Defendants Starbucks,
`
`Inc. Ind. and dba Starbucks Coffee Company, Starbucks Corporation, and
`
`Starbucks Coffee Company (collectively “Defendants”) in 2008, and aside from
`
`a break in employment between 2011 and 2012, Plaintiff worked for
`
`Defendants from 2008 until termination in October 2020.
`
`22. Plaintiff identifies as a Black American.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-04189 Document 16 Filed on 04/18/22 in TXSD Page 6 of 34
`
`23. Defendants have a history of racial discrimination towards Black employees,
`
`most recently settling with the EEOC in March 2021 for racial discrimination
`
`in Defendants’ company-wide hiring and promotion practices.
`
`24. Plaintiff, a Black, Jewish man, received mostly satisfactory-to-excellent
`
`performance reviews throughout his tenure prior to 2019, receiving at least 6
`
`merit raises during his tenure.
`
`25. Before 2019, Plaintiff had only received at most four write-ups from
`
`supervisors employed by Defendants, with the most recent one being in
`
`February 2016.
`
`26. From 2013 through his termination, Plaintiff worked as a barista for
`
`Defendants.
`
`27. Plaintiff became a “Coffee Master” and “Trainer” and received other accolades
`
`and achievements throughout his entire tenure working for Defendants.
`
`28. Plaintiff also struggled with depression, anxiety, and ADHD prior to the
`
`beginning of his work for Defendants and mentioned these diagnoses to
`
`Defendants’ managers, although Plaintiff was weary
`
`to
`
`request
`
`accommodations because of fear of retaliation or unfounded prejudice against
`
`him for asking for accommodations.
`
`29. Plaintiff was qualified to do his job as a barista throughout his tenure with
`
`Defendants, including through his termination and his appeal of that
`
`termination with Defendants.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-04189 Document 16 Filed on 04/18/22 in TXSD Page 7 of 34
`
`30. In late 2018, Plaintiff and the rest of his co-workers were informed that a new
`
`District Manager, Brittany Fiedler (“Fiedler”), would be taking over.
`
`31. In April or May 2019, Defendants asked Plaintiff to temporarily work at the
`
`store located at the intersection of Louisiana Street and McGowen Street (2625
`
`Louisiana Street) in Houston, Texas, which Plaintiff agreed to.
`
`32. At that store, Plaintiff began working for Store Manager, Melissa Morris
`
`(“Morris”), a white, non-Jewish woman.
`
`33. Within a month of working at this location, Defendants asked that, unless
`
`Plaintiff had specific objections, Plaintiff would be working at that location
`
`going forward instead of temporarily. Plaintiff, wanting to be a team player,
`
`agreed despite having issues with his treatment at the store within the first
`
`month of starting there.
`
`34. In August 2019, Plaintiff saw that his domestic partner was brutally assaulted
`
`in the parking lot of the Defendants’ store while Plaintiff was inside the store
`
`just as he started his shift. Plaintiff took his domestic partner to the hospital
`
`where they took care of her, but she had permanent facial damage. This
`
`experience led to Plaintiff being diagnosed with PTSD.
`
`35. In that same month, Plaintiff received a corrective action for contacting
`
`management regarding a customer having an issue despite the fact that
`
`Defendants trained Plaintiff to contact management in this scenario. The
`
`management on duty at that store were Morris and Fielder.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-04189 Document 16 Filed on 04/18/22 in TXSD Page 8 of 34
`
`36. At the store at the intersection of Louisiana Street and McGowen Street,
`
`Plaintiff noticed that non-white and/or darker-skinned workers, including him,
`
`received worse treatment than white and/or light-skinned workers, resulting
`
`in unequal number of write-ups, unequal enforcement of policies, and unequal
`
`scrutiny of work. Plaintiff also faced harassment and discrimination based on
`
`his disability, perceived disability, and/or record of disability during this time
`
`and through to his termination and the denial of his termination appeal.
`
`37. On September 13, 2019, the disparate treatment created such a hostile work
`
`environment that Plaintiff felt it was necessary to document the blatant
`
`mistreatment. Plaintiff became more depressed at this time, causing him to
`
`struggle more with his college classes.
