Plaintiffs Supplemental Statement of Claim in Response to the Courts Findings, 

Conclusions, and Recommendation

 

In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

Dallas Division

Sonya L. Chapman §

Plaintiff §

V. § No. 3:23-cv-00799-K-BN

§ Jury Demand

ADT LLC et seq §

Defendant §

§

Plaintiffs Supplemental Statement of Claim in Response to the Courts Findings, 

Conclusions, and Recommendation

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

Plaintiff Sonya L. Chapman, now comes to file her Restatement of Claim for unlawful 

employment practices in violation of 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq, 42 U.S.C. 1981, 10

th Amendment 

Bill of Rights, 14th Amendment Due Process, in response to the Courts Findings, Conclusions, 

and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C Sec. 770 Trial by Jury (Trial of Issues of Fact)

Discovery Plan

1. Plaintiff intends to conduct discovery in this matter under Level 1, 2, and 3 of the 

Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Parties

2. Plaintiff Sonya L. Chapman is a citizen and resident of the United States, residing in 

Dallas County, Texas.

3. Defendant is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the state of 

Delaware with its principal place of business located at 1501 Yamato Rd. Boca 

Raton, Fl 33431.
2

Plaintiffs Supplemental Statement of Claim in Response to the Courts Findings, 

Conclusions, and Recommendation

Jurisdiction and Venue

4. Jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1343 (a)(4) and 28 U.S.C. Sec. 

1331. 

5. This is an action at law and equity to redress violations of Title VII of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1981, declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. Sec. 2201 and 2202.

6. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1391(b), at all relevant times the activities 

giving rise to this action took place in Dallas, County, Texas in which this court has

jurisdiction.

A. Background

1. Duty to Prevent

7. ADT LLC (“Defendants”) have a duty to prevent discriminatory actions to Plaintiff.

8. Plaintiff and “Defendants” had an employer- employee relationship.

9. “Defendants” failed to prevent harm to Plaintiff from discrimination and harassment 

for opposing discriminatory actions committed by “Defendants”.

10. “Defendants” breached that duty by failing to prevent discrimination and harassment 

to Plaintiff.

11. “Defendants” directly and or indirectly caused harm to Plaintiff by discharging her

because she opposed their discriminatory treatment.

12. “Defendants” actions wholly and or in part affected the terms, conditions, and 

privileges of Plaintiffs employment.

13. At all times complained of in this complaint, Plaintiff had a right to be treated by 

“Defendants” the same as similarly situated white employees.

14. “Defendants” knew or should have known the actions described herein were 

wrongful, and seen as discriminative and retaliatory.

15. “Defendants” knew or should have known the law regarding preventing 

discriminatory and retaliatory acts.

16. “Defendants” failed to train, and or supervise their supervisors, managers, human 

resource agents in order to prevent the actions described herein, and complained of by 

Plaintiff.

17. “Defendants” failed to supervise the managers, training team, and supervisors

complained of in this complaint to prevent harassment in their workplace.
3

Plaintiffs Supplemental Statement of Claim in Response to the Courts Findings, 

Conclusions, and Recommendation

18. “Defendants” are required to have posted and follow the laws regarding 

discrimination.

19. “Defendants” breach and or failure to prevent harm to Plaintiff because of her race is 

the direct and or proximate cause of Plaintiffs injuries.

20. Plaintiff did not have the option to make a written complaint, because “Defendants’

did not have a policy for written complaints.

21. Plaintiff asked “Defendants” Ashley Merrick on March 7, 2022, if there was an 

appeal process for her discharge from employment, and “Defendants” denied having 

an appeals process for terminations.

2. Damages/Intentional Harm

22. Plaintiff was harmed by her loss of employment.

23. Loss of employment caused emotional distress, loss if income, loss of consortium, 

and loss of enjoyment of life.

24. Plaintiff during her tenure managed to refrain from her nicotine use, and the day of 

her termination started using nicotine again from the stress of her discharge.

25. Plaintiff started using nicotine again due to the stress of diligently working for the 

promotion “Defendants” maliciously, wrongfully took from her.

26. “Defendants” acted with intent to harm Plaintiff in terminating her employment,

causing emotional distress.

27. Plaintiff’s emotional distress is continuous and ongoing.

28. Plaintiff was intentionally targeted by Defendants to commit their acts of 

discrimination and prejudicial treatment.

29. “Defendants” are responsible for hiring the supervisors, managers, and Human 

Resource agents who acted with malice and intent to deprive Plaintiff of due process.

30. “Defendants” made a false inference that Plaintiff stole time in their disciplinary 

action terminating Plaintiffs employment.

