1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

RICARDO WRIGHT, BERYL

JACKSON, TRACEY MARTIN,

CALVIN FLUKER, LISA

PITCHFORD, KIMBERLY LOVE,

PLAINTIFFS,

V.

U.S. FOODSERVICE, INC. and

U.S. FOODSERVICE, INC. -

MONTGOMERY DIVISION,

DEFENDANTS.

)

)

)

) CIVIL ACTION NO.:

) 2:06cv785-MHT

)

) JURY DEMAND

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT

COME NOW, the plaintiffs, by and through counsel, andmove this Honorable

Court, pursuant to Rule 15, Fed. R. Civ. P., for the entry of an Order permitting them

to amend their complaint to add Reshanda Brown as an additional party plaintiff and

correct minor errors made in the Complaint. The proposed Amended Complaint is

attached hereto as Attachment A. In support of this motion, plaintiffs state as

follows:

1. Plaintiffs’ motion is timely under this Court’s Scheduling Order dated

November 7, 2006, which sets the amendment deadline as March 1, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-00785-MHT-WC Document 17 Filed 01/25/2007 Page 1 of 4
2

2. The proposed additional plaintiff, Reshanda Brown,seeksto bring claims

of race discrimination that are substantially similar to the claims made by the

plaintiffs. Brown’s claims are logically related to the pending claims asthey involve

the same discriminatory selection procedures and many of the same decisionmakers.

3. Moreover, the minor corrections made to the Complaint will eliminate

confusion and clarify plaintiffs’ claims.

4. Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that “leave

[to amend pleadings] shall be freely given when justice so requires.” In Forman v.

Davis, the Supreme Court announced the standard to be applied by district courts in

evaluating the propriety of requested amendments to pleadings under Rule 15(a):

If the underlying facts or circumstances relied upon by a

plaintiff may be a proper subject of relief, he ought to be

afforded an opportunity to test his claim on the merits. In

the absence of any apparent or declared reason — such as

undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the

movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by

amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the

opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment,

futility of amendments, etc. — the leave sought should, as

the rule require, be ‘freely given.’ Of course, the grant or

denial of an opportunity to amend is within the discretion

of the District Court, but outright refusal to grant the leave

without any justifying reason appearing for the denial is

not an exercise of discretion; it is merely abuse of that

discretion and inconsistent with the spirit of the Federal

Rules.

Case 2:06-cv-00785-MHT-WC Document 17 Filed 01/25/2007 Page 2 of 4
3

371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).

5. Although the decision whether to grant leave to amend is committed to

the sound discretion of the district court, the former Fifth Circuit, in Dussouy v. Gulf

Coast Investment Corp., 660 F.2d 594 (5th Cir. 1981), explained the limited scope

of this discretion:

“Discretion” may be a misleading term, for rule 15(a)

severely restricts the judge’s freedom, directing that leave

to amend “shall be freely given when justice so requires.”

It evinces a bias in favor of grating leave to amend. . . .

Thus, unless there is a substantial reason to deny leave to

amend, the discretion of the district court is not broad

enough to permit denial.

Id. at 597-598; see Grayson v. Kmart Corp., 79 F.3d 1086, 1110 (11th Cir. 1996)

(“[A] Court is constrained to allow a plaintiff leave to amend unless there is

substantial countervailing reason.”); Hester v. International Union of Operating

Engineers, 941 F.2d 1574, 1578 (11th Cir. 1991) (“[I]n the absence of any apparent

reason, leave to amend should be granted.”); Espey v. Wainwright, 734 F.2d 748, 750

(11th Cir. 1984).

WHEREFORE, premises considered, plaintiffs respectfully request the entry

of an Order permitting them to file the attached Amended Complaint.

Case 2:06-cv-00785-MHT-WC Document 17 Filed 01/25/2007 Page 3 of 4
4

Respectfully submitted,

s/Maury S. Weiner

Jon C. Goldfarb (GOL015)

Maury S. Weiner (WEI021)

Ethan R. Dettling (DET001)

Counsel for Plaintiff

OF COUNSEL:

Wiggins, Childs, Quinn & Pantazis, LLC

301 19

th Street North

Birmingham, AL 35203

Telephone No.: (205) 314-0500

Facsimile No.: (205) 254-1500

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have filed a true and correct copy of the above and

foregoing document the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will

electronically notify the following counsel of record:

Tammy L. Baker, Esq.