`
`38. The incident on September 13, 2019, that spurred Plaintiff to start
`
`documenting the disparate treatment was when Plaintiff was denied a
`
`required work break despite all other workers receiving their breaks. This type
`
`of treatment, along with being yelled at and otherwise demeaned publicly,
`
`happened frequently over the following months.
`
`39. In October 2019, Plaintiff had a conversation with Morris regarding Plaintiff’s
`
`requests for time off to observe religious holidays in accordance with Plaintiff’s
`
`Judaism.
`
`40. While Morris originally approved the requests, Morris reached out to discuss
`
`Plaintiff’s requests.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-04189 Document 16 Filed on 04/18/22 in TXSD Page 9 of 34
`
`41. Morris began to argue with Plaintiff and stated that Plaintiff was taking too
`
`many days off and that she wanted to rescind the days that she had approved.
`
`42. At this time, Plaintiff was only working part-time and had never had issues
`
`before with having the days approved for religious observation.
`
`43. Before Plaintiff could respond, Morris said, “You are trying to take six weeks
`
`off.”
`
`44. Plaintiff, wanting again to be a team player and believing he had no choice,
`
`decided to surrender some of the approved days off that originally had been
`
`approved for him to use to observe religious holidays.
`
`45. After Plaintiff agreed to cut down on his requested days off, Morris responded,
`
`“I can’t believe you wanted to take 6 weeks off. I worked for Jews before, and
`
`they never took this much time off. You are not even a real Jew.”
`
`46. Plaintiff, who was one of very few Black Jews in the city, was perplexed by the
`
`comment and decided to keep quiet about the comment so as not to be in
`
`further trouble.
`
`47. Unfortunately for Plaintiff, Defendants, through their agents, treated Plaintiff
`
`and other non-white/dark-skinned workers poorly.
`
`48. From September 2019 through December 2019, Plaintiff and others like him
`
`were reprimanded for taking sick days, denied bathroom access, and actively
`
`denied in full or in part their required break time, all while Defendants treated
`
`the other mostly light-skinned workers with friendliness and positivity, even
`
`when those co-workers did not show up for their scheduled shifts.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-04189 Document 16 Filed on 04/18/22 in TXSD Page 10 of 34
`
`49. At one point during this period in September 2019, Morris subtracted
`
`Plaintiff’s pay because Morris believed that Plaintiff took a longer-than-
`
`allowed 30-minute break, despite Plaintiff denying that he did and Morris not
`
`providing any evidence to show Plaintiff took a 30-minute break. Defendants
`
`have yet to pay Plaintiff for this subtraction.
`
`50. Morris also admitted to Plaintiff that, if Plaintiff did not take Saturdays off for
`
`religious observance, Plaintiff would receive more work hours, despite the fact
`
`that other workers who had similar availability restrictions but did not take
`
`Saturday off for religious observance (sabbath) got more hours than Plaintiff.
`
`51. On November 27, 2019, Plaintiff heard Morris, after a Black regular customer
`
`left the store, ask another supervisor if the customer was ok, and the
`
`supervisor replied, “Don’t worry, he is one of the good ones.”
`
`52. On December 19, 2019, Plaintiff made a complaint to corporate using the
`
`Partner Contact Center, who directed him to Fiedler.
`
`53. Plaintiff contacted Fiedler multiple times before finally being able to set up a
`
`meeting with Fiedler and Morris on January 10, 2020.
`
`54. Unfortunately for Plaintiff, the meeting did not address any of Plaintiff’s
`
`complaints or grievances, but instead, Morris began retaliating against
`
`Plaintiff by alleging false complaints against Plaintiff.
`
`55. Plaintiff’s complaints were dismissed despite Morris admitting that she
`
`treated Plaintiff differently to “set an example for the rest of the staff.”
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-04189 Document 16 Filed on 04/18/22 in TXSD Page 11 of 34
`
`56. Fiedler ended the meeting with a promise to have a follow-up meeting no later
`
`than a month from then, but that meeting was denied by Morris.
`
`57. In February 2020, Morris filed a retaliatory corrective action against Plaintiff,
`
`despite the fact that the supposed violating action that Plaintiff took was done
`
`on behalf of Morris’ instruction. Morris herself admitted that this supposed
`
`reason for the corrective action came from Plaintiff correctly following Morris’
`
`instruction.