31. Plaintiff professional reputation was harmed with their statement Plaintiff would not 

begin work while on the clock.

32. “Defendants” false statement that Plaintiff would not begin work on time insinuates 

Plaintiff was stealing time and is defamatory.
4

Plaintiffs Supplemental Statement of Claim in Response to the Courts Findings, 

Conclusions, and Recommendation

33. “Defendants” comments made using their written corrective action is false causing 

libel and slander.

34. “Defendants” reason for terminating Plaintiff (unable to perform duties) is shady,

questionable, and suspicious.

35. Plaintiff was terminated for opposing “Defendants” treatment.

36. “Defendants” retaliated against Plaintiff for opposing their treatment.

37. “Defendants” intentionally, maliciously oppressed Plaintiff as their actions 

complained of herein are foreseeable oppressive and intentional.

38. Plaintiff harm caused is due to “Defendants” actual malice and intent to harm 

Plaintiff.

39. It is “Defendants” fault Plaintiff suffered collaborative simultaneous injury at all 

times as described herein.

40. “Defendants” negligence either collaboratively or independently is the proximate 

cause of Plaintiffs injuries.

41. “Defendants” were hostile towards Plaintiff by conspiring to deprive her of her 

promotion in making false disciplinary statements, thus damaging her performance 

review.

42. There were multiple “Defendants” that took part in the making of false performance 

issues, namely Sam McLaughlin, Ashley Merrick, Kayla Schultz, and Ashley Rioux, 

Phil, and Latoya Lugan.

43. The team of “Defendants” conspired together to deprive Plaintiff of her promotion, 

and her employment.

44. Plaintiff claimed damages in her Offer of Settlement dated April 27,2023 to 

“Defendants” for an actual amount of $35,000 for pain and suffering, the 

approximated damages for one (1) year of wages at $16.70 per hour for 40- hour 

work week in the amount of $34,736, and an amount of $16, 610 for 3 years of 

vehicle maintenance to include repairs, fuel, and depreciation totaling $86,346.00.

45. This amount of damages does not exceed the maximum limits of the Tex. R. Civ. P. 

47(c)(1-4) Claims for Relief.

3. Plaintiff’s Employment

46. Plaintiff began her employment with “Defendants” January 2021. 

47. “Defendants” promoted Plaintiff in January 2022 because of her good performance 

evaluations. (Please see exhibits 3 and 4).
5

Plaintiffs Supplemental Statement of Claim in Response to the Courts Findings, 

Conclusions, and Recommendation

48. Plaintiff received compliments and positive appraisals from team members. (See 

Docket No.5 ID 28, Case No. Case 3:22-cv-02188-D-BN)

49. Plaintiff had positive reviews from fellow co-workers and no complaints about her 

performance from management.

50. “Defendants” did not give Plaintiff negative performance reviews prior to her 

opposing discriminatory actions approximately early February, through early March 

2022 when the negative performance reviews started.

51. Plaintiff continued to perform satisfactorily, and remained employed even though 

“Defendants” continued to write negative performance reviews early February,

through early March 2022.

B. Statement of Material Facts

4. Pretext and or Mixed Motive

52. Plaintiff contends she has the necessary skill and experience for the Regional Support 

Specialist role as she is a college graduate with more than 10 years in customer 

service including phone and in person customer service skills. Plaintiff contends she 

worked for Defendants ADT LLC in the Field Operations Support Center (FOSC) as 

a scheduler for (12) twelve months prior to accepting the role of Regional Support 

Specialist.

53. Plaintiff contends she scheduled technicians for jobs in her scheduling role 

performing the same tasks as the Regional Support Specialist’ such as using the 

technicians schedule to find available appointments according to the skill level of 

technicians available, networking with Regional Support Specialist’ to find sooner 

appointments, and to move appointments, when possible, to schedule sooner service 

appointments for missed appointments and or sooner appointment time requests. 

54. Plaintiff in her scheduling position took initiative to learn some of the duties of the 

Regional Support Specialist role to better facilitate her role as a scheduler as some 

appointments would be overbooked, under-booked meaning not scheduled at all and 

was a main complaint of customers. 

55. Plaintiff contends by networking with the Regional Support Specialists prior to 

applying for the Regional Support Specialist role she was able to learn and practice 

some of the tasks of the role prior to on-the job training.

56. Plaintiff contends that it was imperative that she learn how to perform some of the 

Regional Support Specialist roles in her current role as scheduler as it helped the 

process of scheduling much easier to keep down customer complaints and to assist 
6

Plaintiffs Supplemental Statement of Claim in Response to the Courts Findings, 

Conclusions, and Recommendation

the technicians along the way of keeping the customer happy with their appointments 

being made and kept on time. 