Tamula R. Yelling, Esq

CONSTANGY, BROOKS & SMITH LLC

One Federal Place, Suite 900

1819 Fifth Avenue North

Birmingham, Alabama 35203

on this the 25th day of January , 2007.

s/Maury S. Weiner

OF COUNSEL

Case 2:06-cv-00785-MHT-WC Document 17 Filed 01/25/2007 Page 4 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

RICARDO WRIGHT, BERYL

JACKSON, TRACEY MARTIN,

CAL V I N FL UKE R , LI S A

PITCHFORD, KIMBERLY LOVE,

RESHANDA BROWN,

PLAINTIFFS,

V.

U.S. FOODSERVICE, INC., and

U.S. FOODSERVICE, INC. -

MONTGOMERY DIVISION,

DEFENDANTS.

)

)

)

) CIVIL ACTION NO.:

) 2:06cv785-MHT

)

) JURY DEMAND

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

AMENDED COMPLAINT

I. JURISDICTION

1. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, §

1343(4) and 28 U.S.C. Sections 2201 and 2202. This action is brought to secure the

protection of and to redress the deprivation of rights secured by 42 U.S.C. Section

1981 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et

seq., as amended by theCivil Rights Act of 1991, including 42 U.S.C. § 1981a, which

provide forinjunctive and otherrelief against unlawful discrimination and retaliation

in employment.

Case 2:06-cv-00785-MHT-WC Document 17-2 Filed 01/25/2007 Page 1 of 26
2

II. PARTIES

2. The plaintiff, Ricardo Wright, is an African-American male, a citizen of the

United States, and a resident of the State of Alabama. Wright has been employed by

the defendant since September 1, 1997.

3. The plaintiff, Tracey Martin, is an African-American female, a citizen of the

United States, and a resident of the State of Alabama. Martin has been employed by

the defendant since August, 1997.

4. The plaintiff, Kimberly Love, is an African-American female, a citizen of the

United States, and a resident of the State of Alabama. Love has been employed by

the defendant since July, 2000.

5. The plaintiff, Calvin Fluker, is an African-American male, a citizen of the

United States, and a resident of the State of Alabama. Fluker has been employed by

the defendant since September 1, 1997.

6. The plaintiff, Beryl Jackson, is an African-American female, a citizen of the

United States, and a resident of the State of Alabama. Jackson has been employed

by the defendant since January 29, 1990.

7. The plaintiff, Lisa Pitchford, is an African-American female, a citizen of the

United States, and a resident of the State of Alabama. Pitchford has been employed

by the defendant since June, 1998.

Case 2:06-cv-00785-MHT-WC Document 17-2 Filed 01/25/2007 Page 2 of 26
3

8. The plaintiff, Reshanda Brown, is an African-American female, a citizen of

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

the defendant from October 31, 2005 to November 13, 2006.

9. The Defendant, U.S. Foodservice, Inc., (hereinafter “defendant” or “U.S.

Foodservice”) is an entity subject to suit under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981.

U.S. Foodservice, Inc. is authorized to conduct business in the State of Alabama and

has a facility in Montgomery County, Alabama.

10. The Defendant, U.S. Foodservice, Inc. - Montgomery Division (hereinafter

“defendant” or “U.S. Foodservice”) is an entity subject to suit under Title VII and 42

U.S.C. § 1981. U.S. Foodservice, Inc. - Montgomery Division is authorized to

conduct business in the State of Alabama and has a facility in Montgomery County,

Alabama.

III. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies

11. Plaintiff Wright filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on or about June 23, 2004 and a Supplemental

Charge on September 27, 2004. The EEOC issued a right to sue letter on June 5,

2006.

12. Plaintiff Martin filed a Charge of Discrimination on February 27, 2005 and a

Supplemental Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity

Case 2:06-cv-00785-MHT-WC Document 17-2 Filed 01/25/2007 Page 3 of 26
4

Commission (EEOC) on or about February 24, 2006. The EEOC issued a right to

sue letter on June 13, 2006.

13. Plaintiff Love filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on or about March 27, 2005. The EEOC issued

a right to sue letter on June 13, 2006.

14. Plaintiff Fluker filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on or about May 6, 2004. The EEOC issued a

right to sue letter on July 18, 2006.

15. PlaintiffJackson filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on or about March 2, 2005. The EEOC issued a

right to sue letter on June 12, 2006.

16. Plaintiff Pitchford filed aCharge ofDiscriminationwith theEqualEmployment

Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on or about February 20, 2005. The EEOC issued

a right to sue letter on June 12, 2006.

17. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission conducted an independent

investigation into the employment practices of the Defendant company. On

September 14, 2005, theEEOCissued a determination following itsinvestigation into

the charge filed by employee Calvin Fluker. The EEOC determined “Evidence

obtained during the investigation revealed that Charging Party [Fluker] and a class

of Blacks have been subjected to racial harassment.” The EEOC further “determined

Case 2:06-cv-00785-MHT-WC Document 17-2 Filed 01/25/2007 Page 4 of 26
5

there is reasonable cause to believe the Respondent discriminated against Charging

Party and Blacks as a class by subjecting them to a racially hostile work environment

in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended” and that “the

Charging Party and Blacks as a class have been retaliated against after they

complained of racial harassment.”

18. Plaintiff Reshanda Brown brings her claims against the defendant within 180

days of the last discriminatory act about which she is complaining. Brown worked

as a temporary employee for the Defendant in its credit department from October 31,

2005 until she was replaced by a less qualified white female on or about November

13, 2006, and terminated. She is entitled to piggyback her claims onto the timely filed

EEOC charges by some or all of the other plaintiffs. In addition, Brown, along with

the other plaintiffs, brings suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § Section 1981.

IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS

Facts Pertaining to Ricardo Wright

19. Ricardo Wright was hired by the Defendant around September 1, 1997 as a

Sales Trainee.

20. On or around November 1, 1998, the plaintiff was promoted fromSalesTrainee

to the position of salaried Territory Manager, which is a sales position within the

Defendant company. Since plaintiff was hired in 1997, no other African-American

Territory Managers have been hired in the Birmingham District while many white

Case 2:06-cv-00785-MHT-WC Document 17-2 Filed 01/25/2007 Page 5 of 26
6

Territory Managers have been hired. Of the approximately 115 sales representatives

employed by the Defendant in Alabama, very few are African-American.

21. On or around January 22, 1999, plaintiff expressed his interest in becoming a

member of management within the Defendant company. Prior to joining the

Defendant, plaintiff had management experience.

22. On June 1, 2000, Wright moved froma salaried Territory Manager to Territory

Manager compensated solely by sales commissions.

23. Wright was forced to change to full commission without a transition period.

Other Territory Managers, who are white, were paid a salary during a lengthy

transition period to a full commission Territory Manager.

24. As a Territory Manager, Wright has been assigned to primarily lower income

African-American areas in metropolitan Birmingham, Alabama. Wright’s territory

has been largely limited to western Birmingham. The Defendant has asserted that it

assigned those areas to Wright because those areas would be “a perfect fit” for him.

Although Wright is assigned to accountsin western Birmingham, large and lucrative

accounts in the western Birmingham area, such as Visionland Amusement Pfark,

Miles College, and a high volume restaurant in Fairfield, were assigned to white sales

representatives.

25. White sales representatives with less experience and less seniority have been

awarded more lucrative sales territories with much greater income potential than the

Case 2:06-cv-00785-MHT-WC Document 17-2 Filed 01/25/2007 Page 6 of 26
7

lowerincome areas assigned to Wright. In some instances, new white representatives

with no prior sales experience have been assigned more lucrative accounts and/or

territories.

26. Plaintiff is not routinely permitted to set his own prices on products which

makesit more difficult for himto make sales and earn commissions. Plaintiff’s white

counterparts are often permitted to offer certain product discounts.

27. The Defendant adjusts commissions based on account collections. Territory

Managers, including Wright, with certain percentages of their accounts past due are

assessed a monetary penalty. However, some white Territory Managers have been

exempted from penaltiesfor unpaid balances and have not had their clients’ accounts

placed on a C.O.D. or “no ship” status despite large amounts of seriously delinquent

accounts. In addition, Wright has been subjected to greater scrutiny and discipline

for poor collections when compared to his white counterparts.

28. Plaintiff is also not given the same level of support as his white counterparts.

For example, white Territory Managers are given more support in collecting

delinquent accounts. White Territory Managers often have their clients called on by

members of senior management whereas sales calls on Wright’s accounts by senior

management are extremely rare.

Case 2:06-cv-00785-MHT-WC Document 17-2 Filed 01/25/2007 Page 7 of 26
8

29. Wright’s African-American clients have been given less desirable credit terms

and less flexibility than the clients of plaintiff’s white counterparts, resulting in

reduced sales and commissions for Wright.

30. Wright’s African-American clients often have received poor customer service

from the Defendant in the form of missed shipments, late shipments, and shipments

of defective product, which has resulted in reduced sales and commissions for

Wright. When Wright’s clients have discussed their concerns with Wright’s

managers, their complaints have often been ignored and these clients have been told

to “find anothersupplier.” Thistreatment isin contrast to the better quality customer

service provided by the Defendant to clients in higher income, predominantly white

areas where managers will personally call on accounts when there are product quality

concerns or other customer service concerns.