`
`58. In March 2020, after Fiedler ignored multiple attempts by Plaintiff to contact
`
`her about the discrimination, Plaintiff, while he and his co-workers were on
`
`COVID leave as the United States responded to the beginning of the COVID
`
`pandemic, finally received an email and then a phone call to address
`
`Plaintiff’s grievances about discrimination.
`
`59. Plaintiff stated specifically that he was being discriminated against,
`
`retaliated against, and harassed for his race/color and religion.
`
`60. Fiedler recommended to Plaintiff that Plaintiff continue his COVID leave (he
`
`was out on COVID leave when she called), which she admitted would mean
`
`that Plaintiff would make less income, and assured Plaintiff of a thorough
`
`and complete investigation.
`
`61. Plaintiff reminded Fiedler that Plaintiff had a witness, his domestic partner,
`
`to testify to much of the harassment and discrimination against Plaintiff.
`
`62. Following up with the Partner Contact Center again, a corporate
`
`representative directed Plaintiff to continue to speak with Fiedler.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-04189 Document 16 Filed on 04/18/22 in TXSD Page 12 of 34
`
`63. In April 2020, Plaintiff confirmed his statements, provided specific
`
`documentary evidence of Plaintiff’s discrimination complaints, and turned in
`
`a formal transfer notice to Fiedler, all of which went ignored.
`
`64. In May 2020, the management team led by Morris, clearly irritated by
`
`Plaintiff’s continued discrimination complaints, further harassed and
`
`discriminated against Plaintiff more intensely.
`
`65. Plaintiff’s requests for updates on the status of the investigation and a
`
`review of previous corrective actions went ignored.
`
`66. After reaching out to the Partner Contact Center again, a corporate
`
`representative once again directed Plaintiff to Fiedler and stated that
`
`Fiedler’s perception held most of the weight of the determination of Plaintiff’s
`
`discrimination grievances even if the grievances were against Fiedler.
`
`67. In June 2020, after multiple attempts to contact Fiedler went ignored,
`
`Plaintiff contacted corporate, who this time directed Plaintiff to the human
`
`resources (“HR”) area leader named Thy Mitchel (“Mitchel”).
`
`68. Plaintiff talked about Defendants’ harassment and discrimination against
`
`Plaintiff based on his race and religion, as well as based on his disabilities,
`
`perceived disabilities, and/or record of disabilities. Mitchel seemed
`
`sympathetic to Plaintiff’s distress and assured Plaintiff that Plaintiff would
`
`receive a resolution very soon. When Plaintiff asked Mitchel what he should
`
`do if nothing changed, she told him that she would take care of it.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-04189 Document 16 Filed on 04/18/22 in TXSD Page 13 of 34
`
`69. In July 2020, 9 days after that call with Mitchel, Plaintiff finally heard from
`
`Fiedler in a 10-minute call where Fiedler stated that she was going on
`
`vacation for two weeks and would discuss the matter upon her return.
`
`70. Fiedler requested Plaintiff to resend all of his documentation, but in passing,
`
`Fiedler mentioned that Plaintiff’s previous discrimination grievances were all
`
`determined to be officially “unfounded” months prior.
`
`71. Believing that the stress from the harassment had exacerbated his
`
`disabilities to the point that accommodations would help, Plaintiff finally and
`
`formally requested an ADA accommodation on June 29, 2020, for his anxiety,
`
`depression, and ADHD, plus an accommodation specifically for Plaintiff’s
`
`PTSD from seeing his domestic partner beaten at the workplace, and an
`
`accommodation for his religious observances.
`
`72. Plaintiff was then required to take 2 weeks off due to possible contraction of
`
`the Coronavirus in July 2020.
`
`73. Fiedler informed Plaintiff that Plaintiff would be able to transfer only
`
`because of the ADA accommodations requests, which were all approved and
`
`were reasonable.
`
`74. Fiedler then finally granted Plaintiff’s transfer request, without giving
`
`Plaintiff a store to report to. The basic transfer information was not given to
`
`Morris, but Plaintiff was scheduled to return to the store on July 22, 2020.
