PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TYLER DIVISION

ARIELLE SIMMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

INFRASTRUCTURE AND ENERGY 

ALTERNATIVES, INC. and IEA 

CONSTRUCTORS, LLC, 

Defendants. 

§

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

CIVIL ACTION NO. ______________ 

JURY DEMANDED

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

After laughing off Plaintiff’s complaints of sexual harassment in the workplace, 

Defendants continued to subject Plaintiff to repeated solicitations for sex and constant false 

accusations that she was promiscuous. In Defendants’ view, Plaintiff was purely a sexual object 

for which platonic relationships were impossible, and that therefore she must have been having 

sexual relationships with co-workers. 

Plaintiff Arielle Simms therefore files this Original Complaint against Defendants 

Infrastructure and Energy Alternatives, Inc. and IEA Constructors, LLC based on their 

acquiescence to, and indeed fostering and encouraging, a workplace pervaded by sexual 

harassment. Despite Plaintiff’s pleas to work in an environment free from harassment, Defendants 

failed to take the immediate and appropriate corrective action required under Texas Labor Code 

§ 21.142. Defendants ultimately terminated Plaintiff’s employment on the basis of her sex and in 

retaliation for her complaints of sexual harassment. Plaintiff requests equitable relief, lost wages, 

compensatory damages, exemplary damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys’ fees, and 

costs for Defendants’ unlawful and malicious acts.

Case 6:23-cv-00131 Document 1 Filed 03/15/23 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 1
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 2

I. PARTIES AND SERVICE

1. Plaintiff Arielle Simms is a resident of Uvalde County, Texas. 

2. Defendant Infrastructure and Energy Alternatives, Inc. is a Delaware corporation

with its principal place of business at 6325 Digital Way, Suite 460, Indianapolis, Indiana 46278. 

Infrastructure and Energy Alternatives, Inc. conducts business in Texas, including employing 

employees in Texas and overseeing infrastructure and energy business and jobsites in Texas. 

However, Infrastructure and Energy Alternatives, Inc. has not designated an agent for service of 

process in this state. Therefore, pursuant to Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 17.044, 

Infrastructure and Energy Alternatives, Inc. can be served via the Texas Secretary of State at the 

following address: Service of Process, Secretary of State, James E. Rudder Building, Room 105, 

Austin, Texas 78701.

3. Defendant IEA Constructors, LLC is a Wisconsin limited liability company

headquartered in Indiana, but registered to do business in Texas. IEA Constructors, LLC may be 

served via its registered agent, C T Corporation System, 1999 Bryan Street, Suite 900, Dallas, 

Texas 75201, or wherever it may be found.

4. Defendant Infrastructure and Energy Alternatives, Inc. is the parent or an affiliate 

entity of Defendant IEA Constructors, LLC (together, hereinafter referred to as the “IEA 

Defendants” or “IEA”). The IEA Defendants share officers and business locations, including 

shared corporate headquarters at 6325 Digital Way, Suite 460, Indianapolis, Indiana 46278. The 

IEA Defendants are connected such that they can be considered a single, integrated enterprise or a 

joint employer with respect to Plaintiff.

Case 6:23-cv-00131 Document 1 Filed 03/15/23 Page 2 of 13 PageID #: 2
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 3

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) because there is 

diversity of citizens between the parties. Plaintiff is a citizen of Texas, and Defendants are citizens 

of Indiana.

6. Venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas, under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) 

because Defendants regularly conduct business in this District and because a substantial part of 

the events or omissions forming the basis of the suit occurred in this District.

7. On April 29, 2022, Plaintiff timely dual-filed a Charge of Discrimination with the 

Texas Workforce Commission and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alleging

discrimination and harassment on the basis of sex and retaliation. This lawsuit is being filed more 

than 180 days after Plaintiff filed the Charge. Thus, all administrative and jurisdictional 

prerequisites have been met or have expired.

8. All administrative and jurisdictional prerequisites have been met or have expired.

III. FACTUAL SUMMARY

9. Plaintiff was hired as an Operator for IEA in March of 2021 and was promoted to 

Foreman in January of 2022. Her tenure, prior to the retaliatory actions described herein, was

devoid of any warnings, negative performance evaluations, or disciplinary actions.

