FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

 Page 1 of 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TEXARKANA DIVISION

SHANTERIA NOIEL 

Plaintiff,

v.

ROSELAND MANAGEMENT 

LLC, d/b/a PRECISION SPINE 

CARE

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:23-cv-00079

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Shanteria Noiel (“Plaintiff” or “Ms. Noiel”), by and through her attorneys, brings

this action for damages and other legal and equitable relief from Defendant, Roseland Management 

LLC d/b/a Precision Spine Care (“Defendant” or “Precision Spine Care”), for violations of Title 

VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq., the 

Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, et seq. (“Section 1981”), the Texas Employment 

Discrimination Act, as amended, Tex. Lab. Code §§ 21.001, et seq. (“TLC”), and any other cause 

of action that can be inferred from the facts set forth herein.

INTRODUCTION

1. This is an action brought by Plaintiff seeking damages from Defendant for acts of 

discrimination. 

2. Defendant employed Plaintiff in Texarkana, Texas. During Plaintiff’s employment 

with Defendant, Plaintiff was subjected to discrimination based on her race, Black. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which 

Case 5:23-cv-00079-RWS Document 6 Filed 10/10/23 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 56
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

 Page 2 of 11

confers original jurisdiction upon this Court for actions arising under the laws of the United States, 

and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1343(3) and 1343(4), which confer original jurisdiction upon this 

Court in a civil action to recover damages or to secure equitable relief (i) under any Act of Congress 

providing for the protection of civil rights; (ii) under the Declaratory Judgment Statute, 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2201; 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., as amended, and (iii) 42 U.S.C. § 1981, et seq., as amended.

4. The Court’s supplemental jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), 

which confers supplemental jurisdiction over all non-federal claims arising from a common 

nucleus of operative facts such that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article 

III of the United States Constitution.

5. Venue is proper in this Court in as much as the unlawful employment practices 

occurred in this judicial district. Venue is also proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

1391(b)(1) and (c), in that Defendant maintains offices, conducts business, and resides in this 

district. 

PARTIES

6. Plaintiff is a person who has been aggrieved by Defendant’s actions. She is and has 

been, at all relevant times, a resident of Texarkana, Texas. 

7. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was Defendant’s employee and therefore covered by 

Title VII, § 1981 and the TLC. 

8. Defendant employs over fifteen (15) employees.

9. During all relevant times, Defendant has been an employer covered by Title VII, § 

1981 and the TLC.

10. Defendant transacted and continues to transact business in Texas by, among other 

things, employing persons located within Texas and within this judicial district.

Case 5:23-cv-00079-RWS Document 6 Filed 10/10/23 Page 2 of 11 PageID #: 57
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

 Page 3 of 11

EXHAUSTION OF FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

11. Plaintiff has timely filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

12. Plaintiff received her Notice of Right to Sue letter from the EEOC within 90 days

prior to the filing of this Complaint.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

13. Ms. Noiel was employed by Precision Spine Care as a Medical Assistant from on 

or around August 7, 2017, to February 10, 2023.

14. The work environment at Precision Spine Care was rife with discriminatory animus 

against Black employees. In particular, Dr. James Wages, a white physician who was Plaintiff’s 

supervisor, routinely made racist and discriminatory comments in the workplace. He also refused 

to intervene when other white employees made prejudiced or derogatory comments to Black 

employees such as Plaintiff.

15. Ms. Noiel was the only Black employee working at Precision Spine Care for three 

years. After Defendant hired an additional Black medical assistant named Ashley Harris, Ms. Noiel 

and Ms. Harris overheard Dr. Wages telling Office Manager Samantha Rogers not to hire any more 

Black people, saying “when you get two or more Black people together, things change.” Ms. Noiel 

was stunned and distraught by this remark, and Ms. Harris quit shortly thereafter due to the hostile 

work environment. Ms. Rogers said she would report the comment to HR. However, no action was 

taken against Dr. Wages.

16. On another occasion, Dr. Wages stated in front of Ms. Noiel and other employees 

that “God doesn’t like Black people.” Stunned, a nurse practitioner named Leslie Howl who 

Case 5:23-cv-00079-RWS Document 6 Filed 10/10/23 Page 3 of 11 PageID #: 58
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

 Page 4 of 11

witnessed the remark told Dr. Wages “you can’t say things like that.” Ms. Noiel was horrified by 

this comment.

17. In another incident, Ms. Noiel had to assist a white patient out of his car. The white 

patient hissed that he did not want her “black skin” touching his body. Ms. Noiel was very upset 

by the patient’s conduct, but Dr. Wages laughed it off and said the patient was “just old.”

18. Ms. Noiel endured racist comments from other white employees in addition to Dr. 

Wages. For example, a Nurse Practitioner named Melinda Smith, who is white, walked into the 

room where Ms. Noiel had a photo of her children, and asked, “They got the same daddy?” 

regarding the photo. Ms. Noiel responded that they do have the same father, saying, “because I’m 

Black doesn’t mean that my kids have different fathers.” Ms. Smith responded back, “Are you and 

the father still together?” 

