`
`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