‘IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

ANNITRE EDISON,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

TYSON FOODS, INC.,

 Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 Case No.: 20-CV-2484

 JURY TRIAL DEMAND

COMPLAINT

Now comes Plaintiff, Annitre Edison (hereinafter, “Edison” or “Plaintiff”), by and through 

her attorneys, Jaz Park and Richard J. Gonzalez, of The Law Offices of Chicago-Kent College of 

Law, and for her Complaint against Defendant, Tyson Foods, Inc., (hereinafter, “Tyson” or 

“Defendant”), states as follows:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This is an action for damages and equitable relief related to Plaintiff’s employment 

with Tyson Foods, Inc. to redress Defendant’s violation of Plaintiff’s rights guaranteed under Title 

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

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to the provisions of 42 U.S.C.§ 

2000(e)-5 and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

3. Venue is appropriate in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because 

Defendant’s place of business is in this judicial district, and a substantial amount of the events 

giving rise to this Complaint occurred herein.

Case: 1:20-cv-02484 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/23/20 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:1
4. Plaintiff has met all administrative prerequisites to the suit in that she timely filed 

a charge of discrimination against Defendant with the Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission (“EEOC”) on September 10, 2019. Plaintiff is eligible to file the complaint 90 days 

following the date of the issuance of the Right to Sue on February 7, 2020, and file this complaint 

within the limitation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e) et seq. (See Exhibit A) 

PARTIES

5. Plaintiff was born on March 5, 1975, and is a female citizen of the United States of 

America who resided within this judicial district. For a period of time in the excess of sixteen 

years, Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant, with her most recent position as a Senior Director 

of Information Technology.

6. Defendant Tyson Foods, Inc. is a multinational food processing corporation, with 

one of its corporate offices located in Chicago, Illinois. At all relevant times, Defendant was an 

employer pursuant to Title VII. 

FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

7. In January 2003, Plaintiff was hired by Defendant as a Senior Programmer in the 

Business Systems Department. 

8. For a period of time in the excess of sixteen years, from January 2, 2003 to January 

25, 2019, Plaintiff was a full-time employee of Defendant. 

9. Plaintiff was terminated from employment on January 25, 2019 by Ryan M. Earley, 

Defendant’s Vice President of Information Technology.

10. In March 2009, Plaintiff was promoted to Senior Manager, Applications Services. 

Two years later, in August 2011, Plaintiff was promoted to the position of Senior Manager, 

Applications Technology reporting to the Director, Infrastructure Services and Operations. 

Case: 1:20-cv-02484 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/23/20 Page 2 of 10 PageID #:2
11. On or around November 05, 2017, Plaintiff was promoted to Senior Director of 

Information Technology, and Plaintiff relocated from Missouri to work at Defendant’s corporate 

office in Chicago, Illinois. 

12. Throughout Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant, Plaintiff was consistently 

recognized as a key contributor in enterprise-wide projects and earned multiple awards that were 

given “on a highly selective basis,” which include but not limited to the “Project Completion 

Award” and the “Special Retention Award.” 

13. During Plaintiff’s tenure with Defendant, her job performance at all relevant times 

met or exceeded Defendant’s legitimate performance expectations.

14. During the course of her tenure, she received positive annual performance reviews. 

15. Plaintiff’s direct responsibilities were divided between Defendant’s corporate 

offices in Illinois and Arkansas. 

16. Plaintiff's supervisor, Ryan Earley, was aware that although Plaintiff had to 

“manag[e] travel between Chicago and Arkansas for [a] project,” her family, including her 

children, continued residing in St. Louis, Missouri.

17. As a Senior Director, Plaintiff had oversight of a thirty to forty-million-dollar 

budget and managed fourteen direct reports and over eighty indirect reports. Furthermore, 

throughout Plaintiff's employment, her managers recognized Plaintiff as an employee who 

“outperform[ed] [the] business’ expectations” while “balanc[ing] a variety of activities.” 

18. There were only a few visible African American female employees at her 

management level or above at Defendant organization, and especially true for the IT Department. 

