PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION Page 1 of 7

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 FOR THE NORTHERN DISCTRICTOF TEXAS 

SAN ANGELO DIVISION 

TERESA JIMES GIAMOS, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§ Cause No.:_______________

v. §

§

QUAD MARKETING § 

SOLUTIONS, INC. f/k/a §

IVIE & ASSOCIATES, INC. §

 § JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Defendant. § 

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGNAL COMPLAINT

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF THIS COURT:

Plaintiff Teresa Jimes Giamos (“Plaintiff” or “Giamos”) hereby presents this, her Original 

Petition against Defendant, Quad Marketing Solutions (“Quad” or “Defendant”) and for causes of 

action respectfully shows the Court as follows: 

I.

Introduction

1. Plaintiff would show the Court that Defendant wrongfully discriminated against 

her on the basis of her age under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. 

s.626 et seq. and under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act, Tex. Lab. Code Section 

21.001 et. seq. (the “TCHRA”).

II.

Parties

2. During all times mentioned in this Complaint, Plaintiff, Teresa Jimes Giamos

was and is a resident of Texas, residing at 2770 Lakeside Pkwy Apt.111 Flower Mound, TX 75022. 

Case 6:22-cv-00053-C Document 1 Filed 10/14/22 Page 1 of 7 PageID 1
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION Page 2 of 7

Plaintiff may be contacted through his attorney of record, Nicholas A. O’Kelly, Kilgore & Kilgore, 

PLLC, 3141 Hood Street, Suite 500, Dallas, Texas 75219.

 3. Defendant, Quad Marketing Solutions is a Domestic Limited Liability Company

whose corporate address is N61 W23044 Harry’s Way, Sussex, WI 53089-3995. Defendant’s local 

offices are located at 601 Silveron Blvd, Flower Mound TX 75028 and may be served through their 

authorized agent for service, Corporation Service Company d/b/a CSC-Lawyers Incorporating 

Service Company at 211 E.7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, Texas 78701.

 III.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. s. 1331, jurisdiction is appropriate in the United States 

District Court for the Northern District of Texas, as this action involves a question of the 

application of federal law, namely the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. '12101, 

et seq.

5. Plaintiff filed her charge of discrimination on July 19, 2021. Plaintiff has filed the 

instant action within 90 days of her receipt of the EEOC’s issuance of a Notice of Right to Sue 

dated July 15, 2022.

6. The Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims for age 

discrimination under the TCHRA. (Chapter 21 of Texas Labor Code.) 

7. Venue for all causes of action stated herein lies in the Northern District of Texas 

because the acts alleged in this complaint took place, in whole or in part, within the boundaries of 

this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. '1391.

 

Case 6:22-cv-00053-C Document 1 Filed 10/14/22 Page 2 of 7 PageID 2
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION Page 3 of 7

IV.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

8. Plaintiff is currently 59 years of age. On November 9, 2015, Plaintiff was hired by 

Ivie & Associates (“Ivie”) 

9. After Plaintiff was hired, Defendant Quad Marketing Solutions acquired Ivie in 

2018. At that time, Plaintiff held the position of Digital Art Director.

10. Following Quad’s acquisition of Ivie, Plaintiff remained employed by the 

Defendant, Quad, who continued operating under the name Ivey in the same position. 

11. Throughout her employment with both Ivie and Quad, Plaintiff consistently 

received favorable performance reviews.

12. During the six (6) months before Plaintiff’s termination, Defendant demoted 

Plaintiff without notice and removed all of Plaintiff’s direct reports.

13. Following her demotion, Plaintiff was repeatedly being excluded from projects

that were similar to those projects that she had previously performed successfully.

14. Plaintiff was later told that she was excluded from these projects because of her 

age. 

15. On March 26, 2021, Defendant terminated Plaintiff’s employment. Defendant told 

Plaintiff that the reason for her termination was because her job had been eliminated as part of a

reorganization. 

16. Following her termination, Plaintiff’s duties were assumed by a Ms. Rachel 

Harris, who is in her early 20’s.

17. On or about May 14, 2021, Plaintiff filed a charge of age discrimination with the 

Texas Workforce Commission and the EEOC. 

