IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DEBRA BEYAH, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO.:1:06-cv-00659-CSC

)

WAL-MART STORES, INC., ) JURY DEMAND

)

Defendant. )

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

COMES NOW the plaintiff in the above-styled cause pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 15(a), and moves this Honorable Court for leave to amend her Complaint. In support of

this motion, plaintiff states the following:

1. Counsel for plaintiff has discussed the subject of this Motion with counsel for the

defendant

and the defendant does not oppose same.

2. On or about July 24, 2006, plaintiff filed the above-styled cause with this

Honorable Courtsetting forth claims against the defendant to secure the protection of and to redress

the deprivation of rightssecured through Title VII of the Act of Congress commonly known as "The

Civil Rights Act of 1964," 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000(e) et seq. as amended by "The Civil Rights Act of

1991," 42 U.S.C. § 1981a (hereinafter "Title VII"), and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, which provide for relief

against discrimination in employment on the basis of race and retaliation related thereto.

Case 1:06-cv-00659-CSC Document 17 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 1 of 4
1

January 15, 2007, is a recognized legal holiday under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

6(a), thus resulting in the deadline for plaintiff to amend the pleadings to fall on January 16,

2007.

2

3. On January 28, 2004, a Scheduling Order was issued by the Court in this matter

allowing the plaintiff until January 15, 2007

1

, to amend the pleadings.

4. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) and the Scheduling Order of this

Court, the plaintiff respectfully seeks to amend the Complaint in order to do the following:

(A) correct scrivener errors, and

(B) to reflect the correct identity of the defendant, as represented by the

defendant in the Answer and Report of Parties’ Planning Meeting.

1. There exists no “substantial reason” to deny the plaintiff’s motion, as it has timely

been made prior to theCourt’s deadline for amending the pleadings and Rule 15 of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure provides that leave to amend should be freely given. See, Shipner v. Eastern Air

Lines, Inc., 868 F.2d 401, 407 (11

th Cir. 1989)(unless a substantial reason exists to deny leave to

amend the discretion of the district court is circumscribed by Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 15 and is not broad

enough to permit denial);see also, Halliburton & Asociates, Inc. v. Henderson, Few & Co., 774 F.2d

441, 443 (11

th Cir. 1985)(although decision to grant leave to amend complaint is within the

discretion ofthe trial court, Fed.R.Civ.P.5. 15 requiresthat leave shall be granted absent a substantial

reason for it to be denied); and Thompson v. New York Life Ins. Co., 644 F.2d 439, 444 (5

th Cir.

1981)(the policy behind the rule which freely allowsthe amendment of pleadingsisstrongest where

the motion is the first motion to amend).

2. Further, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 allowsthe Court to add or drop any party

to an action at any stage of the action on termsthat are just. Plaintiff initially filed this action against

Case 1:06-cv-00659-CSC Document 17 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 2 of 4
3

the named defendant “Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.” Thereafter, the entity “Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P.,”

filed a responsive pleading, Answer, to plaintiff’sComplaint asserting that it wasthe properlynamed

defendant in this action. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P., participated in the Parties’ Planning Meeting

and subsequent discovery and litigation in this matter. Accordingly, the plaintiffseeksto amend her

Complaint to accurately reflect the identity of the defendant.

3. In light of the fact that Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P., has made an appearance in this

suit, has filed a responsive pleading to plaintiff’s Complaint, has participated in each step of the

litigation thus far, and is moving forward as the correct defendant in this matter, it will not be

prejudiced by the requested amendment.

4. A copy of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint is attached hereto.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this

Honorable Court grant her leave to amend her Complaint.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Temple D. Trueblood

Ann C. Robertson ROBEA7007

Temple D. Trueblood TRUET0355

Attorneys for Plaintiff

OF COUNSEL:

WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN & PANTAZIS, L.L.C.