31. Wright has also been denied the opportunity to advance to the position of

District Sales Manager. Until approximately November 2005, Defendant filled these

positions without posting the vacancies. In November 2005, Wright was given the

opportunity to interview for the District Manager position; however, the company

hired a less qualified, white male to fill the position.

32. Prior to filing a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC, Wright made his

concerns known to his supervisors both verbally and in writing. Wright explicitly

raised complaints that he was being discriminated against by the Defendant because

Case 2:06-cv-00785-MHT-WC Document 17-2 Filed 01/25/2007 Page 8 of 26
9

of his race. Defendant took no steps to address Wright’s complaints of

discrimination.

33. On or around September 27, 2004,Wrightfiled a charge of discrimination with

the EEOC.

34. In the first 5 months after Wright filed a Charge of Discrimination, Wright

received almost no commission “recap” reports making Wright’s job much more

difficult. Also, many invoices were “lost” on his accountsthat are C.O.D., which has

resulted in delayed payment to Wright and penalties for delinquent accounts.

35. Also, there is currently a District Manager position available in District 2

which has not been filled. Wright expressed his interest in the position, but Wright

was informed the position will not be filled. However, the Defendant is actively

seeking to fill the position with an African American person who has not filed a

charge of discrimination or otherwise opposed unlawful discrimination.

Facts Pertaining to Beryl Jackson

36. Beryl Jackson was hired by the Defendant around January 29, 1990, and was

promoted to Territory Manager in July 1997.

37. Jackson was not assigned a territory upon her promotion to salaried Territory

Manager unlike many new white Territory Managers. Also, Jackson was not

provided a “step down transition” to transition from a salaried Territory Manager to

Case 2:06-cv-00785-MHT-WC Document 17-2 Filed 01/25/2007 Page 9 of 26
10

a full commissionedTerritoryManagerwhereasmanywhite employees have received

a salary during the transition to full commission.

38. Jackson has many accountsthat are compensated at a 1% commission structure

rather than U.S. Foodservice’s standard 30% commission of landed profits. On

information and belief, many white Territory Managers receive a 3% commission on

accounts that U.S. Foodservice labels as 1% accounts.

39. Jackson was denied the opportunity to work in two lucrative sales territories

allegedly because those territories were not a “perfect fit.” Less experienced and less

qualified white andmaleTerritoryManagers were assigned thesemore lucrative sales

territories.

40. Moreover, the Defendant does not equally distribute sales leads to its sales

representatives. White sales representatives are routinely given leads with higher

volume sales and black representatives, including Jackson, are often given leads with

lower sales volumes.

41. For example, Jackson was assigned the John Knox Manor account. This

account was assigned to Jackson after the company lost the account. Jackson began

cold calling the account and was able to get most of the business back for U.S.

Foodservice. Subsequently, a person at John Knox Manor (Kathy Crittenden, white

female) wrote to U.S. Foodservice and requested that the account be assigned to

another Territory Manager, Elizabeth Cronic (white female). The account was

Case 2:06-cv-00785-MHT-WC Document 17-2 Filed 01/25/2007 Page 10 of 26
11

eventually transferred to Cronic with Jackson receiving only 1% of sales for 1 year.

The Defendant company did notsupportJackson and actively work to keep her on the

account.

42. In contrast to how U.S. Foodservice handled the John Knox Manor account,

on at least two occasions, an account requested Jackson as Territory Manager and

Jackson was never even told about the requests. The Defendant actively sought to

maintain the account for the current white Territory Managers and was successful in

keeping the account with the white Territory Managers.

43. Plaintiff is also not given the same level of support as her white counterparts.

For example, white Territory Managers are given more support in collecting

delinquent accounts. Also, white Territory Managers often have their clients called

on by members of senior management whereas sales calls on Wright’s accounts by

senior management are extremely rare.

44. Jackson’s African-American clients have been given less desirable credit terms

and less flexibility than the clients of plaintiff’s white counterparts, resulting in

reduced sales and commissions for Jackson.

45. Jackson’s African-American clients often have received poor customerservice

from the Defendant in the form of missed shipments, late shipments, and shipments

of defective product, which has resulted in reduced sales and commissions for

Jackson. This treatment is in contrast to high quality customer service provided by

Case 2:06-cv-00785-MHT-WC Document 17-2 Filed 01/25/2007 Page 11 of 26
12

the Defendant to clientsin higherincome, predominantlywhite areas wheremanagers

will personally call on accounts when there are product quality concerns or other

customer service concerns.

46. Jackson has been denied District Sales Manager positionsthat have been filled

by less qualified whites. These highly compensated positions are normally filled with

white candidates without an open application process.

47. Also, there is currently a District Sales Manager position available in District

2 which has not been filled. Jackson expressed her interest in the position, but

Jackson was informed the position will not be filled. However, the Defendant is

actively seeking to fill the position with an African American male who has not filed

a charge of discrimination or otherwise opposed unlawful discrimination. Further,

the Defendant selected Willie Walker to serve as a mentor which resulted in an

increase of pay despite Jackson’s much longer tenure with the Defendant.

Facts Pertaining to Calvin Fluker

48. Calvin Fluker was hired by U.S. Foodservice on or about June 26, 1996. Mr.

Fluker is a National Account Executive for the company.

49. During his employment with the Defendant, Fluker has been subjected to a

racially hostile work environment. For example, in 2004, Danny Mimms, who had

been previously warned about making racial slurs to another African-American

employee, called Fluker a “goddamn nigger” on a company voice mail. On

Case 2:06-cv-00785-MHT-WC Document 17-2 Filed 01/25/2007 Page 12 of 26
13

information and belief, Danny Mimms received a prior warning in 2001 about using

racial slurs at work. On another occasion, Mims asked Fluker if his nickname was

“Toby” in clear reference to the book “Roots.” A short time after his second

documented incident of making racial slurs, Danny Mimms was recognized as

“Territory Manager of the Year” at a company-wide awards banquet.

50. Employee Craig Bruce, a sales trainee, also referred to Fluker as a “nigger.”

Bruce called Fluker “nigger” in front of another employee. Bruce was terminated

several days later, but before Bruce’s termination, Fluker was approached by his

supervisor, Kevin Egan, who offered to pay Fluker money if Bruce could be allowed

to keep his job. Fluker turned down the offer of money. Later that same day, Egan

again asked Fluker if he would accept a pay raise. Fluker declined.

51. Further, Kevin Egan on many occasions referred to Fluker as “Mandingo.” In

addition,Julian Alford, another management employee, referred to Fluker as “Kunta

Kenta,” on several occasions, another clear reference to the book “Roots” and to the

slavery of African Americans. Fluker informed Egan and Alford that he found these

names offensive to him. On another occasion, co-employee Phyllis Jones referred

to Brazil nuts as “nigger toes” in Fluker’s presence during a company sponsored

function. Egan also made the statement to Fluker that he was told by the President

of the division that if he did not advance in the company, he would know why or

Case 2:06-cv-00785-MHT-WC Document 17-2 Filed 01/25/2007 Page 13 of 26
14

words to that effect. Egan made this statement at a reception in which Fluker had

spoken to a young, white female.

52. Moreover, Fluker has been discriminated against discriminated against in job

assignments and promotions. On or about May 29, 2000, Fluker learned that the

Defendant had an opening for a Territory Managerin the Auburn, Alabama area. Ben

McDavid, in human resources, asked Fluker if he was interested in the position and

informed Fluker that relocation to Auburn, Alabama was a prerequisite to accepting

this position. Fluker declined the position because he did not want to move to

Auburn without help with relocation costs. Thereafter, Todd Hansen, a white male,

was hired instead for the position on or about June 8, 2000 but Hansen did not move

to Auburn. Instead, Hansen purchased a home in east Montgomery and works in the

Auburn market.

53. On or about December 4, 2002, Dale Ward, a white male, retired from U.S.

Foodservice. Ward was a salesman for the company in the Evergreen, Alabama area.

Fluker’s hometown is Evergreen, Alabama. Fluker asked Joe Chambliss, Vice

President of Sales, about the position but Chambliss informed Fluker that people in

that area “were not ready” for Fluker to be a salesrepresentative. Fluker wastold the

area “wouldn’t be a good fit.” A less qualified white representative was hired to work

in the area, and parts of the territory were broken up and divided among two other

white sales representatives.

Case 2:06-cv-00785-MHT-WC Document 17-2 Filed 01/25/2007 Page 14 of 26
15

54. The Defendant company also has had a policy of not posting certain job

opportunities within the company. Numerous white males have been hired to fill

positions which were not posted including Phillip Romeii (District Manager), Steve

Hansen, Todd Hansen, Joey Morris, Craig Bruce (National Account Executive), and

Charles Patroni. Fluker was qualified for all of these positions and would have

accepted any of these positions.