57. Plaintiff did a sufficient job as scheduler as she would take in approximately 70-120 

calls per day during an 8- hour shift managing to get all of the customers scheduled 

for appointments with no corrective actions while she was employed as a scheduler. 

58. Plaintiff contends she would often work with the Regional Support Specialist because 

they were the department to go to for manager approval to put a customer as a priority 

on a technician’s schedule including special requests when a customer was missed the 

previous day and upset that their appointment was missed, these calls would take at a 

minimum 5-10 minutes sometimes up to 20-30 minutes. 

59. Plaintiff contends good customer service such as this is crucial when you have an 

upset customer that is threatening to take action due to the unfulfilled service 

appointments and displeased service from a technician and or product issues.

60. Plaintiff contends often times technicians would be on her line in error, as a scheduler 

we were required to transfer the technicians to the Regional Support Specialists for 

support, but that she would give them department numbers they needed and or 

transfer them to the correct department instead of transferring them to the Regional

Support Specialist to have the Regional Support Specialist transfer them again and or 

instruct them that they needed to contact a different department. 

61. Technicians would need to order parts, get technical support while in the field, speak 

with a Regional Support Specialist to close their ticket, and I would have to be 

familiar with the scenario and transfer to the correct department. This was not 

common knowledge. Plaintiff had to be assertive and learn all the duties of the 

different departments. Plaintiff took the initiative on her own to learn the different

functions of the different departments.

62. Learning the different functions of all the different departments was the hardest part 

of the position due to the amount of time it took to learn the different departments and 

their functions while performing my job duties. Transferring to correct departments 

saved time, and stress for the customer and fellow co-workers.

63. Plaintiff contends she learned the issues the technicians would be calling about and if 

it was not a confirmation, or a technician work schedule time issue, Plaintiff would 

assist the technician in getting to the correct department. Plaintiff contends the 

technicians would give their thanks to Plaintiff for saving them time, giving them the

correct information regarding the department they needed to be transferred to, and 

preventing them from being transferred to a Regional Support Specialist when it was

a different department they needed. 
7

Plaintiffs Supplemental Statement of Claim in Response to the Courts Findings, 

Conclusions, and Recommendation

64. Plaintiff contends the Regional Support Specialist’ she worked with often thanked 

Plaintiff for assisting technicians in instances when they did not need a Regional 

Support Specialist and instead got the technician to the correct department. Plaintiff 

contends it all worked out well, and that team work makes the dream work, and that 

she did the same in many other aspects of her role as scheduler with other 

departments such as the sales, and trouble-shooting department. 

65. Plaintiff learned what departments the customer needed to be transferred to instead of 

transferring the customer to the incorrect department to later be transferred to a 

different department which happened a lot.

66. Plaintiff contends she had to make lots of notes to get the correct information and that 

it took her months to learn how to better assist the customer as well as her fellow coworkers all while performing her role as scheduler. 

67. Plaintiff contends she requested her manager Nicole to do reviews and or mentor her,

her handle time, her professionalism while on the line with customers and fellow coworkers including technicians for 3-6 months so that she would receive a high score 

on her performance reviews.

68. Plaintiff contends she received high scores on her performance reviews at the end of 

her being mentored by her manager. Plaintiff fears retaliation against former coworkers who did not participate in unlawful employment practices.

69. Plaintiff contends there were 1-2 weekly performance reviews called quality 

assurance reviews (QA) where the QA team would listen to Plaintiff on a call and 

grade the call, which the grading was strict. Plaintiff had to greet the technicians, and 

all fellow employees appropriately, actively listen to address all their issues, be polite, 

show empathy, close the call appropriately ask if you can further help, if there is 

anything else you can do to help, deescalate the issues, handle the call within 4 

minutes. Plaintiff contends she had a call intake of 70-120 calls per day consistently

to keep up with her quota, including helping fellow co-workers and that she did all 

she could to keep her position with Defendants ADT LLC. Plaintiff contends her first 

week in her position of scheduler she had an intake of 30 plus calls consistently and 

each week the calls increased with greater experience and skill as she learned her 

role, including assisting in other aspects of her role with fellow co-workers, and

assisting with customer issues that were not part of her role as scheduler, such as 

sales, upgrades, trouble-shooting, part requests, requests to speak to service 

supervisors.