10. In April 2021, Operator James Perkins, male, said to Plaintiff, “Everyone is trying 

to fuck you, Arielle. Not me though. I don’t want to fuck you. I just want to finger you.” 

11. Plaintiff reported Perkins’ comment to her then-Foreman and immediate supervisor, 

Shannon Swanson, who is male. Instead of taking any corrective action against Perkins, Swanson 

merely laughed and dismissed the harassment by saying, “What a nut! Some of these guys don’t 

know how to talk to a girl, they haven’t seen one at work that was attractive as you.” 

Case 6:23-cv-00131 Document 1 Filed 03/15/23 Page 3 of 13 PageID #: 3
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 4

12. A few weeks later, emboldened by IEA’s lack of corrective action, Perkins began 

telling the other operators that Plaintiff had sex with several of her coworkers. Again, she reported 

these false and harmful allegations to Swanson. Again, Swanson failed to take any corrective 

action in response. Instead, Swanson responded by begging her not to escalate her reports to 

Superintendent Bill Tarker, who was on vacation at the time. 

13. Plaintiff told Swanson that she was uncomfortable being the only woman on the 

job site, especially with the false rumors now being spread. Swanson, nor any officer of IEA, ever 

confronted Perkins about his harassing conduct.

14. In October 2021, while staying in a hotel for a project, Tarker and Plaintiff were 

sitting outside a hotel working on jobsite plans when Swanson approached them, visibly stressed, 

and said to Plaintiff, “You’re bad for marriages!” Swanson continued, “I know it’s not you, it’s 

my wife she’s fucking nuts and we fight about you almost every day,” referring to his attraction 

towards Plaintiff. 

15. A few nights later, Swanson approached Tarker and Plaintiff again and asked if 

Plaintiff had threesomes with Tarker and Tarker’s wife. Plaintiff, appalled, said she did not. 

16. On the same hotel stay, a few nights later, several coworkers were socializing 

outside the hotel. Around 9:30 pm, Swanson followed Plaintiff onto the elevator as she was 

heading up to her room for the night. In the elevator, Swanson begged Plaintiff to come into his 

room. Plaintiff refused. When they arrived at Plaintiff’s floor, Swanson blocked the elevator doors 

for several minutes while he continued pleading with her to come to his room. Plaintiff had to 

refuse numerous times before Swanson finally relented and allowed her to leave the elevator. 

17. Plaintiff reported the incident to Tarker that same night, and told Tarker that if this 

continued, she would make a formal HR report, which she had avoided prior for fear of retaliation. 

Case 6:23-cv-00131 Document 1 Filed 03/15/23 Page 4 of 13 PageID #: 4
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 5

Tarker responded that he had addressed the harassment with Swanson no less than three times 

prior, and assured her that he would speak to Swanson again. The following day, Tarker told 

Plaintiff that he again counseled Swanson.

18. During the first week of January 2022, Perkins and Plaintiff were both promoted to 

Foreman. Instead of treating Plaintiff with professionalism, Perkins regularly referred to her as 

“whore,” claimed that she was in a sexual relationship with Tarker, and that she was only promoted 

because she “fuck[s] everybody.” All of Perkins’s allegations are false. 

19. Upon learning of Perkins’s false and sexually harassing accusations against 

Plaintiff, she pleaded with him to stop. Perkins responded by screaming, “I don’t care! I’ll drag 

up right now!” From this point onward, countless employees, coworkers, and contractors began

reporting to Plaintiff that Perkins constantly made sexist and derogatory false claims about her on 

a regular basis.

20. Perkins began a friendship with operator Jamie Pearce, male. Soon after, Pearce’s 

girlfriend, Autumn, messaged Plaintiff on social media to warn Plaintiff of Perkins’ and Pearce’s 

plans to create pretext to terminate my employment. These efforts became increasingly evident as 

on February 2, 2022, Plaintiff received a phone call from HR informing her that Pearce had filed 

a sexual harassment complaint against Plaintiff. Plaintiff explained that while she and Pearce and 

were consensually flirtatious in the past, their relationship never became physical nor had Plaintiff

harassed Pearce in any way. Plaintiff then showed HR the messages from Autumn demonstrating 

the real intentions of Pearce’s complaint. His true intentions revealed, Pearce withdrew the 

complaint and the investigation was closed. 