55. After Fluker filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC, U.S. Foodservice

retaliated against him. Fluker was isolated and ignored by his supervisors and coworkers, disciplined unfairly, excluded fromsalesmeetingsin which Fluker normally

participated, excluded from assignments, and physically threatened. Joe Chambliss

also actively recruited three salestraineesto document any comment made by Fluker

that could be construed as racial or sexual. The company has also retaliated against

Fluker by placing him on a Performance Improvement Plan in or around April, 2006.

56. Further, the Defendant company began retaliating against other employees by

conducting individual interrogations of employees listed as witnesses by Fluker and

other African American employees who filed charges of discrimination with the

EEOC. The Defendant company attempted to coerce African American employees

into signing statements that they had not been subjected to racial discrimination.

57. Also, there is currently a District Manager position available in District 2 which

has not been filled. Fluker has expressed an interest in promotions to management

Case 2:06-cv-00785-MHT-WC Document 17-2 Filed 01/25/2007 Page 15 of 26
16

positions; however, the Defendant is actively seeking to fill the position with an

African American person who has not filed a charge of discrimination or otherwise

opposed unlawful discrimination.

Facts Pertaining to Lisa Pitchford

58. The plaintiff Pitchford began working for the Defendant in June, 1998, as a

bookkeeper.

59. During her employment, Pitchford has sought promotions to the positions of

payroll clerk, credit clerk, credit manager, other positions in the credit department,

and sales positions. Each time, less qualified white candidates were selected.

Pitchford finally received a job as Sales Trainee in July, 2005, after she filed an

EEOC charge.

60. As a Sales Trainee, Pitchford has been forced to spend much more time

covering for sick or absent Territory Managers as compared to white sales trainees,

making it much more difficult for Pitchford to cultivate her own accounts. The

Defendant has also provided Pitchford inferior leads and leads in lower income

neighborhoods while white sales trainees have been assigned lucrative accounts

and/or stronger leads. The Defendant has also provided lower quality service and

delayed deliveries to Pitchford’s accounts and the Defendant is more restrictive in

granting credit terms to Pitchford’s accounts when compared to similar accounts of

white sales representatives. Defendant has also provided less support for Pitchford

Case 2:06-cv-00785-MHT-WC Document 17-2 Filed 01/25/2007 Page 16 of 26
17

when an account has a problem than for her white counterparts. All these actions

have reduced Pitchford’s compensation.

61. In addition, after Pitchford’s name was mentioned in an EEOC investigation,

the Defendant began retaliating against her by unfairly disciplining her, and by

excluding her from necessary meetings that previously included Pitchford.

Facts Pertaining to Kimberly Love

62. Kimberly Love began working for the Defendant in July, 2000, as a credit

assistant and is still in that job today.

63. Because the Defendant company only recently started posting some vacancies,

Love has often been unable to apply for positions in sales and other higher paying

positions. Love has often been denied the opportunity to apply for a Territory

Manager position because the Defendant company did not post such positions.

64. Love has never been offered a promotion within the Defendant company. The

Defendant company once offered to pay Love an additional $ 0.75 per hour if she

would take on the additional responsibilities of collecting some debts. On

information and belief, the Defendant company made an identical offer to a white

female co-worker except that she was offered a larger per hour increase than Love

was offered.

Case 2:06-cv-00785-MHT-WC Document 17-2 Filed 01/25/2007 Page 17 of 26
18

65. Love has also been denied certain training given to white employees. For

example, Love has not been permitted to have tax training despite repeated requests

for such training. This training is highly relevant to Love’s current position.

66. In 2005, after Love filed her EEOC charge, the position of credit manager was

posted, but the posting required a four year degree. Because Love only had

completed 3.5 years of college, she did not apply. However, when the vacancy was

sent to the State of Alabama for posting, the VP of Finance, David Watts, instructed

Gwen Thomas in Human Resources to remove the college degree requirement. Al

Sartain (white male) was hired to fill that position.

67. Love was and still is being discriminated against in job assignments. For

example, Love is not allowed to handle COD Check approvals, but a less qualified

white female, Betty Clayton, is allowed to do that task. Experience in handling COD

check approvals would assist Love’s movement into a credit manager position or

higher position.

68. In approximately October 2005, Love applied for the position of credit

manager. Rather than promoting Love, the company hired Charles Wallace, a white

male who had to move from Florida, to fill the position over the plaintiff.

Facts Pertaining to Tracey Martin

69. Martin began working for the respondent in August of 1997 as an Accounting

Clerk.

Case 2:06-cv-00785-MHT-WC Document 17-2 Filed 01/25/2007 Page 18 of 26
19

70. Martin has constantly sought promotions to higher paying positions, and the

Defendant company has consistently selected less qualified whites and males over

Martin. For example, on September 20, 2004, the Defendant company selected a

white male named Greg Hueber over Martin for an AssistantController position. The

reasons the Defendant company did not select Martin were pretextual. Mr. Huebner

was a new hire.

71. Martin also applied for a Credit Manager position. The Defendant company

again gave pretextual reasons for not promoting Martin. Upon information and

belief, the respondent had already selected a less qualified white male when the

position was posted.

72. When Martin expressed an interest in a sales position, Martin was told that

position was “not a good fit” for her. The vast majority of these positions are held

by white males.

73. In August 2005, Martin applied for a position as an Accounts Receivable

Manager. On approximately October 4, 2005, Martin learned that the Accounts

Receivable Manager position was awarded to a less qualified white female. Martin

was informed that she was not awarded the Accounts Receivable Manager position

because Martin was over-qualified for the position. Rather than award Martin the

Accounts Receivable Manager position, which included supervisory responsibilities

and a highersalary than Martin earns, the Defendant company created a new position,

Case 2:06-cv-00785-MHT-WC Document 17-2 Filed 01/25/2007 Page 19 of 26
20

Staff Accountant II, for her. Martin accepted the new position based on

representations that have not materialized.

74. As a Staff Accountant II, Martin has no supervisory responsibilities, and

Martin performs much of the same work that she performed in her prior position.

Martin also hasto seek out job duties and assignments. Apparently, the position was

created as the result of Martin’s filing an EEOC charge.

75. Further,since Martin received the Staff Accountant II position, the Controller,

Shelby Pierce, constantly monitors Martin’s every move, while she does not treat

white employees or employees who have not previously filed an EEOC charge in the

same manner.

Facts Pertaining to Reshanda Brown

76. Plaintiff Brown began working for the Defendant on October 31, 2005, in the

company’s credit department. Plaintiff was employed by the defendant as a

temporary employee through an employment agency, Walker Personnel.

77. Brown performed the essential functions of a credit analyst on a daily basis

from October 31, 2005 until her last date of employment on November 13, 2006.

78. Her daily job duties generally consisted of calling on assigned accounts with

past due balances, resolving any problems invoices, and collecting past due monies.

79. Brown received no verbal or written discipline of any kind while employed by

the defendant.

Case 2:06-cv-00785-MHT-WC Document 17-2 Filed 01/25/2007 Page 20 of 26
21

80. During March 2006, after her initial 90 days of employment, Brown began

inquiring about a permanent position with the defendant and wastold that there were

no open positions.

81. On July 14, 2006, Brown sent an e-mail to Al Sartain,Credit Manager, to again

confirm her interest in a permanent position with the defendant.

82. Subsequently, the defendant decided to hire a permanent employee to fill a

credit analyst position in the credit department. This open position was first made

available in the summer of 2006 to current permanent employees, andBrown wastold

she could not apply at that time.

83. Subsequently, the credit analyst vacancy was opened to outside applicants and

Brown applied.

84. Brown was interviewed by Al Sartain during September 2006. The interview

lasted approximately five minutes. During this interview Brown was told that the

credit analyst position was being combined with a credit coordinator position and that

one person would be hired instead of two persons.

85. On November 13, 2006,Brown wasinformed that the defendant hired someone

else for the position and she was starting work that same day. Brown was told that

she needed to collect her belongings and leave immediately. A white female was

hired who had no prior experience working with the defendant. In contrast, Brown

had a proven track record of successfully performing the functions of credit analyst.

Case 2:06-cv-00785-MHT-WC Document 17-2 Filed 01/25/2007 Page 21 of 26
22

86. On information and belief, in November 2006, a second white female was hired

into a permanent positions in the credit department contrary to what Brown was told

during her interview.

IV. CAUSES OF ACTION

A. COUNT I — RACE AND/OR GENDER DISCRIMINATION

87. The plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-86 above

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

88. During their employment, the Defendant discriminated against the plaintiffs

because of their African-American race and/or gender in compensation, promotions,

job assignments, discipline, training, hiring, and other terms, conditions and

privileges of their employment.

89. The Defendant’s articulated reasons for these actions are not legitimate.

90. Said race and/or sex discrimination was done maliciously, willfully, and with

reckless disregard for the rights of the plaintiffs.

91. The plaintiffs have no plain, adequate or complete remedy at law to redressthe

wrongs alleged herein and this suit for backpay, declaratory judgment, injunctive

relief, and compensatory and punitive damages is their only means of securing

adequate relief.

