COMPLAINT - Page 1 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITYCOMMISSION

EEOC v. Ruby Tuesday, Inc. 909 First Avenue, Suite 400

Seattle, Washington 98104-1061

Telephone: (206) 220-6883

Facsimile: (206) 220-6911

TDD: (206) 220-6882

WILLIAM TAMAYO, REGIONAL ATTORNEY

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

450 GOLDEN GATE AVENUE

SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3661

JOHN STANLEY, SUPERVISORY TRIAL ATTORNEY

DAMIEN LEE, SENIOR TRIAL ATTORNEY

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

SEATTLE FIELD OFFICE

909 FIRST AVENUE, SUITE 400

SEATTLE, WA 98104

Tel: (206) 220-6915

Damien.Lee@eeoc.gov

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF EEOC

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

EUGENE DIVISION

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

RUBY TUESDAY, INC.,

Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION NO.

COMPLAINT

Title VII Action

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

NATURE OF THE ACTION

This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex, and to provide 

appropriate relief to Charging Party Andrew Herrera (“Mr. Herrera”), and Class Member Joshua

Bell, and other similarly situated individuals who were also adversely affected by such practices. 

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleges that defendant Ruby Tuesday, Inc.

Case 6:15-cv-00109-MC Document 1 Filed 01/22/15 Page 1 of 7
COMPLAINT - Page 2 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITYCOMMISSION

EEOC v. Ruby Tuesday, Inc. 909 First Avenue, Suite 400

Seattle, Washington 98104-1061

Telephone: (206) 220-6883

Facsimile: (206) 220-6911

TDD: (206) 220-6882

(“Ruby Tuesday”) categorically deprived male employees of the opportunity to apply for 

temporary server or bartender positions at its Park City, Utah location in 2013. Mr. Herrera was 

an employee of Ruby Tuesday in Corvallis, Oregon who was available to be reassigned to Park 

City in 2013 but was denied the opportunity because of his sex (male). Plaintiff seeks monetary 

relief, including pecuniary and nonpecuniary compensatory and punitive damages, and injunctive

relief, on behalf of Mr. Herrera, Mr. Bell, and a class of other similarly situated individuals.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 

1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of 

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) (“Title 

VII”), and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §1981a. 

2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful in Mr. Herrera’s charge were

committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of Oregon

and within the jurisdictions of United States District Courts in Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, 

Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada and Utah.

PARTIES

3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the “Commission”), is 

the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and 

enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(f)(1) of 

Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1).

Case 6:15-cv-00109-MC Document 1 Filed 01/22/15 Page 2 of 7
COMPLAINT - Page 3 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITYCOMMISSION

EEOC v. Ruby Tuesday, Inc. 909 First Avenue, Suite 400

Seattle, Washington 98104-1061

Telephone: (206) 220-6883

Facsimile: (206) 220-6911

TDD: (206) 220-6882

4. At all relevant times, defendant Ruby Tuesday has continuously been an employer 

engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of 

Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).

5. At all relevant times, defendant Ruby Tuesday has been a corporation

continuously doing business in the states of Oregon, Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, 

Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada and Utah, and has continuously had at least 15 employees.

CONDITIONS PRECEDENT

6. More than thirty (30) days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Mr. Herrera filed 

a charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant Ruby Tuesday. 

7. The EEOC issued to Defendant a Letter of Determination dated August 14, 2014,

notifying Defendant that the EEOC found reasonable cause to believe that Defendant had 

discriminated against Charging Party based on his sex (male) and a class of similarly situated 

male employees, when Defendant only considered female employees for temporary reassignment 

to the Park City, Utah restaurant in the summer of 2013 in violation of Title VII.

8. The conciliation efforts required by law have occurred and were unsuccessful.

a. The EEOC issued to Defendant a Letter of Determination dated August 14, 

2014, inviting Defendant to participate in conciliation.

b. The EEOC issued to Defendant a letter dated January 7, 2015, advising 

Defendant that the EEOC was not able to secure an agreement, and efforts to 

conciliate the case were unsuccessful.

9. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.

Case 6:15-cv-00109-MC Document 1 Filed 01/22/15 Page 3 of 7
COMPLAINT - Page 4 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITYCOMMISSION

EEOC v. Ruby Tuesday, Inc. 909 First Avenue, Suite 400

Seattle, Washington 98104-1061

Telephone: (206) 220-6883

Facsimile: (206) 220-6911

TDD: (206) 220-6882

STATEMENT OF CLAIMS

10. Since at least March 2013, Defendant Ruby Tuesday engaged in unlawful 

employment practices within the nine-state region covered by its Senior Regional Partner in 

violation of Section 703(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(2). This nine-state region 

included Oregon, Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, and Utah. 

The practices include limiting, segregating, or classifying internal applicants for employment in a

way that deprived individuals of employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affected

their status as internal applicants because of such individual’s sex when Ruby Tuesday

advertised temporary positions at the Park City, Utah Ruby Tuesday location with an explicit and

exclusive preference for female applicants. Ruby Tuesday then selected seven (7) females from 

other Ruby Tuesday restaurants for these temporary positions at the Park City, Utah restaurant 

for the summer of 2013. Ruby Tuesday did not select any male for a temporary position at the 

Park City, Utah restaurant for the summer of 2013.