21. IEA failed to take appropriate corrective action against Pearce and Perkins in

response to their discriminatory and retaliatory scheme to have Plaintiff terminated.

Case 6:23-cv-00131 Document 1 Filed 03/15/23 Page 5 of 13 PageID #: 5
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 6

22. Following Plaintiff’s report to HR of Perkins and Pearce’s harassing and retaliatory 

scheme to have her terminated, Perkins refused to communicate with Plaintiff, making it extremely

difficult to perform her duties. Plaintiff reported this to Swanson. Instead of taking any corrective 

action against Pearce and Perkins, Swanson accused Plaintiff of lying. 

23. Plaintiff then escalated her complaint to Tarker once again, as Swanson's refusal to 

listen in retaliation for her reporting Swanson’s own harassment left her no choice. 

24. Tarker contacted his immediate supervisor, Construction Manager Dan Bontrager, 

repeatedly about Pearce’s and Perkins’increasing harassment and Swanson's retaliatory disregard. 

Bontrager refused to provide guidance to Tarker nor Plaintiff, and failed to take any corrective 

action against Pearce and Perkins.

25. After it was clear the Bontrager would continue to ignore Tarker’s reports, Tarker 

suggested that he and Plaintiff should make the report together so Bontrager could speak with me 

directly and witness first-hand how the harassment and retaliation affected her. Even after hearing 

Plaintiff’s complaints of sexual harassment and retaliation directly, instead of taking any corrective 

action against Pearce, Perkins, and Swanson, Bontrager responded flippantly, “You’re a girl. 

You’re a supervisor. This is construction.”

26. On February 17, 2022, Drue Proffer from HR met with Plaintiff at IEA’s jobsite in 

Mount Vernon, Texas. Instead of focusing on the rampant harassment and retaliation Plaintiff had 

experienced, Proffer instead interrogated Plaintiff about her relationship with Perkins, immediately 

bombarding Plaintiff with questions about the rumors of a sexual relationship with Tarker, which 

did not exist. Plaintiff tried to explain to Proffer that these rumors were one of the very reasons 

she made the report. Proffer pressed further, condescendingly asking if Plaintiff was “sure” every 

Case 6:23-cv-00131 Document 1 Filed 03/15/23 Page 6 of 13 PageID #: 6
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 7

time she denied having a sexual relationship with Tarker. Proffer became irritated at the denials of 

the allegations and abruptly ended the meeting. 

27. Instead of taking immediately and appropriate corrective action against Perkins and 

Pearce, Proffer instead made Plaintiff the subject of a retaliatory and pretextual investigation.

28. Since this meeting, Tarker, the only person who believed Plaintiff, was transferred 

to another state. The locks on the female toilets were then cut off, and despite Plaintiff’s efforts in 

replacing them, Bontrager continued to cut them off. 

29. On April 10, 2022, Bontrager issued Plaintiff a retaliatory and pretextual write-up 

for calling the safety team to alert them of a bird’s nest on the job site. Plaintiff, however, was 

required by the wildlife protection protocol to make this report. 

30. On April 15, 2022, in his further retaliatory attempts to create pretextual reasons to 

discipline Plaintiff, Bontrager asked several of my direct reports to “think of anything Arielle does 

to cause problems and let me know.” 

31. On April 16, 2022, Tarker called Bontrager to try to transfer Plaintiff onto Tarker’s 

new jobsite, since Tarker knew Plaintiff was still being harassed and retaliated against. 

32. Bontrager responded to Tarker, “You may want to think twice about keeping her 

around, she’s sending naked pictures to mechanical guys.” This accusation was false, as Bontrager 

either knew or should have known.

33. Between April 15, 2022, and April 20, 2022, Plaintiff sent several emails to John 

Nettleton, IEA’s Director of Field Staffing, and Joseph Alt, IEA’s Vice President of Operations. 

These emails laid out in detail the sexual harassment, intimidation, and retaliation that Plaintiff 

had suffered to date from Perkins, Pearce, Swanson, and Bontrager, as well as Proffer’s demeaning 

interrogation. She explained how she had followed IEA’s chain of command and escalated the 

Case 6:23-cv-00131 Document 1 Filed 03/15/23 Page 7 of 13 PageID #: 7
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 8

situation to HR, all to no effect, and instead fearing for her job and experiencing emotional distress 

due to the sexually harassing and retaliatory actions and inactions of IEA, its managers, and HR, 

and that she would have to take legal action if IEA refused to fulfill its legal obligations in response 

to her complaints. In response, Nettleton and Alt failed to take immediate and appropriate 

corrective action against anyone.

