UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JOSEPHINE TIEMANN,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 09-10315

-vBEST BUY CO., INC., a 

Minnesota Corporation,

Defendant.

 /

JOEY S. NISKAR (P55480)

The Niskar Law Firm, PLLC

Attorney for Plaintiff

30600 Telegraph Rd., Ste. 4290

Bingham Farms, MI 48025

(248) 220-1966

E-mail: Joeynlaw@aol.com 

 /

Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial

NOW COMES the plaintiff, Josephine Tiemann, by and through her attorneys, The

Niskar Law Firm, PLLC, and in support of her complaint against the defendant, hereby states as

follows:

A. Statement of Jurisdiction

1. The plaintiff is a resident of the County of Livingston, State of Michigan.

2. The defendant, Best Buy Co., Inc. (hereafter “defendant”) is a Minnesota Corporation,

which regularly conducts business in the County of Oakland, State of Michigan.

3. The defendant owns and operates retail stores located throughout the geographic region

encompassing the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division.

4. As the defendant regularly and routinely conducts business in the geographic region

Case 2:09-cv-10315-AJT-SDP Document 1 Filed 01/27/2009 Page 1 of 7
encompassing the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, this Honorable Court

possesses personal jurisdiction over the defendant, and venue is proper pursuant to 28

USC § 1391.

5. Plaintiff alleges violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 USC § 2000e, et seq. 

Therefore, this Honorable Court possesses original subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to

28 USC § 1331, 28 USC § 1343(4) and 42 USC § 2000e-5.

6. Since there is complete diversity of citizenship, and the amount in controversy exceeds

$75,000.00, this Honorable Court likewise possesses original subject matter jurisdiction

over this case pursuant to 28 USC § 1332.

7. With regard to the Court’s jurisdiction under 28 USC § 1331, this Honorable Court

possesses supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s state law claims pursuant to 28 USC §

1367.

B. Factual Allegations

Plaintiff incorporates all prior averments, as if fully set forth herein.

8. Plaintiff was originally hired by the defendant in February of 1998.

9. In 2006, the defendant promoted plaintiff to the position of general store manager. As of

February of 2008, plaintiff was the general store manager for the defendant’s Farmington

Hills, Michigan, store location.

10. Plaintiff notified her district manager that she was pregnant during, or around the first

week of February of 2008.

11. Within approximately two weeks or less, the defendant demoted plaintiff from general

store manager, to a part-time cashier.

12. The defendant demoted the plaintiff in whole, or alternatively in part, because of her

pregnancy.

13. The plaintiff, as a pregnant woman, was a member of a class of persons protected by 42

USC § 2000e, et seq., the plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action in that she was

demoted, plaintiff was qualified for the general store manager position she held, and other

Case 2:09-cv-10315-AJT-SDP Document 1 Filed 01/27/2009 Page 2 of 7
comparable nonpregnant persons were treated better than plaintiff was treated. All

reasons for the plaintiff’s demotion proffered by the defendant are pretextual and false. 

C. Count I – Sex Discrimination in Violation of 

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 USC § 2000e, et seq.

Single-Motive, or Alternatively, Mixed-Motive Discrimination

Plaintiff incorporates all prior averments, as if fully set forth herein.

14. The plaintiff was an “employee” within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act

of 1964, 42 USC § 2000e, et seq., (herein referred to as “Title VII”).

15. The defendant was an “employer” of the plaintiff within the meaning of Title VII.

16. The defendant treated the plaintiff in a manner that was different than and more adverse

than other comparable employees who were not pregnant.

17. The defendant demoted the plaintiff in whole, or alternatively in part, because of and/or

on the basis of her pregnancy in violation of Title VII.

18. The defendant thus discriminated against the plaintiff because of sex and/or on the basis

of sex due to her pregnancy in violation of Title VII.

19. The defendant’s violation(s) of Title VII was/were done with malice and/or reckless

indifference to the plaintiff’s rights, thereby subjecting the defendant to punitive

damages, in addition to all other damages available at law.

20 As a direct and proximate result of the defendant’s violation(s) of Title VII, the plaintiff

suffered emotional distress, mental anguish, embarrassment, and all other types of noneconomic damages available at law.

21. As a direct and proximate result of the defendant’s violation(s) of Title VII, the plaintiff

suffered economic damages including loss of wages/salary, loss of benefits, back pay,

front pay, loss of stock options, and all other types of economic damages available at law. 

22. Plaintiff is entitled to recover, and hereby claims all such damages mentioned above.

23. Plaintiff alternatively seeks all equitable remedies available under the law, including

reinstatement into her original position as a general store manager, restoration of seniority

Case 2:09-cv-10315-AJT-SDP Document 1 Filed 01/27/2009 Page 3 of 7
rights and/or opportunities for promotion, a declaration that the defendant has violated

Title VII by discriminating against the plaintiff on the basis of her pregnancy, the entry of

an injunctive order prohibiting the defendant from further acts of pregnancy

discrimination, the entry of an injunctive order providing that the defendant cannot take

any adverse employment action against the plaintiff in retaliation for exercising her rights

under Title VII, and the entry of an injunctive order prohibiting the defendant from taking

any adverse employment action against the plaintiff except upon a showing of good

cause.