70. Plaintiff contends she did more than expected to be an ideal employee in her position, 

to be most professional, and supportive to the customer as well as fellow employees.
8

Plaintiffs Supplemental Statement of Claim in Response to the Courts Findings, 

Conclusions, and Recommendation

71. Plaintiff contends she had to learn the different aspects of the sales department 

because one part of sales was for upgrades, one part was for new customers, one 

department was for existing customers, one sales department did not take calls from 

customers, and Plaintiff had to through trial and error and from a list of complaints 

from customers that they had been transferred to the incorrect department, and from 

fellow co-workers that there were many different aspects of each department to learn 

the correct department depending on the customer’s issue. 

72. Plaintiff contends it took a lot of hard work and dedication to Plaintiffs employment

position as a scheduler, and commitment to her employer Defendants ADT LLC, to 

fellow co-workers and to the customer to satisfy many of the requirements for good 

customer service in her role as scheduler.

73. Plaintiff contends her level of professionalism as required by Defendants ADT LLC

improved while being mentored by her manager Nicole, and her manager was 

familiar with Plaintiffs work ethics and her manager did agree that Plaintiff had 

reached a level of work ethic and professionalism to apply for the Regional Support 

Specialist role. Plaintiff contends it is required that you get approval from your 

manager to apply for a different role after you have been in your current role for 6 to 

12 months. 

74. Plaintiff contends she had only a verbal consultation with her mentor regarding any 

incidents of how she handled a call and no written corrective actions of any kind in 

her role as scheduler.

5. Prejudice Behaviors

75. (B) On a claim in which an individual proves a violation under section 2000e-2(m) of 

this title [section 703(m)] and a respondent demonstrates that the respondent would 

have taken the same action in the absence of the impermissible motivating factor, the 

court76. (i) may grant declaratory relief, injunctive relief (except as provided in clause (ii)), 

and attorney's fees and costs demonstrated to be directly attributable only to the 

pursuit of a claim under section 2000e-2(m) of this title [section 703(m)]; and

77. Plaintiff was evaluated based on her perceived personal characteristics which was 

prejudicial, as “Defendants” notated in their corrective action that Plaintiff “tone –

“Whatchu you thing you need” when addressing a technician is inappropriate. 

78. A person’s language is considered a personal characteristic, and “Defendants”

actions toward Plaintiff based on her language, and or use of is prejudicial, as they 

were perceived personal characteristics.
9

Plaintiffs Supplemental Statement of Claim in Response to the Courts Findings, 

Conclusions, and Recommendation

79. Prejudice can refer to unfounded pigeonholed beliefs and it may apply to “any

unreasonable attitude that is unusually resistant to rational influence”

1

C. Statement of Material Facts

6. Discrimination/Racial Hostility/Hostile Environment/Racial Harassment

80. “Defendants” falsely created performance issues on February 10, 2022, February 22, 

2022, and February 28, 2022 to aid Plaintiffs termination.

81. “Defendants” intentionally, maliciously, and falsely created performance issues 

because of Plaintiffs race (African American).

82. Had Plaintiff not been African American “Defendants” would not have created the 

false performance issues.

83. The written statement (corrective action) made by “Defendants” on February 10, 

2022 infer racially inferior characteristics, and suggest Plaintiffs attitude, manner, and 

or nature is violative and or defiant.

84. “Defendants” namely Ashley Merrick training supervisor who is white, sabotaged 

Plaintiffs good performance evaluations by creating bad performance issues. 

85. “Defendants” did not assess Plaintiff the same as her fellow co-workers.

86. Plaintiff performance was as good or better than that of her co-workers.

87. Plaintiff began at entry level and graduated to a skill level of Expert in her position.

88. “Defendants” activities of belittling, humiliating, and scorning Plaintiff led to her 

termination.

89. It was “Defendants” prejudiced act of placing Plaintiff in a “socially-formed 

category” ie., race (African American) that aided in Plaintiffs discriminatory 

treatment.

2

90. “Defendants” continued to switch trainers during on-the-job training. 

91. “Defendants” conspired to deprive Plaintiff of her promotion and employment.

92. “Defendants” namely trainer Samuel McLaughlin who is white, deceitfully told 

Plaintiff he would “not let her fail” the on-the-job training.

93. “Defendants” namely trainer Samuel McLaughlin who is white, would repeatedly say 

“ciao” to Plaintiff two days before Plaintiff was terminated. (Please see Exhibit 5)

94. “Defendants” on more than one occasion during training refused to communicate to 

Plaintiff, which inhibited Plaintiffs ability to work.
10

Plaintiffs Supplemental Statement of Claim in Response to the Courts Findings, 

Conclusions, and Recommendation

95. “Defendants” actions altered a term, condition, or privilege of Plaintiff’s 

employment.

96. “Defendants” intentionally made Plaintiff’s performance inadequate.