34. On May 24, 2022, Proffer met with Plaintiff again, this time showing her two 

documents, the first of which Plaintiff did not immediately recognize. However, after Proffer 

reminded Plaintiff of the context and Plaintiff examined it more closely, she recognized it was a 

document Tarker had written and that she had proofread at his request for spelling errors. The 

second document was a poem that Tarker had sent to Plaintiff for her advice on whether to send it 

to his wife, which he did occasionally when he was in the midst of his divorce. Proffer used this 

to again claim that Plaintiff and Tarker must therefore have been having a sexual relationship. 

Plaintiff explained that the poem was not directed at her and that Tarker, distraught during his 

divorce, sought her advice which she welcomed since they were friends. Proffer then terminated 

Plaintiff’s employment with IEA for “lying” about not recognizing the first document immediately.

35. IEA’s basis for terminating Plaintiff is false and pretextual, including due to the fact 

that it was because she simply failed to immediately recognize a document without any context.

36. All conditions precedent have been met or have expired.

IV. CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT ONE: CREATION OF A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT IN 

VIOLATION OF THE TCHRA AGAINST THE IEA DEFENDANTS

37. Plaintiff re-alleges the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.

Case 6:23-cv-00131 Document 1 Filed 03/15/23 Page 8 of 13 PageID #: 8
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 9

38. Plaintiff has satisfied all administrative and jurisdictional prerequisites in 

connection with her claim under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act, TEXAS LABOR 

CODE Ch. 21 (the “TCHRA”).

39. At all times relevant, the IEA Defendants were an “employer” as defined by the 

TCHRA. The IEA Defendants employed 15 or more employees for each working day in each of 

20 or more calendar weeks in 2021 and/or 2022.

40. When Plaintiff worked for the IEA Defendants, she was an “employee” as defined 

by the TCHRA.

41. The IEA Defendants either knew or should have known about the sexually 

intimidating environment, including their own roles in fostering it, as well as knew or should have 

known about Plaintiff’s complaints of sexual harassment. 

42. The IEA Defendants subjected Plaintiff to a hostile work environment by subjecting 

her to a sexual harassing environment, refusing to stop the sexual harassment, and retaliating 

against Plaintiff for reporting the sexual harassment. 

43. Sexual harassment, fostered by the IEA Defendants’ failures to take immediate and 

appropriate corrective action, permeated Plaintiff’s workplace with discriminatory intimidation 

and was sufficiently severe and pervasive to alter the conditions of Plaintiff’s employment, 

creating a hostile or abusive work environment.

44. Plaintiff requests injunctive and other equitable relief, including but not limited to 

an order enjoining the IEA Defendants from engaging in unlawful harassment, including by 

requiring adequate training and the enactment of policies and procedure to avoid further 

discrimination against their employees.

Case 6:23-cv-00131 Document 1 Filed 03/15/23 Page 9 of 13 PageID #: 9
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 10

45. As a direct and proximate consequence of the IEA Defendants’ violation, Plaintiff 

has suffered damages.

46. Plaintiff’s damages include past and future mental anguish, inconvenience, and loss 

of enjoyment of life.

47. The IEA Defendants’ acts and omissions were malicious or made with reckless 

indifference to her state-protected rights, therefore entitling Plaintiff to punitive damages.

48. Plaintiff seeks injunctive and other equitable relief, compensatory and exemplary 

damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys’ fees, and costs.

COUNT TWO: RETALIATORY DISCHARGE IN VIOLATION OF THE TCHRA 

AGAINST THE IEA DEFENDANTS

49. Plaintiff re-alleges the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.

50. After Plaintiff filed a complaint of sexual harassment, the IEA Defendants 

retaliated against Plaintiff by terminating Plaintiff’s employment.

51. Plaintiff’s termination was on the basis of her complaint of sexual harassment in 

violation of the TCHRA.