`
`75. That same month, Defendants’ corporate division sent every store Black
`
`Lives Matter (BLM) t-shirts in response to the civil unrest of that summer,
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-04189 Document 16 Filed on 04/18/22 in TXSD Page 14 of 34
`
`with the heavy suggestion that workers should be allowed to wear them in
`
`support of BLM if they chose to.
`
`76. Plaintiff requested a Starbucks BLM t-shirt from Fiedler with the intent of
`
`wearing one when Plaintiff returned to work.
`
`77. However, Morris said that Fiedler told Morris that no workers at the stores
`
`in Fiedler’s district would be allowed to wear the BLM t-shirt at work. In
`
`good-faith belief, Plaintiff believes Fiedler’s district was the only one in the
`
`city not to allow workers to wear the t-shirt at work.
`
`78. In late July or early August 2020, Fiedler stated she did not want to give
`
`Plaintiff any options outside of her district because she “did not want to
`
`trouble the other district managers with Plaintiff’s ADA accommodations.”
`
`79. After almost 2 months of being willing but unable to work, Plaintiff was
`
`granted his only option of another store within the same district and
`
`encouraged to take the store at Pennzoil Place (Pennzoil) building which was
`
`about a mile from where his traumatic event occurred.
`
`80. After meeting with the site manager of Pennzoil named Genet, Plaintiff was
`
`informed that they were fully staffed, and his hours would be less than 8 per
`
`week and that Plaintiff would have to find work at a different Starbucks to
`
`gain enough hours to keep his benefits.
`
`81. Plaintiff reluctantly elected to drop his child from his medical benefits due to
`
`his reduced hours.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-04189 Document 16 Filed on 04/18/22 in TXSD Page 15 of 34
`
`82. Plaintiff requested that Genet give him his Starbucks BLM t-shirt, which to
`
`this day he has never received.
`
`83. Per Genet’s COVID directives, Plaintiff was only to eat in the large back
`
`area, away from the rest of the other co-workers.
`
`84. Plaintiff again requested Fiedler to review the corrective actions.
`
`85. In September 2020, after a conversation with Fiedler, Genet suddenly began
`
`scrutinizing Plaintiff more closely.
`
`86. Plaintiff was told that Plaintiff was going to be written up, and per Plaintiff’s
`
`ADA request, Plaintiff asked for time to think before addressing the matter.
`
`87. Unfortunately, Plaintiff’s ADA request was immediately declined, and he
`
`was forced to discuss and answer Genet’s interrogation immediately.
`
`88. All other attempts to sit down and discuss were met with hostility.
`
`89. On October 15, 2020, Plaintiff was terminated allegedly due to allowing his
`
`domestic partner to be in the backroom unauthorized, but that policy had not
`
`been enforced before, with Genet allowing her unauthorized family members
`
`into the back room and other team members being allowed to have
`
`unauthorized people in the back room.
`
`90. When asked why he was being let go instead of just a written warning, Genet
`
`stated that Plaintiff’s previous write-ups were the contributing factor that
`
`Plaintiff was terminated instead of written warning.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-04189 Document 16 Filed on 04/18/22 in TXSD Page 16 of 34
`
`91. Plaintiff appealed and was informed by corporate that any of his grievances
`
`for discrimination, harassment and retaliation would need to go to the Senior
`
`HR manager that Plaintiff was submitting the appeal to.
`
`92. On February 18, 2021, the Senior HR manager denied Plaintiff’s appeal of
`
`termination and stated that the matter would not be reviewed further.
`
`93. The Senior HR manager reviewed Plaintiff’s submitted documentation and
`
`conferred with Genet and Feidler, as well as Morris, whose affirmation of
`
`their prior write ups was retaliation for his complaints on behalf of the
`
`mistreatment he faced due to his race, religion, and/or disability.
`
`94. The treatment that Plaintiff faced from September 2019 through his appeal
`
`denial in February 2021 is a series of similar acts because they all relate to
`
`his grievances of unequal treatment and Fiedler’s involvement in the
`
`dismissal of his grievances.