97. But for Plaintiffs race African American (black) Plaintiff would have received equal 

evaluations the same as my peers regarding performance evaluations, and disciplinary 

action.

98. “Defendants” refuse to correct their discriminatory actions.3

99. “Defendants” refused retraining to Plaintiff while letting other similarly situated 

white employees to participate in the training program.

100. “Defendants” refused on numerous occasions to train Plaintiff for her new 

position.

101. Plaintiff was unreasonably excluded from the training, apprenticeship, and or 

retraining program.

D. Statement of Material Facts

7. Termination of Plaintiffs Employment

102. Plaintiff was terminated due to the bad performance issues created by 

“Defendants” namely Ashley Merrick, training supervisor who is white.

103. “Defendants” did not follow their own code of conduct policies.

104. Plaintiff filed a timely discrimination complaint with EEOC on March 7, 2022 the 

day of her termination and the complaint was officially filed 8-30-2022, charge no. 

510-2022-03700.

105. EEOC issued a right to sue letter 9-1-2022.

106. “Defendants” treated Plaintiff like this because she is African American (black).

107. But for Plaintiff’s race African American (black), she would not have been 

terminated. 

108. Plaintiff would not have been subjected to the abundance of hostility from 

Defendants if she were not African American (black) but for her race.

109. The National Labor Relations Board found that “Defendants” wrongfully used 

disciplinary actions to wrongfully discharge an employee in the past.4

110. Plaintiff was forced to train with multiple trainers, Samuel McLaughlin who is 

white, Latoya Lunan who is black, Kara Marcon who is white, and Ashley Rioux,

who is white.
11

Plaintiffs Supplemental Statement of Claim in Response to the Courts Findings, 

Conclusions, and Recommendation

111. Defendants harsh, unwarranted, prejudice treatment is the cause and or proximate 

cause of Plaintiffs injury.

E. Statement of Material Facts

8. Failure to Investigate Plaintiffs Complaints

112. Plaintiff complained of “Defendants” bogus performance reviews and 

“Defendants” retaliated against Plaintiff by terminating her employment.

113. Plaintiff complained directly to the training staff Samuel McLaughlin, Latoya 

Lunan, Kara Marconi, and Nicole Kennedy, of her desire to overcome the barriers 

that were discriminatorily placed before her.

114. “Discrimination within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 

can take many forms”

5

115. Plaintiff and “Defendants” made an agreement implied, express or otherwise that 

a contractual obligation would be fulfilled.

116. “Defendants” in their offer of employment to Plaintiff presented a written 

statement, and or policy that discrimination is prohibited in their workplace.

117. “Defendants” failed to prevent discrimination in their workplace.

118. After inquiring about formal grievance procedures “Defendants” failed to provide

any options to formally grieve her account of “Defendants” actions.

119. Plaintiff was intentionally excluded from her employment opportunity to be 

promoted.

120. “Defendants” technician employees have a union, and “Defendants” are familiar 

with or should be familiar with discrimination laws, yet “Defendants” repeatedly 

violate their own policies as well as laws against discrimination.

121. Plaintiff is not the only person to have complained about discrimination and 

retaliation.6

122. “Defendants” HR manager who is white, the operations manager in the 

department where Plaintiff was hired who is white, along with the training team all 

conspired to deny Plaintiff her promotion.

123. The management team knew of the discriminatory actions taken by the training 

team, and did nothing about it.
12

Plaintiffs Supplemental Statement of Claim in Response to the Courts Findings, 

Conclusions, and Recommendation

124. The management team did not prevent the actions committed by the training 

team.

125. “Defendants” have a history of retaliating against employees for opposing their 

discriminatory behavior.

7

126. Many other current and former employees have complained of “Defendants”

discrimination and retaliation.

127. “Defendants” failed to investigate Plaintiffs complaint regarding their bogus 

performance review and termination.

128. “Defendants” failed to acknowledge Plaintiffs complaint and or their actions 

toward Plaintiff as wrongful.

129. Many other current and former employees have complained of “Defendants”

discrimination and retaliation.

130. “Defendants” Ashley Merrick, Samuel McLaughlin, Latoya Lunan, Kara 

Marconi, all made statements that they were acting within the scope of their 

employment.

131. “Defendant” Ashley Merrick stated: “it was the decision of the hirer ups”,

“they’ve all decided”, when stating the decision to terminate Plaintiffs employment.

132. Plaintiff describes on numerous occasions where “Defendants” deliberately 

excluded her from training, deliberately took disciplinary actions against her for same 

or similar activity of her peers. 

133. Plaintiff did reapply for a similar position before her termination. 

F. Statement of Material Facts

9. Discrimination and Harassment because of Race

134. “Defendants” gave inconsistent reasons for Plaintiff’s bad performance 

evaluations.