Case 6:22-cv-00053-C Document 1 Filed 10/14/22 Page 3 of 7 PageID 3
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION Page 4 of 7

18. On or about July 15 2022, Plaintiff received a Notice of Right to Sue letter for her

EEOC Charge. 

CAUSES OF ACTION

AS TO THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

AGE DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF CHAPTER 21 

OF THE TEXAS LABOR CODE

19. The foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint are incorporated in this Count by 

reference as if set for at length herein verbatim. 

20. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff was an employee in the protected age bracket 

and meeting Defendant’s expectations. 

21. At all relevant times herein, Defendant, Quad after the acquisition of Ivie was a 

covered entity within the meaning of Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code. 

22. Defendant has discriminated against Plaintiff due to her age with respect to the 

terms and conditions of his employment by: 

a. demoting Plaintiff, removing her direct reports 

b. treating her differently by excluding her from projects that she had previously 

performed.

c. summarily terminating Plaintiff’s employment for pretextual reasons and 

replacing her with significantly younger, less experienced female.

23. Defendant's conduct violated the ADEA and Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code 

which prohibit age discrimination in employment.

Case 6:22-cv-00053-C Document 1 Filed 10/14/22 Page 4 of 7 PageID 4
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION Page 5 of 7

24. The acts of age bias described above occurred within 180 days prior to the filing of 

Plaintiff’s charge of unlawful discrimination with the Texas Workforce Commission and the 

EEOC.

25. All conditions precedent to filing this action for discrimination under Chapter 

21and the ADEA have been met. Plaintiff timely filed her charge of discrimination on the basis of 

age. 

26. Defendant has engaged in a single continuous course of conduct of discrimination

against Plaintiff because of her age with the intent destroy Plaintiff’s career and cause her to suffer 

financial damages.

27. Such discrimination has caused Plaintiff to suffer future pecuniary losses, 

emotional pain and suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, and other non-pecuniary 

losses.

28. Defendant acted with intentional malice or with reckless indifference to Plaintiff’s 

protected rights. Such discrimination constitutes gross, wanton, reckless, and/or intentional 

violation of Plaintiff’s rights under Chapter 21. Plaintiff is therefore also entitled to recover 

punitive damages in a sum which is in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limit of this Court. 

Plaintiff is also entitled to recover all costs of court and attorneys’ fees.

JURY DEMAND

29. PLAINTIFF DEMANDS A TRIAL BY JURY.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff prays that Defendant be cited to 

appear and answer herein, and that on final trial, Plaintiff has and recover the following relief 

against Defendant:

Case 6:22-cv-00053-C Document 1 Filed 10/14/22 Page 5 of 7 PageID 5
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION Page 6 of 7

 

(1) Judgment for actual damages in the amount of past and future lost earnings and 

benefits, damages to past and future earnings capacity, and past and future medical expenses; 

(2) Judgment for past and future pecuniary losses, emotional pain and suffering, 

inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, and other non-pecuniary losses; 

(3) Exemplary damages in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact; 

(4) An award of liquidated and/or statutory damages in an amount equal to all lost 

wages, salary, employment benefits and privileges, and other compensation lost as a result of 

Defendant’s wrongful conduct in the amount proven at trial;

(5) An order by the Court reinstating Plaintiff as an employee of the Defendant in a 

similar position with similar pay and benefits to that from which she was wrongfully terminated, 

or, in the alternative, future pay in an amount to be determined by the Court;

(6) Prejudgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum legal rate; 

(7) Attorney’s fees; 

(8) Expert’s fees; 

(9) All costs of court; and

(10) Such other and further relief to which Plaintiff may be justly entitled

Dated: October 14, 2022

Respectfully Submitted,

KILGORE & KILGORE, PLLC

By: /s/ Nicholas A. O’Kelly

NICHOLAS A. O’KELLY

State Bar No. 15241235

nao@kilgorelaw.com

KILGORE LAW CENTER

Case 6:22-cv-00053-C Document 1 Filed 10/14/22 Page 6 of 7 PageID 6
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION Page 7 of 7

3141 Hood St. Ste 500

 Dallas, Texas 75219

 (214) 379-0810 - Telephone

 (214) 379-0848 - Fax

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

TERESA JIMES GIAMOS

Case 6:22-cv-00053-C Document 1 Filed 10/14/22 Page 7 of 7 PageID 7