`
`95. Plaintiff still deals with his anxiety, depression, PTSD, and ADHD to the day
`
`of the filing of this complaint but also is still qualified for the position
`
`Defendants fired Plaintiff from.
`
`96. Defendants’ listed reason for firing Plaintiff, the failure to comply with policy
`
`regarding unauthorized visitors, is merely pretext for firing him for his race,
`
`religion, and disability and
`
`in retaliation for his complaints about
`
`discrimination based on race, religion, and disability.
`
`97. Defendants perceived Plaintiff as Black throughout Plaintiff’s tenure working
`
`for Defendants, including at the time of his termination.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-04189 Document 16 Filed on 04/18/22 in TXSD Page 17 of 34
`
`98. Defendants perceived Plaintiff as Jewish throughout Plaintiff’s tenure
`
`working for Defendants, including at the time of his termination.
`
`99. Plaintiff had a disability, a perceived disability, or a record of disability that
`
`was known to the Defendants due to Plaintiff’s anxiety, depression, PTSD and
`
`ADHD, including at the time of termination.
`
`100. Plaintiff has complained about Defendants’ multiple
`
`incidences of
`
`mistreatment due to his race, religion, and disability, perceived disability,
`
`and/or record of disability.
`
`101. Defendants have a record of mistreating Black employees.
`
`102. Plaintiff was qualified to do his job at the time of his termination and when
`
`his appeal of termination was upheld.
`
`COUNT I: RELIGION DISCRIMINATION UNDER 42 U.S.C. §2000e, et.
`
`seq.
`
`103. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations made in Paragraphs 1 through 102
`
`herein.
`
`104. Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating against employees based
`
`on their religion.
`
`105. Defendants, by and through their agents and employees, engaged in the
`
`aforementioned practices, policies, customs, and usages made unlawful by 42
`
`U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.
`
`106. Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff by their unlawful firing of him
`
`based on his religion of Judaism, as described herein.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-04189 Document 16 Filed on 04/18/22 in TXSD Page 18 of 34
`
`107. Had Plaintiff not been Jewish, he would not have been forced to deal with the
`
`discriminatory conduct, been terminated, and had his termination upheld by
`
`Defendants.
`
`108. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ conduct that violated 42
`
`U.S.C. §2000e, et. seq., Plaintiff suffered damages, including lost wages,
`
`emotional distress, pain and suffering, and attorneys’ fees and costs.
`
`109. Defendants’ actions were intentional, willful, harsh, oppressive, reckless, and
`
`malicious, and as a further and proximate cause, Plaintiff has suffered severe
`
`emotional distress, pain, and suffering. The wrongs done by the Defendants
`
`were aggravated by their willfulness, wantonness, and maliciousness for which
`
`the law allows the imposition of exemplary damages. Plaintiff, therefore, seeks
`
`exemplary damages in a sum to be determined by the trier of fact to serve as
`
`punishment to deter Defendants from such conduct in similar situations.
`
`110. Defendants’ actions as stated above, and the resulting damages to Plaintiff,
`
`have necessitated that Plaintiff retain the services of COANE AND
`
`ASSOCIATES, PLLC, to represent him in these proceedings. Wherefore,
`
`Plaintiff seeks recovery of reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees.
`
`COUNT II: RACE DISCRIMINATION UNDER 42 U.S.C. §2000e, et. seq.
`
`111. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations made in Paragraphs 1 through 102
`
`herein.
`
`112. Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating against employees based
`
`on their race.
`
`
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-04189 Document 16 Filed on 04/18/22 in TXSD Page 19 of 34
`
`113. Defendants, by and through their agents and employees, engaged in the
`
`aforementioned practices, policies, customs, and usages made unlawful by 42
`
`U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.
`
`114. Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff by their unlawful conduct of
`
`harassing him and firing him based on his race, Black.
`
`115. Had Plaintiff not been Black, he would not have been discriminated against,
`
`been terminated, and have his termination upheld by Defendants.
`
`116. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ conduct that violated 42
`
`U.S.C. §2000e, et. seq., Plaintiff suffered damages, including lost wages,
`
`emotional distress, pain and suffering, and attorneys’ fees and costs.