135. Plaintiff’s positive performance reviews are inconsistent with “Defendants”, 

negative performance review of unprofessionalism.

136. Plaintiff received negative performance reviews because of her race, and her race 

was the reason for “Defendants” making negative performance reviews. 

137. “Defendants” did not evaluate Plaintiff the same as her peers regarding

performance and termination.
13

Plaintiffs Supplemental Statement of Claim in Response to the Courts Findings, 

Conclusions, and Recommendation

138. “Defendants” wrongfully used disciplinary actions in not promoting and 

discharging Plaintiff.

G. Statement of Material Facts

10. False Disciplinary Actions

139. “Defendants” disciplined Plaintiff for opposing the treatment described herein.

140. “Defendants” knew Plaintiff had good performance reviews, and above average

performance in her position.

141. “Defendants” knew Plaintiff had no attendance, and or corrective action issues 

when they terminated her for inability to perform her job duties.

142. “Defendants” knew Plaintiff was an ideal candidate for the promotion promised to 

her based on her good performance review.

143. If Plaintiff were not black the actions described herein would not have happened.

144. “Defendants” reason for terminating Plaintiff is false.

H. Equal Employment Opportunity

145. Sections 102 and 103 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 amends Title VII to permit 

jury trials and compensatory and punitive damage awards in intentional 

discrimination cases. The Civil Rights Act of 1991 Title I-Federal Civil Rights 

Remedies: Damages in cases of Intentional Discrimination sec. 102 42 USC 1981 sec. 

1977A. Damages in cases of intentional discrimination in employment 42 USC 

1981a.

146. The [EEOC] recognizes linguistic discrimination as national origin 

discrimination, and that “discrimination based on manner of speaking can be national 

origin discrimination” In re Rodriguez, 487 F.3d 1001, 1006-08 (6th Cir. 2007).

I. Statement of Material Facts

11. ( Challenged Actions)

147. Plaintiff brings her causes of action Discrimination and Retaliation

148. Title VII “has prohibited employers from discriminating against their employees 

on any of seven specified criteria: race, color, national origin, ... , are personal

characteristics set forth in section 2000e-2”. Discrimination based on any one of these 

five characteristics, often referred to as status-based discrimination.

149. One category of wrongful employer conduct, the employee’s opposition to 

employment discrimination, and the employee’s submission of or support for a 
14

Plaintiffs Supplemental Statement of Claim in Response to the Courts Findings, 

Conclusions, and Recommendation

complaint that alleges employment discrimination are wrongs based on types of 

protected employee conduct. University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. 

Nassar, 570 U.S. 338, 347 (2013)

150. “Defendants” intentionally deprived Plaintiff of her promotion by falsely creating 

performance issues, and disciplinary action to discharge her from her employment

because she opposed their treatment.

151. “Defendants” intentionally deprived Plaintiff of an equal employment 

opportunity, training because of her race.

152. “Defendants intentionally deprived Plaintiff of an equal employment opportunity 

that is to be employed because of her race.

153. “Defendants intentionally deprived Plaintiff of an equal employment opportunity

related to the terms, and conditions of her employment by creating a hostile work 

environment, when they refused to train her, and by treating her unfavorably and 

different than similarly situated white employees.

154. Plaintiff has described the unfavorable treatment throughout her complaint.

155. Plaintiff has described the hostile work environment throughout her complaint.

156. Plaintiff has described similarly situated white employees that were treated 

different than Plaintiff throughout her complaint.

157. Plaintiff has described the adverse treatment complained of and or committed by 

“Defendants throughout her complaint.

158. Plaintiff contends the adverse treatment is due to her race, and her opposing the 

“Defendants” discriminatory treatment.

159. Plaintiff contends but for her race she would not have been subjected to the 

perceived intentional race discrimination from “Defendants”.

160. Plaintiff contends she has described the perceived discriminatory treatment of 

“Defendants”.

161. Plaintiff contends she has described the injury caused by “Defendants”

negligence.

162. “Defendants” showed prejudice towards Plaintiffs “language” and “how she 

speaks” in their corrective action. The Court found in, In re Rodriguez, 487 F.3d 

1001, 1006-08 (6th Cir. 2007) that an employee was not selected for promotion based 

on a manager’s impression about the applicant’s “language” and “how he speaks.”
15

Plaintiffs Supplemental Statement of Claim in Response to the Courts Findings, 

Conclusions, and Recommendation

163. “Comments that directly suggest the existence of bias; no inference is necessary”

Brown v. East Mississippi Electric Power Ass’n, 989 F.2d 858 (5th Cir. 1993) See 

Okoye v. Univ. of Texas Hous. Health Sci. Ctr., 245 F.3d 507, 514 (5th Cir. 2001) 

(explaining that in disparate treatment cases involving employee misconduct and 

discipline, a “plaintiff must show that the employer gave preferential treatment to 

another employee under nearly identical circumstances; that is, that the misconduct 

for which the plaintiff was discharged was nearly identical to that engaged in by other 

employees”).