52. Plaintiff requests injunctive and other equitable relief, including but not limited to 

an order enjoining the IEA Defendants from engaging in unlawful retaliation, including by 

requiring adequate training and the enactment of policies and procedure to avoid further retaliation 

against their employees.

53. Plaintiff further requests other equitable relief, including by not limited to 

reinstatement and back pay and/or front pay.

54. As a direct and proximate consequence of the IEA Defendants’ violation, Plaintiff 

has suffered damages.

Case 6:23-cv-00131 Document 1 Filed 03/15/23 Page 10 of 13 PageID #: 10
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 11

55. Plaintiff’s damages include past and future mental anguish, inconvenience, and loss 

of enjoyment of life.

56. Plaintiff’s termination was malicious or made with reckless indifference to her 

state-protected rights, therefore entitling her to punitive damages.

57. Plaintiff seeks injunctive and other equitable relief, compensatory and exemplary 

damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys’ fees, and costs.

COUNT THREE: DISCRIMINATORY DISCHARGE IN VIOLATION OF THE 

TCHRA AGAINST THE IEA DEFENDANTS

58. Plaintiff re-alleges the foregoing allegations as it fully set forth herein. 

59. Plaintiff’s termination was on the basis of her gender in violation of the TCHRA.

60. Plaintiff requests injunctive and other equitable relief, including but not limited to 

an order enjoining the IEA Defendants from engaging in unlawful discrimination, including by 

requiring adequate training and the enactment of policies and procedure to avoid further 

discrimination against their employees.

61. Plaintiff further requests other equitable relief, including by not limited to 

reinstatement and back pay and/or front pay.

62. As a direct and proximate consequence of the IEA Defendants’ violation, Plaintiff 

has suffered damages.

63. Plaintiff’s damages include past and future mental anguish, inconvenience, and loss 

of enjoyment of life.

64. Plaintiff’s termination was malicious or made with reckless indifference to her 

state-protected rights, therefore entitling her to punitive damages.

65. Plaintiff seeks injunctive and other equitable relief, compensatory and exemplary 

damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys’ fees, and costs.

Case 6:23-cv-00131 Document 1 Filed 03/15/23 Page 11 of 13 PageID #: 11
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 12

V. JURY DEMAND

66. Plaintiff demands a jury trial and has tendered the appropriate fee.

VI. PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court:

A. Issue summons for Defendants Infrastructure and Energy Alternatives, Inc. and IEA 

Constructors, LLC to appear and answer;

B. Award to Plaintiff a judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, for:

1. Injunctive and other equitable relief, including but not limited to an order:

a. Prohibiting Defendants from engaging in unlawful discrimination;

b. Requiring Defendants to enact policies and procedures that require 

adequate training of their employees with respect to discrimination and 

sexual harassment;

c. Requiring Defendants to enact policies and procedures that require 

adequate training of their executive, managerial, supervisory, and 

human resources personnel to lawfully handle reports of sexual 

harassment in a prompt and sensitive manner; and

d. Reporting to the Court the manner of Defendants’ compliance with the 

terms of a final order issued by the Court;

2. Such other equitable relief as may be appropriate, including but not limited 

to reinstatement and/or lost wages and benefits (both past and future), the 

sum to be determined at time of trial;

3. Damages for emotional distress and mental anguish;

Case 6:23-cv-00131 Document 1 Filed 03/15/23 Page 12 of 13 PageID #: 12
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 13 

4. Compensatory and exemplary damages in the maximum amount allowed 

by law; 

5. Pre- and post-judgment interest; 

6. Attorneys’ fees; and

7. Costs.

Plaintiff also requests such other relief to which she is entitled in equity and at law.

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Jennifer J. Spencer 

Jennifer J. Spencer 

Texas Bar No. 10474900 

jspencer@jacksonspencerlaw.com 

James E. Hunnicutt 

Texas Bar No. 24054252 

jhunnicutt@jacksonspencerlaw.com 

JACKSON SPENCER LAW PLLC

Three Forest Plaza

12221 Merit Drive, Suite 160 

Dallas, Texas 75251

(972) 458-5301 (Telephone) 

(972) 770-2156 (Fax) 

 

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

ARIELLE SIMMS

Case 6:23-cv-00131 Document 1 Filed 03/15/23 Page 13 of 13 PageID #: 13