`
`117. Defendants’ actions were intentional, willful, harsh, oppressive, reckless, and
`
`malicious, and as a further and proximate cause, Plaintiff has suffered severe
`
`emotional distress, pain, and suffering. The wrongs done by the Defendants
`
`were aggravated by its willfulness, wantonness, and maliciousness for which
`
`the law allows the imposition of exemplary damages. Plaintiff, therefore, seeks
`
`exemplary damages in a sum to be determined by the trier of fact to serve as
`
`punishment to deter Defendants from such conduct in similar situations.
`
`118. Defendants’ actions as stated above, and the resulting damages to Plaintiff,
`
`have necessitated that Plaintiff retain the services of COANE AND
`
`ASSOCIATES, PLLC, to represent him in these proceedings. Wherefore,
`
`Plaintiff seeks recovery of reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees.
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-04189 Document 16 Filed on 04/18/22 in TXSD Page 20 of 34
`
`COUNT III: RACE DISCRIMINATION UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1981
`
`119. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations made in Paragraphs 1 through 102
`
`herein.
`
`120. 42 U.S.C. § 1981 prohibits employers from discriminating against employees
`
`based on their race.
`
`121. Title 42 U.S.C. §1981, inter alia, protects at-will employees from employment
`
`discrimination on the basis of race and national origin because at-will
`
`employment in Texas is a form of contract. Fadeyi v. Planned Parenthood
`
`Ass'n, 160 F.3d 1048 (5th Cir. 1998). Defendants offered to pay Plaintiff for
`
`his work, and Plaintiff accepted that offer by performing the work. Thus, the
`
`parties entered into a contractual arrangement covered by 42 U.S.C. §1981.
`
`122. Defendants, by and through their agents and employees, engaged in the
`
`aforementioned practices, policies, customs, and usages made unlawful by 42
`
`U.S.C. § 1981.
`
`123. Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff by firing him based on his race,
`
`Black.
`
`124. Had Plaintiff not been Black, he would not have been forced to deal with
`
`Defendants’ discriminatory conduct and been terminated and have his
`
`termination upheld by Defendants.
`
`125. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ conduct that violated 42
`
`U.S.C. § 1981, Plaintiff suffered damages, including lost wages, emotional
`
`distress, pain and suffering, and attorneys’ fees and costs.
`
`
`
`20
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-04189 Document 16 Filed on 04/18/22 in TXSD Page 21 of 34
`
`126. Defendants’ actions were intentional, willful, harsh, oppressive, reckless, and
`
`malicious, and as a further and proximate cause, Plaintiff has suffered severe
`
`emotional distress, pain, and suffering. The wrongs done by the Defendants
`
`were aggravated by its willfulness, wantonness, and maliciousness for which
`
`the law allows the imposition of exemplary damages. Plaintiff, therefore, seeks
`
`exemplary damages in a sum to be determined by the trier of fact to serve as
`
`punishment to deter Defendants from such conduct in similar situations.
`
`127. Defendants’ actions as stated above, and the resulting damages to Plaintiff,
`
`have necessitated that Plaintiff retain the services of COANE AND
`
`ASSOCIATES, PLLC, to represent him in these proceedings. Wherefore,
`
`Plaintiff seeks recovery of reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees.
`
`COUNT IV: DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION UNDER ADAAA, 42
`
`U.S.C. § 12101, et seq.
`
`128. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations made in Paragraphs 1 through 102
`
`herein.
`
`129. Defendants, by and through their agents and employees, intentionally
`
`engaged in the aforementioned practices, policies, customs, and usages made
`
`unlawful by both the ADAAA (42 U.S.C. §12101, et seq.) and terminated
`
`Plaintiff because of his disabilities, perceived disabilities, and/or record of
`
`disabilities.
`
`130. Plaintiff was regarded by Defendants as having mental impairments.
`
`21
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-04189 Document 16 Filed on 04/18/22 in TXSD Page 22 of 34
`
`131. Plaintiff was a qualified individual who had a disability, who was regarded
`
`by Defendants as having a disability at the time of termination, or who had a
`
`record of disability known to Defendants prior to Plaintiff’s termination.
`
`132. Defendants engaged in an adverse employment action against Plaintiff by
`
`terminating Plaintiff and uphold

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket