UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

_____________ 

FAISAL G. KHALAF, PH.D, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. Case No. 2015-CV-12604 

 Hon. Marianne O. Battani 

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, 

a Delaware corporation; 

BENNIE FOWLER and 

JAY ZHOU, jointly and severally, 

Defendants. 

 / 

Carol A. Laughbaum (P41711) 

Raymond J. Sterling (P34456) 

STERLING ATTORNEYS AT LAW, P.C. 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

33 Bloomfield Hills Pkwy., Ste. 250 

Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48304 

(248) 644-1500 

claughbaum@sterlingattorneys.com 

rsterling@sterlingattorneys.com 

Elizabeth P. Hardy (P37426) 

William B. Forrest III (P60311) 

Shannon V. Loverich (P53877) 

KIENBAUM, OPPERWALL, HARDY

& PELTON, P.L.C. 

Attorneys for Defendants 

280 N. Old Woodward Ave, Ste. 400 

Birmingham, Michigan 48009 

(248) 645-0000 

ehardy@kohp.com 

wforrest@kohp.com 

sloverich@kohp.com 

 / 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT AND 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

 Plaintiff, Faisal G. Khalaf, Ph.D., by his attorneys Sterling Attorneys at 

Law, P.C., for his Second Amended Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial, 

submits the following: 

Case 2:15-cv-12604-MOB-DRG ECF No. 45 filed 05/03/17 PageID.1820 Page 1 of 15
2 

Jurisdiction and Parties 

1. This is an action for employment discrimination and retaliation in 

violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 USC 2000e et seq.; 42 

USC 1981; and Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, MCL 37.2101 et seq., 

arising out of Plaintiff’s employment relationship with Defendants. 

2. Plaintiff Faisal G. Khalaf (hereafter “Plaintiff,” “Dr. Khalaf,” or 

“Plaintiff Khalaf”) resides within the Eastern District of Michigan. 

3. Defendant Ford Motor Company (hereafter “Defendant,” “Ford” 

or “Defendant Ford”) is incorporated in the State of Delaware, and maintains 

its principal place of business and corporate headquarters in the Eastern District 

of Michigan. 

4. Defendant Bennie Fowler (hereafter “Defendant Fowler” or 

“Fowler”) is or was at material times Group Vice President of Quality and New 

Model Launch for Defendant Ford, was Plaintiff’s direct or indirect supervisor, 

and upon information and belief resides within the Eastern District of Michigan. 

5. Defendant Jay Zhou (hereafter “Defendant Zhou” or “Zhou”) is or 

was at pertinent times a Ford Manager to whom Plaintiff reported, and upon 

information and belief resides within the Eastern District of Michigan. 

6. The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 exclusive of interest 

and costs. 

Case 2:15-cv-12604-MOB-DRG ECF No. 45 filed 05/03/17 PageID.1821 Page 2 of 15
3 

7. Plaintiff timely files the above claims within ninety (90) days of 

receipt of his EEOC issued Notice of Right to Sue letter, which was mailed to 

him on June 16, 2016. 

8. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction of Plaintiff’s claims 

pursuant to 28 USC 1331 (federal question), 28 USC 1343 (civil rights) and 28 

USC 1367 (supplemental jurisdiction). 

Background Facts 

9. Plaintiff Khalaf became employed by Ford Motor Company in 

August 1999.

10. Dr. Khalaf was born in Lebanon; he is of Arabic descent, and is a 

Muslim. 

11. During his employment, Dr. Khalaf served in various capacities 

including, most recently, Quality and Productivity Planning Manager.

12. At all times, Dr. Khalaf performed his job duties in a manner that 

was satisfactory or better.

13. In January 2012, Khalaf received a “top achiever” performance 

rating, a rating reserved for the top 5% of Ford employees.

14. In June 2012, Khalaf was placed under new management, and 

began reporting to Defendant Fowler.

Case 2:15-cv-12604-MOB-DRG ECF No. 45 filed 05/03/17 PageID.1822 Page 3 of 15
4 

15. Shortly thereafter, and continuing until June 27, 2014, Fowler 

subjected Plaintiff Khalaf to regular and frequent unwarranted criticism and 

hostility with regard to Plaintiff’s ability to speak and understand English; 

overall demeaning and servile treatment; and further discrimination and 

harassment including disparate treatment with respect to training, and being 

assigned unrealistic work goals.

16. In or about February 2013, one of Plaintiff Khalaf’s direct reports 

made a sexual harassment complaint, to Khalaf, against a co-worker. In 

response, Khalaf, among other things, reviewed Ford policy, met with both 

individuals, and advised the employee to report the matter to Ford HR. 