164. Other white employees repeatedly had questions up to the last day of training.

Plaintiff’s co-workers in the same training class had questions throughout the training 

period including up until the last day of training, received support, and were 

instructed to continue to reach out for support after training with no incident and or 

corrective action, no belittlement, no discharge from employment, and thanked for 

doing a good job during training. Plaintiff would also like to reference the following

statement as support for her adverse treatment contention.

165. Plaintiff also would like to reference the following in support of Defendants 

intent, liability, intent to harm, negligence and to assert Defendant’s knowledge that 

they intentionally denied Plaintiff the same opportunity to enhance her skills learned 

during training the same opportunity given to the other white employees in the 

training class. 

A. Defendant Bruce Roepke who is white, reached out to the chat for support on 

March 4, 2022 at least (7) seven times as noted in Plaintiffs Exhibit 3. 

B. Defendant Josh Harvey who is white, reached out to the chat for support on 

March 4, 2022 at least (11) eleven times as noted in Plaintiffs Exhibit 3. 

C. Defendant Amy Allums who is white, reached out to the chat for support on March 

4, 2022 at least (13) thirteen times as noted in Plaintiffs Exhibit 3.

D. Defendant Stacey Taylor who is white, reached out to the chat for support on 

March 4, 2022 at least (11) eleven times as noted in Plaintiffs Exhibit 3. 

E. Defendant Martina Deshays reached out to the chat for support on March 4, 2022 

at least (5) five times as noted in Plaintiffs Exhibit 3.

F. Defendant Joshua Harstick who is white, reached out to the chat for support on 

March 4, 2022 at least (2) two times as noted in Plaintiffs Exhibit 3.

G. Defendant Jennifer Harvey who is white, reached out to the chat for support on 

March 4, 2022 at least (2) two times as noted in Plaintiffs Exhibit 3.
16

Plaintiffs Supplemental Statement of Claim in Response to the Courts Findings, 

Conclusions, and Recommendation

H. Defendant Whitney Critton reached out to the chat for support on March 4, 2022 

at least (3) three times as noted in Plaintiffs Exhibit 3. 

I. Defendant India Carroll who is white, reached out to the chat for support on 

March 4, 2022 at least (3) three times as noted in Plaintiffs Exhibit 3. 

J. Defendant Takeesha Whitlock reached out to the chat for support on March 4, 

2022 at least (4) four times as noted in Plaintiffs Exhibit 3.

K. Defendant Madison Houchin who is white, reached out to the chat for support on 

March 4, 2022 at least (3) three times as noted in Plaintiffs Exhibit 3.

L. Defendant Kayla Schultz training lead who is white, responded to Defendant 

Bruce Roepke, “Bruce reach out to the chat and let them know to contact the 

FOSC for confirmation requests”

M. Defendant Kayla Schultz training lead in her response below to Defendant Bruce 

Roepke on March 7, 2022 when he stated he was “getting overrun here. Help 

please!, I'm about 3 hours behind, ” stated, “ Bruce reach out to the chat and let 

them know to contact the FOSC for confirmation requests, Also reach out to your 

manager and see if they can assist with the chat reuqests, letting them know you 

are getting bogged down with requests, I got Layota helping in the chat as well; 

Monday's can get crazy, hang in there we're getting you some help”.

N. [Yesterday 2:31 PM] Simon, Sarah (training lead Defendant Sarah Simon 

responding to Defendant Bruce Roepke when he needed help.)

O. Roepke, Bruce add me to your chat please

[Yesterday 2:46 PM] Roepke, Bruce (Defendant Bruce Roepke asking for help 

with task to clear a tech for the next job)

Gone one I'm trying to get a confirmation on and I have some questions on it.