92. The plaintiffs are now suffering, and will continue to suffer irreparable injury

from Defendant’s unlawful conduct as set forth herein unless enjoined by this Court.

Case 2:06-cv-00785-MHT-WC Document 17-2 Filed 01/25/2007 Page 22 of 26
23

B. COUNT II — RACE DISCRIMINATION - HOSTILE WORK

ENVIRONMENT

93. The plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-92 above

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

94. During the course of his employment, Calvin Fluker was continuously

subjected to a racially hostile work environment.

95. The Defendant was aware of this hostile and abusive environment and refused

to take appropriate remedial action.

96. The Defendant ratified and/or condoned such hostile and abusive behavior by

failing to take appropriate remedial action.

97. The Defendant is vicariously liable for the conduct of the employees and

supervisors that harassed the plaintiff.

98. Said racial harassment was done maliciously, willfully, and with reckless

disregard for the rights of the plaintiff.

99. Plaintiff Fluker has no plain, adequate or complete remedy at law to redress

the wrongs alleged herein and thissuit for backpay, declaratory judgment, injunctive

relief, and compensatory and punitive damages is his only means of securing

adequate relief.

Case 2:06-cv-00785-MHT-WC Document 17-2 Filed 01/25/2007 Page 23 of 26
24

100. The plaintiff is now suffering, and will continue to suffer irreparable injury

from Defendant’s unlawful conduct as set forth herein unless enjoined by this Court.

C. COUNT III - RETALIATION

101. The plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-100 above

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

102. The plaintiffs have opposed the Defendant’s discriminatory practices by filing

EEOC charges and making other complaints of race and/or sex discrimination.

103. In response to the plaintiffs opposing discrimination and engaging in protected

activity, the Defendant retaliated against the plaintiffsin compensation, promotions,

job assignments, hiring, discipline, training, and other terms, conditions and

privileges of employment.

104. Areasonable person would have found the Defendant’s discriminatory actions

to be materially adverse and such actions might have dissuaded a reasonable

employee from making or supporting a charge of race and/or sex discrimination.

105. Said retaliation was donemaliciously,willfully, and with reckless disregard for

the rights of the plaintiffs.

106. The plaintiffs have no plain, adequate or complete remedy at law to redressthe

wrongs alleged herein and this suit for backpay, declaratory judgment, injunctive

relief, and compensatory and punitive damages are their only means of securing

adequate relief.

Case 2:06-cv-00785-MHT-WC Document 17-2 Filed 01/25/2007 Page 24 of 26
25

107. The plaintiffs are now suffering, and will continue to suffer irreparable injury

from the Defendant’s unlawful conduct as set forth herein unless enjoined by this

Court.

V. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs pray 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 of the Defendant violate the rights of the

plaintiffs secured by Title VII, as amended, and/or 42 U.S.C. § 1981.

2. Grant the plaintiffs a permanent injunction enjoining the Defendant, its agents,

successors, employees, attorneys and those acting in concert with the Defendant and

at the Defendant’s request from continuing to violate Title VII and/or 42 U.S.C. §

1981.

3. Enter an Order requiring the Defendant to make the plaintiffs whole by

awarding them the positions they would have occupied in the absence of race and/or

sex discrimination and retaliation, front pay, back-pay (plus interest), nominal

damages, lost seniority, benefits, loss of pension, compensatory and punitive

damages, and pre and post judgment interest.

Case 2:06-cv-00785-MHT-WC Document 17-2 Filed 01/25/2007 Page 25 of 26
26

4. The plaintiffs further pray 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.

PLAINTIFFS DEMAND A TRIAL BY STRUCK JURY

Respectfully submitted,

s/Maury S. Weiner

Jon C. Goldfarb (GOL015)

Maury S. Weiner (WEI021)

Ethan R. Dettling (DET001)

Counsel for Plaintiff

OF COUNSEL:

Wiggins, Childs, Quinn & Pantazis, LLC

301 19

th Street North

Birmingham, AL 35203

Telephone No.: (205) 314-0500

Facsimile No.: (205) 254-1500

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have filed a true and correct copy of the above and

foregoing document the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will

electronically notify the following counsel of record:

Tammy L. Baker, Esq.

Tamula R. Yelling, Esq

CONSTANGY, BROOKS & SMITH LLC

One Federal Place, Suite 900

1819 Fifth Avenue North

Birmingham, Alabama 35203

on this the 25th day of January , 2007.

s/Maury S. Weiner

OF COUNSEL

Case 2:06-cv-00785-MHT-WC Document 17-2 Filed 01/25/2007 Page 26 of 26