17. Subsequently, Ford took the position that Khalaf should not have 

had the employee report the matter to HR.

18. In fact, in or about April 2013, Defendant Fowler advised Plaintiff 

that he was removing Khalaf from his position due to the “HR investigation,” 

for which he blamed Khalaf.

19. In April 2013, Fowler advised Plaintiff that he was bringing in Jay 

Zhou to lead the Department. Defendant Zhou was effectively in his new role 

in July 2013 and an announcement went out in September 2013. Plaintiff began 

reporting directly to Zhou.

Case 2:15-cv-12604-MOB-DRG ECF No. 45 filed 05/03/17 PageID.1823 Page 4 of 15
5 

20. Zhou joined in and continued Fowler’s discriminatory treatment of 

Plaintiff, including berating Plaintiff’s English skills, which were considerably 

more proficient than that of Zhou.

21. Despite Plaintiff Khalaf’s excellent performance during 2013, 

Fowler advised Khalaf that if he wanted to leave Ford, Fowler could “make it 

happen.”

22. Zhou also marginalized Plaintiff by, among other things, giving 

assignments to, and reviewing Plaintiff’s team members, while excluding 

Plaintiff, and refusing to support Plaintiff for other available positions for which 

Plaintiff was highly qualified.

23. On April 4, 2014, Plaintiff Khalaf filed a complaint with Ford HR 

stating that he was being subjected to discrimination and harassment on the basis 

of his national origin.

24. In a meeting with HR a few days later, Plaintiff provided further 

detail with respect to his discriminatory treatment.

25. On April 23, 2014, Plaintiff Khalaf was placed on a retaliatory 

Performance Enhancement Plan (PEP).

26. Subsequently, Zhou instructed Plaintiff to perform low level 

administrative tasks, suggested he take an English course, and continued to 

marginalize and belittle him, while ignoring Plaintiff’s accomplishments.

Case 2:15-cv-12604-MOB-DRG ECF No. 45 filed 05/03/17 PageID.1824 Page 5 of 15
6 

27. Defendant’s agents threatened Plaintiff with a “career transition 

plan” despite Plaintiff’s proven performance and positive feedback with respect 

to Plaintiff’s leadership from various sources, making clear Ford wanted him 

gone.

28. In June 2014, Plaintiff was forced to begin a medical leave due to 

workplace stress. 

29. On January 27, 2015 Plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination with 

the EEOC and Michigan Department of Civil Rights. 

30. On July 14, 2015, Plaintiff attempted to return to work from his 

disability leave, supplying all necessary paperwork.

31. Plaintiff also requested, in writing, accommodations for his 

disability.

32. Plaintiff was refused a return to work, and has been placed on an 

unpaid leave and “no job available” status.

33. Defendant Ford’s representation that there is no work available for 

Plaintiff, even a temporary position, is false.

34. The discrimination and retaliation against Plaintiff is of a 

continuing nature and includes Plaintiff’s termination by Ford on or about 

September 1, 2015.

Case 2:15-cv-12604-MOB-DRG ECF No. 45 filed 05/03/17 PageID.1825 Page 6 of 15
7 

COUNT I 

National Origin Discrimination in Violation of Title VII 

 ( as Against Defendant Ford) 

35. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 34 above 

as though set forth in full again. 

36. At all material times, Plaintiff Khalaf was an employee and 

Defendant Ford was his employer covered by and within the meaning of Title 

VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 USC 2000-e et seq.

37. Defendant Ford, by its agents, treated Plaintiff differently, harassed 

him, and subjected him to a hostile work environment and terminated him due 

to Plaintiff’s national origin, Lebanese. 

38. Defendant, by its agents, was predisposed to discriminate against 

Plaintiff on the basis of his national origin and ethnicity, and acted in accordance 

with that predisposition. 

39. The discriminatory practices at issue were intentional and willful, 

and engaged in with malice or with reckless indifference to the rights and 

sensibilities of Plaintiff. 

40. As a direct and proximate result of those actions, the terms, 

conditions, and privileges of Plaintiff’s employment were adversely affected and 

he was forced off on a medical leave and terminated. 

Case 2:15-cv-12604-MOB-DRG ECF No. 45 filed 05/03/17 PageID.1826 Page 7 of 15
8 

41. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s wrongful and 

discriminatory treatment of Plaintiff, Plaintiff has suffered injuries and damages, 

including, but not limited to, loss of past, present and future earnings and 

earning capacity; loss of the value of fringe and pension benefits; mental and 

emotional distress, including anxiety and mental anguish; humiliation and 

embarrassment; and loss of the ordinary pleasures of everyday life, including the 

right to seek and pursue gainful occupation of choice. 