The Kress Building

301 19

th Avenue North

Birmingham, Alabama 35203

(205) 314-0500

Case 1:06-cv-00659-CSC Document 17 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 3 of 4
4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this the 16th day of January, 2007, I electronically filed the

foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of

such filing to the following:

Charlotte K. McClusky

LITTLER MENDELSON

A Professional Corporation

3348 Peachtree Road, N.E.

Suite 1100

Atlanta, Georgia 30326-1008

Scott A. Forman, Esq.

LITTLER MENDELSON

A Professional Corporation

2 South Biscayne Blvd.

One Biscayne Tower, Ste. 1500

Miami, Florida 33131

/s/ Temple D. Trueblood

OF COUNSEL

Case 1:06-cv-00659-CSC Document 17 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 4 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

DEBRA BEYAH, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO.:

) 1:06-CV-659-CSC

WAL MART STORES EAST, L.P., )

)

Defendant. )

AMENDED COMPLAINT

I. INTRODUCTION

1. This is an action for declaratory judgment, equitable relief, and money damages,

instituted to secure the protection of and to redress the deprivation of rights secured through Title

VII of the Act of Congress commonly known as "The Civil Rights Act of 1964," 42 U.S.C. §§

2000(e) etseq. as amended by "The Civil Rights Act of 1991," 42 U.S.C. § 1981a (hereinafter "Title

VII") and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, which provide for relief against discrimination in employment on the

basis of race and retaliation related thereto. The plaintiffseeks compensatory and punitive damages,

and requests a jury trial pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981a. The plaintiff asserts her claims for relief for

the defendant’s violations of §1981 via 42 U.S.C. §1983. The plaintiff seeks compensatory and

punitive damages and requests a trial by jury of all issues triable by a jury.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. Jurisdiction ofthisCourt isinvoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 1343(4); 28 U.S.C.

§§ 2201 and 2202; and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3).

3. A substantial part of the unlawful employment practices challenged in this action

were committed by the defendant within Houston County, Alabama. Venue is proper in this Court

Case 1:06-cv-00659-CSC Document 17-2 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 1 of 9
2

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g).

4. The plaintiff requests a jury trial on all issues pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981a.

III. PARTIES

5. Plaintiff, Debra Beyah (“Beyah”), is an African-American female citizen of the

United States, and a resident of the State of Alabama. Plaintiff was formerly employed by the

defendant, Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P.

6. Defendant, Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P. (hereinafter “Wal-Mart”), is an employer

within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(a) and (b). At all times relevant to this action the plaintiff

was an employee of the defendant and was rightfully attempting to make and/or enforce the terms

of contract(s) regarding her employment.

IV.. ADMINISTRATIVE EXHAUSTION

7. The plaintiff has satisfied all conditions precedent required pursuant to Title VII.

The plaintiff timely filed a charge of discrimination and has obtained a Right-To-Sue Notice and

hereby timely files this Complaint after receipt of said Notice.

V. FACTS AND CLAIMS

8. The plaintiff had been employed at the defendant’s Wal-Mart Supercenter No. 2534

for over eight (8) years and at the time of her termination served as the Department Manager of the

store’s Photo Lab.

9. In approximately March/April 2004, the Area Manager position over the Photo Lab

and Wireless departments became vacant. This position was not posted, and was given to Becky

Messer, a white female.

Case 1:06-cv-00659-CSC Document 17-2 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 2 of 9
3

10. During the plaintiff’s employment she was subjected to a racially hostile and

discriminatory environment including, but not limited to, the following actions: Al Knight (CoManager) removed the plaintiff from a hiring committee resulting in a reduction in salary; in her role

as the Photo Lab department manager the plaintiff was not supported in her disciplinary decisions

and was undermined by Messer; Messer instructed Photo Lab employees to not assist or aid the

plaintiff; the plaintiff, and other African-American employees, were subjected to discriminatory

scheduling practices byMesser; the plaintiff wasrepeatedly subjected to discriminatory disciplinary

action by Messer, Knight, Matt Perry (white manager), QuincyHayes(Assistant Manger), and Gene

(Co-Manager); and on August 8, 2005, the plaintiff was discriminatorily terminated.