11. Since at least March 2013, Defendant Ruby Tuesday has published internal 

advertisements for temporary reassignment at its restaurants in Oregon, Arizona, Colorado, 

Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada and Utah, indicating a preference, specification, 

or limitation based on sex, in violation of Section 704(b) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(b).

12. Mr. Herrera, who worked at the Corvallis, Oregon Ruby Tuesday, was denied the 

opportunity to earn more money and gain valuable work experience while on temporary 

assignment to Park City, Utah for the summer of 2013 because of his sex (male). Mr. Herrera 

would also have saved on rent and other expenses if Ruby Tuesday had allowed him to work at 

the Park City, Utah restaurant because Ruby Tuesday would have provided housing free of 

charge.

Case 6:15-cv-00109-MC Document 1 Filed 01/22/15 Page 4 of 7
COMPLAINT - Page 5 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITYCOMMISSION

EEOC v. Ruby Tuesday, Inc. 909 First Avenue, Suite 400

Seattle, Washington 98104-1061

Telephone: (206) 220-6883

Facsimile: (206) 220-6911

TDD: (206) 220-6882

13. Mr. Bell, who worked at the Republic, Missouri Ruby Tuesday, learned of the 

possibility of the Park City, Utah temporary assignment in 2013 through an internal 

advertisement posted at his restaurant. Mr. Bell was denied the opportunity to earn more money 

and gain valuable work experience while on temporary assignment to Park City, Utah for the 

summer of 2013 because of his sex (male). Mr. Bell would also have saved on rent and other 

expenses if Ruby Tuesday had allowed him to work at the Park City, Utah restaurant because 

Ruby Tuesday would have provided housing free of charge.

14. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraphs 10, 11, 12 and 13 above 

has been to deprive Messrs. Herrera and Bell, and other similarly situated males of equal 

employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as internal applicants for 

employment, because of their sex.

15. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 10, 11, 12 and 

13 above were intentional.

16. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 10, 11, 12 and 

13 above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of

Messrs. Herrera, Bell, and other similarly situated males.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court:

A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining defendant Ruby Tuesday, its officers, 

agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons in active concert or participation with 

them, from engaging in limiting, segregating, or classifying applicants for employment in a way 

Case 6:15-cv-00109-MC Document 1 Filed 01/22/15 Page 5 of 7
COMPLAINT - Page 6 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITYCOMMISSION

EEOC v. Ruby Tuesday, Inc. 909 First Avenue, Suite 400

Seattle, Washington 98104-1061

Telephone: (206) 220-6883

Facsimile: (206) 220-6911

TDD: (206) 220-6882

that deprives individuals of employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affects their

status as applicants because of such individual’s sex.

B. Order defendant Ruby Tuesday to institute and carry out policies, practices, and 

programs which provide equal employment opportunities for all employees, and which eradicate 

the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices. 

C. Order defendant Ruby Tuesday to make whole Messrs. Herrera and Bell, and

other similarly situated individuals, by providing appropriate backpay with prejudgment interest, 

in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects 

of its unlawful employment practices described in paragraphs 10, 11, 12 and 13 above in 

amounts to be determined at trial.

D. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining defendant Ruby Tuesday from publishing 

advertisements related to employment indicating a preference, specification, or limitation based 

on sex, in violation of Section 704(b) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C.§ 2000e-3(b).

E. Order defendant Ruby Tuesday to make whole Messrs. Herrera and Bell, and

other similarly situated individuals, by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary 

losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described in paragraphs 10, 11, 12 and 

13 above, including past and future out-of-pocket expenses, in amounts to be determined at trial.

F. Order Defendant Ruby Tuesday to make whole Messrs. Herrera and Bell, and

other similarly situated individuals by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary 

losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraphs 10, 11, 12 and 13 

above, including without limitation emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience and loss of 

enjoyment of life, in amounts to be determined at trial.

Case 6:15-cv-00109-MC Document 1 Filed 01/22/15 Page 6 of 7
COMPLAINT - Page 7 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITYCOMMISSION

EEOC v. Ruby Tuesday, Inc. 909 First Avenue, Suite 400

Seattle, Washington 98104-1061

Telephone: (206) 220-6883

Facsimile: (206) 220-6911

TDD: (206) 220-6882

G. Order Defendant Ruby Tuesday to pay Messrs. Herrera and Bell, and other 

similarly situated individuals punitive damages for its malicious and reckless conduct described 

in paragraphs 10, 11, 12 and 13 above, in amounts to be determined at trial.

H. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public 

interest.

I. Award the Commission its costs of this action.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint.

DATED this 22nd day of January, 2015.

WILLIAM R. TAMAYO P. DAVID LOPEZ

Regional Attorney General Counsel

JOHN STANLEY JAMES L. LEE

Supervisory Trial Attorney Deputy General Counsel

DAMIEN LEE GWENDOLYN Y. REAMS

Senior Trial Attorney Associate General Counsel

BY: s/ William R. Tamayo 

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY

COMMISSION

Seattle District Office Office of the General Counsel

909 First Avenue, Suite 400 131 M Street N.E., 5th Floor

Seattle, Washington 98104 Washington, D.C. 20507

Telephone (206) 220-6920

Attorneys for Plaintiff EEOC

Case 6:15-cv-00109-MC Document 1 Filed 01/22/15 Page 7 of 7