PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SHERMAN DIVISION

DAVID ROBERTS, §

 §

Plaintiff, §

 §

vs. § Civil Action No. ______________

 §

ARES HOLDINGS, LLC dba §

CMS/NEXTECH, LLC §

dba CMS MECHANICAL SERVICES §

 §

Defendant. §

PLAINTIFF DAVID R OBERT’ S

ORIGINAL C OMPLAINT

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

NOW COMES Plaintiff David Roberts, and files this civil action against Defendant Ares 

Holdings, LLC dba CMS/NexTech, LLC dba CMS Mechanical Services (“Defendant”), for 

committing unlawful employment practices, in violation of the age discrimination in 

employment act of 1967 (ADEA) and the Texas Labor Code, and in support of which Plaintiff

would respectfully show the honorable Court and Jury as follows:

I .

P ARTIES

1. Plaintiff David Roberts is an individual resident of Fort Worth, Tarrant County, Texas. 

The last 3 digits of his driver’s license number is xxx and the last 3 digits of his social security 

number are 560. 

2. Defendant is a foreign corporation doing business in the State of Texas and may be 

served with process through its registered agent CT Corporation System, 1999 Bryan Street, 

Case 4:23-cv-00060-ALM Document 1 Filed 01/23/23 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 1
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT 2

Suite 900, Dallas, TX 75201. 

II.

VENUE AND J URISDICTION

3. This Court has jurisdiction to hear the merits of this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 

(a)(1) as the parties are citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds 

$75,000. 

4. Venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division, pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), as Denton County is the county where a substantial part of the events or 

omissions giving rise to the claims herein occurred; in particular, Mr. Robert’s place of 

employment with Defendant at 5000 Energy Dr., Bldg. 100, Denton, TX 76207.

III.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

5. Plaintiff David Roberts sues Defendant for unlawful employment practices under the Age 

Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, and Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor 

Code; specifically, Plaintiff alleges discrimination by Defendant on the basis of his age. 

I V.

F ACTUAL B ACKGROU N D

6. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a salesperson. He was hired by the Defendant’s 

Director of Sales in February 2018. Plaintiff’s date of birth is September 29, 1961. Defendant’s 

senior management team expressed disapproval of hiring Plaintiff because of his age and 

instructed the Director of Sales to fire Plaintiff and hire someone younger. 

7. Sales estimates from younger salespeople were approved by the Director of Sales. 

However, the owner of Defendant company gave specific instructions that sales estimates from 

Plaintiff, and another salesperson close in age to Plaintiff, be reviewed by the owner only and 

purposely made it more difficult to have sales approved and/or close deals. 

Case 4:23-cv-00060-ALM Document 1 Filed 01/23/23 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 2
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT 3

8. Plaintiff negotiated and secured several service contracts, including a major service 

contract with Wincor Foods, before he was fired. However, before Plaintiff could close the deal, 

Defendant fired him and subsequently entered into a service contract with Wincor. 

9. Defendant’s Regional Vice President repeatedly referred to Plaintiff as an “old creepy 

guy” and instructed management officials at Plaintiff’s work location to withhold assistance from 

Plaintiff with the express intent of causing Plaintiff to fail in his job performance. The VP fired 

Plaintiff on July 13, 2018 and assumed management of the service contract with Wincor. The 

Defendant’s purported reason for termination was pretextual, and an effort to cover up the 

discriminatory reason for termination. 

10. The evidence demonstrates Defendant’s senior officials objected to Plaintiff’s

employment soon after he was hired because of his age. Defendant subjected Plaintiff to 

different terms and conditions of employment than younger salespeople by attempting to keep

him from receiving support and assistance from his local management and requiring him to 

follow a different approval process for sales he made. The evidence also demonstrates the Vice 

President had an age-related animus against the Plaintiff based on his repeated derogatory agerelated comments, and his instructions to management officials to withhold assistance from the 

Plaintiff, with the explicit intention of causing him to fail at his job.

11. Plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination on July 31, 2018 with the Equal Employment 

Opportunity Commission, well within the required deadlines. He received the EEOC’s Letter of 

Determination on November 17, 2022 and this lawsuit is filed within 90 days of receipt of such 

letter in accordance with the applicable deadlines. Accordingly, Plaintiff has satisfied all 

jurisdictional prerequisites for the filing of this lawsuit under federal law.

Case 4:23-cv-00060-ALM Document 1 Filed 01/23/23 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 3
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT 4

12. The EEOC’s Letter of Determination found that Plaintiff was in a protected class, found

the evidence described in this Complaint and determined that the Defendant’s asserted reasons 

for discharge were pretextual and that the Defendant had discriminated against Plaintiff on the 

basis of his age. See the Letter of Determination attached as an exhibit. 

V.

CAUSES OF ACTION

13. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates the allegations contained in paragraphs six through

twelve, above, as if restated herein, including all subsections of these “Causes of Action”.

14. Based upon the events outlined above, incorporated herein by reference, Plaintiff asserts

causes of action against Defendant for age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination 

in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, and Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code. 

15. Defendant intentionally discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of his age, as 

evidenced by the material and adverse way that Plaintiff was treated by Defendant.

16. The stated reasons for the termination of Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant were a 

mere pretext for the true, discriminatory reasons for the termination.

17. As a direct result of Defendant’s unlawful employment actions, Plaintiff has suffered 

financial damages, including, but not limited to, the loss of his career and promotional 

opportunities with Defendant. The termination has had a negative effect on his career and 

earning capacity, including difficulty in obtaining a similar position. 

18. Plaintiff seeks all available damages, including back pay, and front pay in lieu of 

reinstatement, and liquidated damages with pre- and post-judgment interest at the highest rate 

allowed by law. 

19. In addition, Plaintiff seeks reasonable attorney fees, expert fees, and costs of court.

Case 4:23-cv-00060-ALM Document 1 Filed 01/23/23 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: 4
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT 5

20. Plaintiff would show that the actions of Defendant were done willfully and he is entitled 

to liquidated damages as allowed by law. 

V I.

J URY DE MAND

21. Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial. The jury fee has been tendered.

VII.

P RAYER FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, Plaintiff prays that Defendant, be cited to appear and answer herein, and that 

on final trial Plaintiff have judgment for the following relief:

1. Back pay, front pay, and other equitable relief;

2. Liquidated damages;

3. Prejudgment and post judgment interest at the rates provided by law;

4. Relevant attorney and expert fees and all court costs; and

5. Such other and further relief to which Plaintiff may be justly entitled.

Respectfully submitted.

/s/Susan E. Hutchison

SUSAN E. HUTCHISON

Texas Bar No. 10354100

sehservice@FightsforRight.com

S. Rafe Foreman

Texas Bar No. 07255200

Srfservice@FightsforRight.com

HUTCHISON & FOREMAN, PLLC

500 East 4th St., Ste. 100

Fort Worth, Texas 76102

T: (817) 336-5533

F: (817) 887.5471

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

Case 4:23-cv-00060-ALM Document 1 Filed 01/23/23 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 5
Exhibit

Case 4:23-cv-00060-ALM Document 1 Filed 01/23/23 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 6
Exhibit

Case 4:23-cv-00060-ALM Document 1 Filed 01/23/23 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 7