19. Ms. Noiel reported these inquiries to her manager, Tonya Kessler. Ms. Kessler 

reported to Bridget (LNU) in Human Resources. Ms. Noiel did not hear back from Ms. Kessler or 

Bridget regarding the complaint. Ms. Noiel also reported the harassment to Office Manager

Samantha Rogers, who reported the incident with Ms. Smith to HR. HR did not respond to Ms. 

Rogers. 

20. Ms. Noiel also suffered discriminatory treatment based on race in the form of 

disparate pay and benefits. While employed by Defendant, Ms. Noiel discovered that she was 

being paid $3.00 less per hour than a white colleague named Savannah Roberts. Ms. Noiel only 

learned of the disparate pay because Ms. Roberts told her. Ms. Roberts had been employed by 

Defendant for less time than Ms. Noiel and had less relevant career experience than Ms. Noiel. 

Ms. Noiel reported this pay discrepancy to HR, who did not offer any explanation for why Ms. 

Noiel was being paid less than Ms. Roberts.

Case 5:23-cv-00079-RWS Document 6 Filed 10/10/23 Page 4 of 11 PageID #: 59
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

 Page 5 of 11

21. Furthermore, when Ms. Noiel had the Covid-19 virus twice, she did not get paid 

for her sick days. However, upon information and belief, white employees who were sick with 

Covid were paid for their sick days. Ms. Noiel learned this from her white coworker Sherri 

Williams.

22. The pervasive racism at Precision Spine Care went beyond the Black employees 

and extended to Black patients as well. Ms. Noiel overhead white employees say that Black 

patients all “smell like weed” or “look like they’re on drugs.” Defendant used this justification to 

refuse needed pain medication to Black patients, while providing it without issue to white patients. 

Observing this disparate treatment, along with all the race-based comments that pervaded the 

workplace, altered Plaintiff’s work environment and made it difficult for her to come to work and 

perform her job. Ms. Noiel was constructively discharged on February 10, 2023.

23. After her constructive discharge, Defendant replaced Ms. Noiel with a white female 

named Dallas Brown.

COUNT I: HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq.

24. Plaintiff is a member of a protected class and repeats and re-alleges the allegations 

contained in the paragraphs above, as if fully set forth herein.

25. The conduct alleged herein violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as 

amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq., as Defendant has engaged in the practice of discrimination 

by subjecting Plaintiff to a racially hostile work environment based on her race, Black.

26. Plaintiff’s requests for relief are set forth below.

Case 5:23-cv-00079-RWS Document 6 Filed 10/10/23 Page 5 of 11 PageID #: 60
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

 Page 6 of 11

COUNT II: DISCRIMINATION

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.

27. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations contained in the paragraphs above, 

as if fully set forth herein.

28. The conduct alleged herein violates Title VII as the Defendant has engaged in the 

practice of discrimination against the Plaintiff based on her race, Black, by subjecting her to

disparate treatment in the terms and conditions of her employment, including but not limited to 

paying her less than similarly situated white employees and denying her sick pay based on her 

race.

29. Plaintiff’s requests for relief are set forth below. 

COUNT III: CONSTRUCTIVE DISCHARGE

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.

30. Plaintiff is a member of a protected class and repeats and re-alleges the allegations 

contained in the paragraphs above, as if fully set forth herein.

31. The conduct alleged herein violates Title VII, as the Defendant, by discriminating

against the Plaintiff based on her race, Black, subjected Plaintiff to working conditions so 

intolerable that she was compelled to resign.

32. Plaintiff’s requests for relief are set forth below. 

COUNT IV: HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT

Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, et seq.

33. Plaintiff is a member of a protected class and repeats and re-alleges the allegations 

contained in the paragraphs above, as if fully set forth herein.

34. The conduct alleged herein violates Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 

42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, et seq., as Defendant has engaged in the practice of discrimination by 

Case 5:23-cv-00079-RWS Document 6 Filed 10/10/23 Page 6 of 11 PageID #: 61
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

 Page 7 of 11

subjecting Plaintiff to a racially hostile work environment.

35. Plaintiff’s requests for relief are set forth below.

COUNT V: DISCRIMINATION

Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, et seq.

36. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations contained in the paragraphs above, 

as if fully set forth herein.

37. The conduct alleged herein violates Section 1981 as the Defendant has engaged in 

the practice of discrimination against the Plaintiff based on her race, Black, by subjecting her to

disparate treatment in the terms and conditions of her employment, including but not limited to 

paying her less than similarly situated white employees and denying sick pay based on her race.

38. Plaintiff’s requests for relief are set forth below. 

COUNT VI: CONSTRUCTIVE DISCHARGE

Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, et seq.

39. Plaintiff is a member of a protected class and repeats and re-alleges the allegations 

contained in the paragraphs above, as if fully set forth herein.