11. The Plaintiff was subjected to a stricter level of scrutiny than her white co-workers.

She was repeatedly reprimanded and/or disciplined for alleged minor mistakes, while white

employees who made the same, or more egregious, mistakes were not reprimanded or written up.

Similarly, the plaintiff was terminated allegedly due to the improper disposal of an inappropriate

photo, however white employees involved in the same event were not terminated or disciplined.

12. The racially hostile work environment and discrimination was severe and/or

pervasive such that it interfered with the plaintiff’s work.

13. Throughout her employment with the defendant, the plaintiff repeated complained

of Messer’s racially discriminatory treatment of herself and of other African-American employees

in the Photo Lab department.

14. As early as June 2004, the plaintiff complained to Messer about her unfair treatment

of the African-American employees in the Photo Lab department. Messer did not respond to these

complaints and the discriminatory treatment continued.

Case 1:06-cv-00659-CSC Document 17-2 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 3 of 9
4

15. The plaintiffthen complained to Ann Howard (StoreManager) about Messer’s unfair

treatment of two African-American employeesin the Photo Lab department. Nothing was done and

the discriminatory treatment continued.

16. After the plaintiff made these initial complaints of racial discrimination against

Messer, the plaintiff was subjected to retaliation by Messer and experienced scheduling alterations

and problems resulting in times when the plaintiff was only given eight (8) hours per week, which

directly impacted her pay.

17. The plaintiff complained to both Messer and Howard ofthe scheduling problems, but

nothing was done and the plaintiff continued to experience retaliatory scheduling problems up and

until her termination.

18. In August 2004 the plaintiff wasissued a verbal warning by Messer, Hayes and Gene

regarding alleged problems in her job performance. At this time, the plaintiff again complained of

the past racial discrimination. Nothing was done and the discriminatory treatment continued.

19. In September 2004 the plaintiff again approached Howard about the racial

discrimination to which she and others were being subjected and the plaintiff informed Howard that

she [Debra] was being mistreated due to the color of her skin. Nothing was done and the

discriminatory treatment continued.

20. In October 2004 the plaintiff was then issued a Coaching (the next step in the

defendant’s progressive discipline policy) by Howard and Perry for “gossip” due to her complaints

of Messer showing favoritism to the white employees.

21. On March 25, 2004, Messer and Knight issued the plaintiff the final disciplinary

action, a Decision Making Day, and sent her home because while the plaintiff was on vacation one

Case 1:06-cv-00659-CSC Document 17-2 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 4 of 9
5

of her subordinate employees failed to properly perform the silver testing in the Photo Lab on the

correct day. The subordinate employee who actually committed the error was not terminated or

disciplined.

22. On August 22, 2005, the defendant terminated the plaintiff’s employment allegedly

due to the improper disposal of an inappropriate photo. The white employees involved in this

incident were not terminated. The plaintiff’s co-workers who had not complained of racial

discrimination were not terminated.

23. The Plaintiff’s supervisors were aware of the racially discriminatory actions,

however, they did not take anydisciplinaryaction against to correct or preventfurther discriminatory

actions.

COUNT I

RACE DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION IN

VIOLATION OF TITLE VII AND 42 U.S.C. §1981

24. The plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1- 23 above with the

same force and effect as if fully set out in specific detail hereinbelow.

25. The defendant intentionally, willfully, and maliciously discriminated against the

plaintiff, at least in part, on the basis of the plaintiffs’ race, African-American, by reducing her pay,

altering her schedule and lowering her work hours, by discriminatorily applying the disciplinary

policyto her, byapplying discriminatorilyscheduling practices, bysubjecting himto stricterscrutiny

than similarly situated white, and by ultimately terminating her employment.

26. The plaintiff made repeated, good faith complaints in opposition to racial

discrimination against herself and other African-American employees.

