UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

FAISAL G. KHALAF, PH.D,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 2015- 

Hon.

FORD MOTOR COMPANY,

a Delaware corporation;

BENNIE FOWLER and

JAY ZHOU, jointly and severally,

Defendants.

DEBORAH GORDON LAW

Gordon, Laughbaum & Prescott 

Deborah L. Gordon (P27058)

Carol A. Laughbaum (P41711)

Attorneys for Plaintiff

33 Bloomfield Hills Parkway, Suite 220

Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48304

(248) 258-2500

dgordon@deborahgordonlaw.com

claughbaum@deborahgordonlaw.com

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Jurisdiction and Parties

 1. This is an action for national origin discrimination and retaliation in

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

discrimination due to Arabic descent and retaliation in violation of 42 USC §1981,

1

Case 2:15-cv-12604-MFL-DRG ECF No. 1, PageID.1 Filed 07/23/15 Page 1 of 11
arising out of Plaintiff’s employment relationship with Defendant.

 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 indirectsupervisor, 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. 

 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, 2015.

 8. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 USC §1331

2

Case 2:15-cv-12604-MFL-DRG ECF No. 1, PageID.2 Filed 07/23/15 Page 2 of 11
(federal question) and 28 USC §1343 (civil rights).

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. 

 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.

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 April 2013, Fowler advised Plaintiff that he was bringing in

3

Case 2:15-cv-12604-MFL-DRG ECF No. 1, PageID.3 Filed 07/23/15 Page 3 of 11
Jay Zhou to lead the Department. Zhou was effectively in his new role in July 2013

and an announcement went out in September 2013. Plaintiff began reporting directly

to Zhou.

 17. 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.

 18. Despite Plaintiff Faysal’s excellent performance during 2013, Fowler

advised Faysal that if he wanted to leave Ford, Fowler could “make it happen.”

 19. 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. 

20. On April 4, 2014, Plaintiff Faysalfiled a complaint with Ford HR stating

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

national origin. 

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

with respect to his discriminatory treatment.

 22. On April 23, 2014, Plaintiff Faysal was placed on a retaliatory

Performance Enhancement Plan (PEP).

4

Case 2:15-cv-12604-MFL-DRG ECF No. 1, PageID.4 Filed 07/23/15 Page 4 of 11
 23. 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.

 24. 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.

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

workplace stress. 

 26. The discrimination and retaliation against Plaintiff is of a continuing

nature.

COUNT I

National Origin Discrimination in Violation of Title VII

as against Defendant Ford

 27. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 26 above as

though set forth in full again.

 28. 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.

29. Defendant Ford, by its agents, treated Plaintiff differently, harassed him,

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

5

Case 2:15-cv-12604-MFL-DRG ECF No. 1, PageID.5 Filed 07/23/15 Page 5 of 11
Lebanese. 

30. Defendant, byits agents, was predisposed to discriminate against Plaintiff

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

predisposition.

 31. 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.

 32. 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.

 33. 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

6

Case 2:15-cv-12604-MFL-DRG ECF No. 1, PageID.6 Filed 07/23/15 Page 6 of 11
 34. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 33 above as

though set forth in full again.

 35. Title VII prohibits retaliation against persons who complain about

national origin discrimination.

36. Plaintiff engaged in activity protected by Title VII when he complained

of and opposed unlawful national origin discrimination and harassment.

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

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

against him, was in violation of the anti-retaliation provisions of Title VII.

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

disregard for the rights and sensibilities of Plaintiff.

 39. 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.

7

Case 2:15-cv-12604-MFL-DRG ECF No. 1, PageID.7 Filed 07/23/15 Page 7 of 11
COUNT III

Race/ Ethnicity Discrimination 

 in Violation of 42 USC §1981

as against all Defendants

 40. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 39 above as

though set forth in full again.

41. 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.

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

to a hostile work environment on the basis of his race/Arabic ethnicity. 

43. Defendantswere predisposed to discriminate against Plaintiff on the basis

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

 44. 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

 45. 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.

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

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

8

Case 2:15-cv-12604-MFL-DRG ECF No. 1, PageID.8 Filed 07/23/15 Page 8 of 11
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

 47. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 46 above as

though set forth in full again.

48. 42 USC §1981 prohibits retaliation against persons who complain about

race discrimination, which includes ethnic and ancestry discrimination.

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

complained of and opposed unlawful discrimination and harassment.

50. Defendants’ retaliatory treatment and harassment of Plaintiff as set forth

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

against him, was in violation of the anti-retaliation provisions of 42 USC §1981.

 51. The actions of Defendants were intentional, in deliberate disregard for

the rights and sensibilities of Plaintiff.

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

9

Case 2:15-cv-12604-MFL-DRG ECF No. 1, PageID.9 Filed 07/23/15 Page 9 of 11
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;

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;

10

Case 2:15-cv-12604-MFL-DRG ECF No. 1, PageID.10 Filed 07/23/15 Page 10 of 11
2. An award of interest, costs and reasonable attorney fees; and,

3. Whatever other equitable relief appears appropriate at the time of 

final judgment.

DEBORAH GORDON LAW

Gordon, Laughbaum & Prescott

Deborah L. Gordon (P27058)

/s/ Carol A. Laughbaum (P41711)

Attorneys for Plaintiff

33 Bloomfield Hills Parkway, Suite 220

Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48304

Dated: July 23, 2015 (248) 258-2500

dgordon@deborahgordonlaw.com

claughbaum@deborahgordonlaw.com

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff Faisal G. Khalaf by his attorneys Deborah Gordon Law hereby

demands a trial by jury of all the issues in this cause.

DEBORAH GORDON LAW

Gordon, Laughbaum & Prescott

Deborah L. Gordon (P27058)

/s/ Carol A. Laughbaum (P41711)

Attorneys for Plaintiff

33 Bloomfield Hills Parkway, Suite 220

Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48304

Dated: July 23, 2015 (248) 258-2500

dgordon@deborahgordonlaw.com

claughbaum@deborahgordonlaw.com

11

Case 2:15-cv-12604-MFL-DRG ECF No. 1, PageID.11 Filed 07/23/15 Page 11 of 11