40. The conduct alleged herein violates 42 U.S.C. § 1981, et seq., as the Defendant, by

discriminating against the Plaintiff based on her race, Black, subjected Plaintiff to working 

conditions so intolerable that she was compelled to resign.

41. Plaintiff’s requests for relief are set forth below. 

COUNT VII: HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT

The Texas Employment Discrimination Act, as amended, Tex. Lab. Code §§ 21.001 et seq.

42. Plaintiff is a member of a protected class and repeats and re-alleges the allegations 

contained in the paragraphs above, as if fully set forth herein.

43. The conduct alleged herein violates the Texas Employment Discrimination Act, as 

Case 5:23-cv-00079-RWS Document 6 Filed 10/10/23 Page 7 of 11 PageID #: 62
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

 Page 8 of 11

amended, Tex. Lab. Code §§ 21.001, et seq., as Defendant has engaged in the practice of 

discrimination by subjecting Plaintiff to a racially hostile work environment.

COUNT VIII: DISCRIMINATION

The Texas Employment Discrimination Act, as amended, Tex. Lab. Code §§ 21.001 et seq.

44. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations contained in the paragraphs above, 

as if fully set forth herein.

45. The conduct alleged herein violates the Texas Labor Code as the Defendant has

engaged in the practice of discrimination against the Plaintiff based on her race, Black, by

subjecting her to disparate treatment in the terms and conditions of her employment, including but 

not limited to paying her less than similarly situated white employees and denying sick pay based 

on her race, Black.

46. Plaintiff’s requests for relief are set forth below. 

COUNT IX: CONSTRUCTIVE DISCHARGE

The Texas Employment Discrimination Act, as amended, Tex. Lab. Code §§ 21.001, et seq.

47. Plaintiff is a member of a protected class and repeats and re-alleges the allegations 

contained in the paragraphs above, as if fully set forth herein.

48. The conduct alleged herein violates the TLC, as the Defendants, by discriminating

against the Plaintiff based on her race, Black, subjected Plaintiff to working conditions so 

intolerable that she was compelled to resign.

49. Plaintiff’s requests for relief are set forth below. 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

 Plaintiff demands a jury trial on all matters raised in this Complaint.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests judgment against Defendant as follows:

Case 5:23-cv-00079-RWS Document 6 Filed 10/10/23 Page 8 of 11 PageID #: 63
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

 Page 9 of 11

A. A judgment declaring that the practices complained of herein are unlawful and in 

violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, et seq.; Title

VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.; and the 

Texas Employment Discrimination Act, as amended, Tex. Lab. Code §§ 21.001, et 

seq.;

B. All damages which Plaintiff has sustained as a result of Defendant’s conduct, 

including back pay, front pay, benefits, general and specific damages for lost 

compensation, liquidated damages, job benefits she would have received but for 

Defendant’s discriminatory practices, and for emotional distress, humiliation, 

embarrassment, and mental anguish;

C. Exemplary and punitive damages in an amount commensurate with Defendant’s 

ability and so as to deter future malicious, reckless, and/or intentional conduct;

D. Awarding Plaintiff the costs and disbursements incurred in connection with this 

action, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, expert witness fees and other costs;

E. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, as provided by law;

F. That the Court retain jurisdiction over Defendant until such time as it is satisfied that 

they have remedied the practices complained of and are determined to be in full 

compliance with the law; and

G. Granting Plaintiff other and further relief as this Court finds necessary and proper. 

Plaintiff also seeks injunctive relief, including, but not limited to:

H. Training on the subject of employment discrimination for all of Defendant’s

employees;

Case 5:23-cv-00079-RWS Document 6 Filed 10/10/23 Page 9 of 11 PageID #: 64
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

 Page 10 of 11

I. Implicit bias training for all managers conducted by reputable outside vendors;

J. Supervisory discipline up to and including termination for any supervisor who engages 

in unlawful discrimination;

K. Active monitoring of the work areas to ensure compliance with discrimination 

policies; and

L. Monitoring by the Court or a federal agency to ensure that Defendant complies with 

all injunctive relief.

Plaintiff further demands that she be awarded such other and further legal and equitable 

relief as may be found appropriate and as the Court may deem just or equitable.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Jay D. Ellwanger

Jay D. Ellwanger

Texas State Bar No. 24036522

jellwanger@equalrights.law

David W. Henderson 

Texas State Bar No. 24032292

dhenderson@equalrights.law

Ellwanger Henderson LLLP

11149 Research Blvd., Suite 100

Austin, Texas 78759

Telephone: (737) 808-2260

Facsimile: (737) 808-2238

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF

Case 5:23-cv-00079-RWS Document 6 Filed 10/10/23 Page 10 of 11 PageID #: 65
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

 Page 11 of 11

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on October 10, 2023, a true and correct copy of the above and 

foregoing document was served on all counsel of record via the Court’s ECF system. 

_/s/ Jay D. Ellwanger_______

Jay D. Ellwanger

Case 5:23-cv-00079-RWS Document 6 Filed 10/10/23 Page 11 of 11 PageID #: 66