24. Plaintiff is further claiming as damages all costs and attorney fees incurred in having to

investigate, pursue, litigate and prosecute this claim pursuant to Title VII, as well as all

punitive and exemplary damages available at law.

D. Count II – Sex Discrimination in Violation of the 

Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, MCL § 37.2101, et seq.; MSA § 3.548(101), et seq.

Single-Motive, or Alternatively Mixed-Motive Discrimination

Plaintiff incorporates all prior averments, as if fully set forth herein.

25. The plaintiff was an “employee” of the defendant within the meaning of the Michigan

Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, MCL § 37.2102, et seq; MSA § 3.548(101), et seq

(hereafter referred to as the “ELCRA”).

26. The defendant was an “employer” of the plaintiff within the meaning of the ELCRA.

27. The defendant treated the plaintiff in a manner that was different than and more adverse

than other comparable employees who were not pregnant.

28. The defendant demoted the plaintiff in whole, or alternatively in part, because of and/or

on the basis of her pregnancy in violation of the ELCRA.

29. The defendant thus discriminated against the plaintiff because of sex and/or on the basis

of sex due to her pregnancy in violation of the ELCRA.

30 As a direct and proximate result of the defendant”s violation(s) of the ELCRA, the

plaintiff suffered emotional distress, mental anguish, embarrassment, and all other types

Case 2:09-cv-10315-AJT-SDP Document 1 Filed 01/27/2009 Page 4 of 7
of non-economic damages available at law.

31. As a direct and proximate result of the defendant’s violation(s) of the ELCRA, the

plaintiff suffered economic damages including loss of wages, loss of benefits, back pay,

front pay, loss of stock options, and all other types of economic damages available at law. 

32. Plaintiff is entitled to recover, and hereby claims all such damages mentioned above.

33. Plaintiff alternatively seeks all equitable remedies available under the law, including

reinstatement into her original position as general store manager, restoration of seniority

rights and/or opportunities for promotion, a declaration that the defendant has violated the

ELCRA by discriminating against the plaintiff on the basis of her pregnancy, the entry of

an injunctive order prohibiting the defendant from further acts of pregnancy

discrimination, the entry of an injunctive order providing that the defendant cannot take

any adverse employment action against the plaintiff in retaliation for exercising her rights

under the ELCRA, and the entry of an injunctive order prohibiting the defendant from

taking any adverse employment action against the plaintiff except upon a showing of

good cause.

34. Plaintiff is further claiming as damages all costs and attorney fees incurred in having to

investigate, pursue, litigate and prosecute this claim pursuant to the ELCRA, as well as

all punitive and exemplary damages available at law.

E. Compliance with Statutory Procedural Requirements

Plaintiff incorporates all prior averments, as if fully set forth herein.

35. Plaintiff timely filed a charge of discrimination with the appropriate administrative

agency (i.e., the Michigan Department of Civil Rights and/or the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission), was issued a right to sue letter, and timely filed this action

within the appropriate time period(s) under both Federal and State law.

WHEREFORE the plaintiff respectfully prays for judgment against the defendant, for all

compensatory damages, punitive damages, liquidated damages, exemplary damages, and

Case 2:09-cv-10315-AJT-SDP Document 1 Filed 01/27/2009 Page 5 of 7
economic damages available at law, and/or seeks all equitable relief mentioned above, together

with costs, interest and attorney fees incurred in having to investigate, pursue, litigate and

prosecute the instant action.

Respectfully submitted,

THE NISKAR LAW FIRM, PLLC

By: /s/ Joey S. Niskar 

JOEY S. NISKAR (P55480)

Attorney for Plaintiff

30600 Telegraph Rd., Ste. 4290

Bingham Farms, MI 48025

(248) 220-1966

Dated: January 27, 2009 E-mail: Joeynlaw@aol.com

Case 2:09-cv-10315-AJT-SDP Document 1 Filed 01/27/2009 Page 6 of 7
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JOSEPHINE TIEMANN,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 09-10315

-vBEST BUY CO., INC., a 

Minnesota Corporation,

Defendant.

 /

JOEY S. NISKAR (P55480)

The Niskar Law Firm, PLLC

Attorney for Plaintiff

30600 Telegraph Rd., Ste. 4290

Bingham Farms, MI 48025

(248) 220-1966

E-mail: Joeynlaw@aol.com 

_________________________________/

Demand for Jury Trial

The plaintiff, Josephine Tiemann, by and through her attorneys, The Niskar Law Firm,

PLLC, hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues in the instant action.

Respectfully submitted,

THE NISKAR LAW FIRM, PLLC

By: /s/ Joey S. Niskar 

JOEY S. NISKAR (P55480)

Attorney for Plaintiff

30600 Telegraph Rd., Ste. 4290

Bingham Farms, MI 48025

(248) 220-1966

Dated: January 27, 2009 E-mail: Joeynlaw@aol.com

Case 2:09-cv-10315-AJT-SDP Document 1 Filed 01/27/2009 Page 7 of 7