COUNT II 

Retaliation in Violation of Title VII

 (as against Defendant Ford) 

42. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 41 above 

as though set forth in full again. 

43. Title VII prohibits retaliation against persons who complain about 

national origin discrimination. 

44. Plaintiff engaged in activity protected by Title VII when he 

complained of and opposed unlawful national origin discrimination and 

harassment and retaliation. 

45. Defendant’s retaliatory treatment and harassment of Plaintiff as set 

forth above, including placing him on a PEP, escalating their discriminatory 

treatment against him and terminating him, was in violation of the antiretaliation provisions of Title VII. 

Case 2:15-cv-12604-MOB-DRG ECF No. 45 filed 05/03/17 PageID.1827 Page 8 of 15
9 

46. The actions of Defendant by its agents were intentional, in 

deliberate disregard for the rights and sensibilities of Plaintiff. 

47. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s wrongful and 

discriminatory treatment of Plaintiff, Plaintiff has suffered injuries and damages, 

including, but not limited to, loss of past, present and future earnings and 

earning capacity; loss of the value of fringe and pension benefits; mental and 

emotional distress, including anxiety and mental anguish; humiliation and 

embarrassment; and loss of the ordinary pleasures of everyday life, including the 

right to seek and pursue gainful occupation of choice. 

 COUNT III 

Race/ Ethnicity Discrimination in Violation of 42 USC 1981

 (as against all Defendants) 

48. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 47 above 

as though set forth in full again. 

49. At all material times, Plaintiff Khalaf was an employee and 

Defendants Ford, Fowler and Zhou were his employers, covered by and within 

the meaning of 42 USC 1981. 

50. Defendants treated Plaintiff differently, harassed him, and subjected 

him to a hostile work environment and termination on the basis of his 

race/Arabic ethnicity. 

Case 2:15-cv-12604-MOB-DRG ECF No. 45 filed 05/03/17 PageID.1828 Page 9 of 15
10 

51. Defendants were predisposed to discriminate against Plaintiff on the 

basis of his race/Arab ethnicity and acted in accordance with that 

predisposition. 

52. The discriminatory practices at issue were intentional and willful, 

and engaged in with malice or with reckless indifference to the rights and 

sensibilities of Plaintiff. 

53. As a direct and proximate result of those actions, the terms, 

conditions and privileges of Plaintiff’s employment were adversely affected and 

he was forced off on a medical leave and subsequently terminated. 

54. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ wrongful and 

discriminatory treatment of Plaintiff, Plaintiff has suffered injuries and damages, 

including, but not limited to, loss of past, present and future earnings and 

earning capacity; loss of the value of fringe and pension benefits; mental and 

emotional distress, including anxiety and mental anguish; humiliation and 

embarrassment; and loss of the ordinary pleasures of everyday life, including the 

right to seek and pursue gainful occupation of choice. 

COUNT IV 

Retaliation in Violation of 42 USC 1981

 (as against all Defendants) 

55. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 54 above 

as though set forth in full again. 

Case 2:15-cv-12604-MOB-DRG ECF No. 45 filed 05/03/17 PageID.1829 Page 10 of 15
11 

56. 42 USC 1981 prohibits retaliation against persons who complain 

about race discrimination, which includes ethnic and ancestry discrimination. 

57. Plaintiff engaged in activity protected by 42 USC 1981 when he 

complained of and opposed unlawful discrimination and harassment, and 

retaliation. 

58. Defendants’ retaliatory treatment and harassment of Plaintiff as set 

forth above, including placing him on a PEP and escalating their discriminatory 

treatment against him and terminating him, was in violation of the antiretaliation provisions of 42 USC 1981. 

59. The actions of Defendants were intentional, in deliberate disregard 

for the rights and sensibilities of Plaintiff. 

60. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ wrongful and 

discriminatory treatment of Plaintiff, Plaintiff has suffered injuries and damages, 

including, but not limited to, loss of past, present and future earnings and 

earning capacity; loss of the value of fringe and pension benefits; mental and 

emotional distress, including anxiety and mental anguish; humiliation and 

embarrassment; and loss of the ordinary pleasures of everyday life, including the 

right to seek and pursue gainful occupation of choice. 

Case 2:15-cv-12604-MOB-DRG ECF No. 45 filed 05/03/17 PageID.1830 Page 11 of 15
12 

COUNT V 

National Origin Discrimination in Violation of 

 Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act

 (as against all Defendants) 

61. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 60 above 

as though set forth in full again. 

62. At all material times, Plaintiff Khalaf was an employee and 

Defendants Ford, Fowler and Zhou were his employers covered by and within 

the meaning of Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, MCL 37.2101 et seq.