Case 1:06-cv-00659-CSC Document 17-2 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 5 of 9
6

27. As is discussed above, in retaliation at least in part for her opposition to race

discrimination, the defendant subjected the plaintiff to the following: in her role as the Photo Lab

department manager the plaintiff was not supported in her disciplinary decisions and was

undermined by Messer; Messer instructed Photo Lab employeesto not assist or aid the plaintiff; the

plaintiff wassubjected to discriminatoryscheduling practices byMesser; the plaintiff wasrepeatedly

subjected to discriminatory disciplinary action by Messer, Knight, Perry, Hayes, and Gene; and on

August 8, 2005, the plaintiff was discriminatorily terminated.

28. The defendant’s conduct was retaliation based, at least in part, on the plaintiff’s

protected activities of opposing racial discrimination.

29. The Defendant engaged in the practices complained of herein with malice and/or

with reckless indifference to the plaintiff’s federally protected rights.

30. The defendant, as the employer of plaintiff, failed to take any prompt and effective

remedial action reasonably calculated to result in the prevention and/or remedy of the racial

discrimination of plaintiff.

31. Plaintiff suffered damages as a proximate result of these violations, which were

caused by the defendant’s policy or custom and/or a failure to adequately train caused by deliberate

indifference to the plaintiff’s rights and/or by deliberate indifference to those violations.

32. The defendant thus has violated the proscriptions against racial discrimination and

retaliation found in Title VII and 42 U.S.C. §1981.

33. As the result of the defendant's conduct the plaintiff was deprived of income and

other employment benefits. She also suffered embarrassment, humiliation, inconvenience, and

mental distress.

Case 1:06-cv-00659-CSC Document 17-2 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 6 of 9
7

34. Plaintiff has no plain, adequate or complete remedy at law to redress the wrongs

alleged herein, and this suit for a declaratory judgment, backpay, an injunction, and compensatory

and punitive damages is her only means of securing adequate relief.

35. Plaintiff is suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable injury from defendant's

unlawful conduct as set forth herein unless enjoined by this Court.

VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the plaintiff respectfully prays that this Court assume jurisdiction of this

action and after trial:

1. Issue a declaratory judgment that the employment policies, practices, procedures,

conditions, and customs ofthe defendant are violative of the rights of the plaintiff assecured byTitle

VII of the Act of Congress known as the “Civil Rights Act of 1964,” 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e et

seq., as amended; and 42 U.S.C. §1981.

2. Grant the plaintiff a permanent injunction enjoining the defendant, its agents,

successors, employees, attorneys, and those acting in concert with the defendant, from continuing

to violate Title VII, and 42 U.S.C. §1981.

3. Enter an Order requiring the defendant to make the plaintiff whole by awarding her

reinstatement, front pay, lost wages (plus interest), liquidated damages, compensatory and punitive

damages, and loss of benefits including retirement, pension seniority and other benefits of

employment.

4. The plaintiff further prays for such other relief and benefits as the cause of justice

may require, including, but not limited to, an award of costs, attorneys’ fees and expenses.

Case 1:06-cv-00659-CSC Document 17-2 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 7 of 9
8

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Temple D. Trueblood

Ann C. Robertson

Temple D. Trueblood

Attorneys for Plaintiff

OF COUNSEL:

WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN & PANTAZIS, L.L.C.

The Kress Building

301 19th Street North

Birmingham, Alabama 35203

(205) 314-0500

THE PLAINTIFF DEMANDS TRIAL BY STRUCK JURY ON ALL ISSUES TRIABLE TO A

JURY.

/s/ Temple D. Trueblood

OF COUNSEL

Case 1:06-cv-00659-CSC Document 17-2 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 8 of 9
9

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this the 16th day of January, 2007, I electronically filed the

foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of

such filing to the following:

Charlotte K. McClusky

LITTLER MENDELSON

A Professional Corporation

3348 Peachtree Road, N.E.

Suite 1100

Atlanta, Georgia 30326-1008

Scott A. Forman, Esq.

LITTLER MENDELSON

A Professional Corporation

2 South Biscayne Blvd.

One Biscayne Tower, Ste. 1500

Miami, Florida 33131

/s/ Temple D. Trueblood

OF COUNSEL

Case 1:06-cv-00659-CSC Document 17-2 Filed 01/15/2007 Page 9 of 9