[Yesterday 2:46 PM] Roepke, Bruce

got not gone

[Yesterday 3:17 PM] Roepke, Bruce

I'm getting overrun here. Help please!

like 1

[Yesterday 3:19 PM] Schultz, Kayla
17

Plaintiffs Supplemental Statement of Claim in Response to the Courts Findings, 

Conclusions, and Recommendation

Bruce reach out to the chat and let them know to contact the FOSC for 

confirmation requests.

like 1

[Yesterday 3:19 PM] Schultz, Kayla

Also reach out to your manager and see if they can assist with the chat requests, 

letting them know you are getting bogged down with requests. (training lead

Kayla Schultz instructing the on-the job training group to reach out to the 

Regional Support Managers for support once they are out of training)

[Yesterday 3:20 PM] Roepke, Bruce

Yeah, I've put it in the chats. I'll add a mgr too, but mine is off today

[Yesterday 3:20 PM] Roepke, Bruce

I'm about 3 hours behind

[Yesterday 3:24 PM] Schultz, Kayla

I got Layota helping in the chat as well

[Yesterday 3:27 PM] Roepke, Bruce

Thanks. This has been intense.

[Yesterday 3:28 PM] Schultz, Kayla

Monday's can get crazy, hang in there we're getting you some help

[Yesterday 3:28 PM] Schultz, Kayla

The techs also know that if they need confirmation they can call the fosc

[Yesterday 3:28 PM] Roepke, Bruce

I'll start on my EOD once I'm done with this confirmation and the phone call

[Yesterday 3:42 PM] Roepke, Bruce
18

Plaintiffs Supplemental Statement of Claim in Response to the Courts Findings, 

Conclusions, and Recommendation

Thanks for all the help.

heart 1

12. Right of Recovery

P. (a) right of recovery

42 USC 2000 an employment discrimination claim against a recipient of Federal 

Financial assistance that otherwise might raise a Title VI issue must be brought 

under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 USC sec 2000e., if 

a primary objective is not employment.

See N. Haven Bd. Of Educ. v. Bell, 456 U.S. 512, 530 (1982) the legislative

history thus corroborates our reading of the statutory language and verifies the 

court of appeals conclusion that employment discrimination comes within the 

prohibition of Title IX. Bentley v. Cleveland Cty. Bd. Of Comm’rs 41 F.3d 600 

(10th Cir. 1994) (Sec. 504 claim alleging discriminatory termination of former 

employee).

Courts also have held that Title VI adopts or follows the Fourteenth Amendment’s 

standard of proof for intentional discrimination, see Regents of the Univ. of Cal. 

v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265, 412-18 (1978); and, generally, the Title VII standard of 

proof for disparate impact. See Guardians Ass’n v. Civil Serv. Comm’n of City of 

New York, 463 U.S. 582, 639 (1983); Elston v. Talladega Cty. Bd. Of Educ., 997 

F.2d 1394, 1405 n.11, 1407 n.14 (11th Cir. 1993)(see, infra, Section V, ch 1). 

Accordingly, cases under these constitutional and statutory provisions may shed 

light on the Title VI analysis in a given situation.

Finally, cases decided under Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, the Fair 

Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 3601 et seq., may also be instructive regarding the 

disparate impact analysis under Title VI.8

The 1991 amendments added the legal remedies of compensatory and punitive 

damages and the right to trial by jury for those remedies. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 

1981a(a)(1). Title VII plaintiffs now may recover injunctive and other equitable 

relief, compensatory and punitive damages, and attorney’s fees. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 

1981a(a)(1), 2000e-5(g)(1), (k). The Civil Rights Act of 1991 amended Title VII.
19

Plaintiffs Supplemental Statement of Claim in Response to the Courts Findings, 

Conclusions, and Recommendation

Prayer

Plaintiff now prays the Court will grant her leave to proceed with her complaint and hereby 

objects to the Courts Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation.

Done this 12th day of June 2023.

Sonya Chapman

Pro Se

Sonya Chapman

1533 Honey Trl

Glenn Heights, Texas

75154

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Sonya Chapman do hereby certify that I have submitted an electronic copy via the 

courts website and the same is made available to the Attorney for Defendant Brent Sedge

at the following address; 500 N. Akard Street, Suite 3550, Dallas, Texas 75201

This 12th day of June, 2023.

1 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prejudice

2 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prejudice
20

Plaintiffs Supplemental Statement of Claim in Response to the Courts Findings, 

Conclusions, and Recommendation

3https://www.indeed.com/cmp/Adt-1/faq/if-you-were-in-charge-what-would-you-do-to-make-adt-a-better-placeto-work?quid=1c4v4

4 National Labor Relations Board-Administrative Judge Opinions 16-CA-144548 (N.L.R.B. Nov. 16, 2018)

5 https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/cm-604-theories-discrimination

6 https://www.indeed.com/cmp/Adt-1/reviews/it-used-to-be-fun-20-years-ago-now?id=c0186ea42af64565

7 National Labor Relations Board-Administrative Judge Opinions 16-CA-144548 (N.L.R.B. Nov. 16, 2018)

8 https://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/node/166