63. Defendants treated Plaintiff differently, harassed him, subjected 

him to a hostile work environment and termination, due to Plaintiff’s national 

origin, Lebanese. 

64. Defendants were predisposed to discriminate against Plaintiff on the 

basis of his national origin and ethnicity, and acted in accordance with that 

predisposition. 

65. The discriminatory practices at issue were intentional and willful, 

and engaged in with malice or with reckless indifference to the rights and 

sensibilities of Plaintiff. 

66. As a direct and proximate result of those actions, the terms, 

conditions and privileges of Plaintiff’s employment were adversely affected and 

he was forced off on a medical leave and terminated. 

Case 2:15-cv-12604-MOB-DRG ECF No. 45 filed 05/03/17 PageID.1831 Page 12 of 15
13 

67. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s wrongful and 

discriminatory treatment of Plaintiff, Plaintiff has suffered injuries and damages, 

including, but not limited to, loss of past, present and future earnings and 

earning capacity; loss of the value of fringe and pension benefits; mental and 

emotional distress, including anxiety and mental anguish; humiliation and 

embarrassment; and loss of the ordinary pleasures of everyday life, including the 

right to seek and pursue gainful occupation of choice. 

COUNT VI 

Retaliation in Violation of Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act

 (as against all Defendants) 

68. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 67 above 

as though set forth in full again. 

69. Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act prohibits retaliation 

against persons who engage in protected activity, including complaining about 

national origin discrimination, and participating in, or assisting others in 

pursuing, sexual harassment claims. 

70. Plaintiff engaged in activities protected by Elliott-Larsen when he 

complained of and opposed unlawful national origin discrimination and 

harassment; and when he participated in and/or assisted his direct report in 

pursuing sexual harassment claims. 

Case 2:15-cv-12604-MOB-DRG ECF No. 45 filed 05/03/17 PageID.1832 Page 13 of 15
14 

71. Defendant’s retaliatory treatment and harassment of Plaintiff as set 

forth above, including removing him from his position, placing him on a PEP, 

escalating their discriminatory treatment against him and terminating him, was 

in violation of the anti-retaliation provisions of Elliott-Larsen. 

72. The actions of Defendant by its agents were intentional, in 

deliberate disregard for the rights and sensibilities of Plaintiff. 

73. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s wrongful and 

discriminatory treatment of Plaintiff, Plaintiff has suffered injuries and damages, 

including, but not limited to, loss of past, present and future earnings and 

earning capacity; loss of the value of fringe and pension benefits; mental and 

emotional distress, including anxiety and mental anguish; humiliation and 

embarrassment; and loss of the ordinary pleasures of everyday life, including the 

right to seek and pursue gainful occupation of choice. 

 RELIEF REQUESTED 

For all the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Faisal G. Khalaf demands 

judgment against the Defendants as follows: 

A. Legal Relief:

1. Compensatory damages in whatever amount he is found to 

be entitled; 

2. Exemplary damages in whatever amount he is found to be 

entitled; 

Case 2:15-cv-12604-MOB-DRG ECF No. 45 filed 05/03/17 PageID.1833 Page 14 of 15
15 

3. Punitive damages in whatever amount he is found to be 

entitled; 

4. A judgment for lost wages and benefits in whatever amount 

he is found to be entitled; 

5. An award of interest, costs and reasonable attorney fees; and, 

6. Whatever other legal relief appears appropriate at the time of 

final judgment. 

B. Equitable Relief: 

1. An injunction out of this Court prohibiting any further acts of 

wrongdoing; 

2. An award of interest, costs and reasonable attorney fees; and, 

3. Whatever other equitable relief appears appropriate at the 

time of final judgment. 

JURY DEMAND 

Plaintiff, by his attorneys, hereby demands a trial by jury of all issues in 

this cause. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 STERLING ATTORNEYS AT LAW, P.C. 

 

 By: /s/Carol A. Laughbaum 

 Carol A. Laughbaum (P41711) 

 Attorney for Plaintiff 

 33 Bloomfield Hills Pkwy., Ste. 250 

 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 

 (248) 644-1500

PROOF OF SERVICE

I certify that on May 3, 2017, I filed the 

foregoing paper with the Clerk of the Court 

using the ECF system which will 

electronically send notification to all counsel 

of record. 

 /s/Carol A. Laughbaum_______ 

 Sterling Attorneys at Law, P.C. 

 33 Bloomfield Hills Pkwy., Ste. 250 

 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 

 (248) 644-1500 

 claughbaum@sterlingattorneys.com 

Case 2:15-cv-12604-MOB-DRG ECF No. 45 filed 05/03/17 PageID.1834 Page 15 of 15