19. In April 2018, Defendant selected Plaintiff as its keynote speaker to represent them 

at the “2018 Woman in IT Conference'' at the University of Arkansas, which was a two-day 

Case: 1:20-cv-02484 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/23/20 Page 3 of 10 PageID #:3
conference focused on empowering and encouraging women to pursue their passion in the field of 

technology and technology-related business professions. 

20. In December 2018, Plaintiff held a typical, quarterly meeting for her entire

employee team. At this meeting, food is typically offered to the employees.

21. Soon after the meeting, she was informed that she was in violation of the recentlyannounced company policy against holiday parties and gifts.

22. Around the same time, a colleague by the name of Kelly Fulscher, who was the 

Senior Manager of Trade, and a non-African American woman, also held a similar meeting for 

employees. 

23. Plaintiff’s quarterly meeting was attended by her team employees and the Chief 

Technology Officer (CTO), Scott Spradley.

24. Prior to Plaintiff’s termination, there was discussion with Spradley about Plaintiff’s 

potential promotion to a more senior position. 

25. Plaintiff was recognized as a manager who “consistently shar[ed] credit and 

celebrat[ed] her teams’ successes, ensuring that the entire team kn[ew] they [were to] be rewarded 

for good work.” 

26. Despite Plaintiff’s leadership and performance history, subsequent to the meeting, 

she was informed that there was an investigation related to her violation of the company policy 

against holiday parties and gifts. 

27. One of Defendant’s justifications for Plaintiff’s termination was that at the 

December 2018 quarterly meeting, Plaintiff distributed attire with the “Tyson’s” company logo.

28. Such attire is typically distributed for marketing purposes. Employees even receive 

special stipends for this purchase.

Case: 1:20-cv-02484 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/23/20 Page 4 of 10 PageID #:4
29. Plaintiff was subjected to a “random audit,” alleged to have violated seventeen 

company policies, and then abruptly terminated on January 25, 2019 by Ryan Earley, Defendant’s 

Vice President of Information Technology.

30. The termination letter refers to Standards of Behavior Management Policy

regarding criminal activity:

- 4.3 Management Team Members who are either arrested or placed under 

investigation for any job-related offense, whether felony or misdemeanor 

(emphasis added), will be placed on suspension.........For the purposes of this 

policy, job-related offenses include, but are not limited to, offenses involving theft, 

fraud, or violence.

o 4.3.1 If the Team Member is found guilty, admits guilt, or the 

Company reasonably believes after its investigation that the Team 

Member is guilty, with regard to a job-related offense, the Team 

Member will be disciplined, up to and including termination.

31. The termination letter stated the policy as one she had violated, alleging she 

engaged in criminal misconduct but failed to provide details on the factual allegations. 

32. Plaintiff was not provided records nor further details of the allegations, nor was she 

provided with an opportunity to respond to or appeal the termination decision. 

33. Given Plaintiff’s tenure and significant role in contributing to Defendant's business 

success, it was a reasonable expectation that Plaintiff would have been notified of any policy 

violations and provided the opportunity to take necessary steps to remedy those issues. 

34. However, not once prior to the investigation notice was a concern raised about

issues with Plaintiff’s travel and expense submissions.

35. At the time of termination, despite the typical practice for management level 

employees at her level or above, Plaintiff was not provided with a severance agreement. 

36. Plaintiff fared worse treatment than other non-African American or non-female 

similarly situated employees, including management employees.

Case: 1:20-cv-02484 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/23/20 Page 5 of 10 PageID #:5
a. Other non-African American or non-female similarly situated employees, including 

management employees, did not face discipline for employee food expenses in 

December or for distributing attire with the “Tyson’s” company logo;

b. Other non-African American or non-female similarly situated employees, including 

management employees, did not face discipline for comparable violations 

referenced in the termination letter;

c. Other non-African American or non-female employees, including management 

employees, were not subjected to random audits nor disciplined nor terminated for 

similar types of travel and expense submissions;

d. Other non-African American or non-female employees, including management 

employees, were not subjected to criminal language, or unfounded allegations of 

criminal misconduct, for similar types of violations;

e. Other non-African American or non-female employees, including management 

employees, upon separation from the company, received severance agreements. 

COUNT I

TITLE VII DISCRIMINATION BASED ON SEX- TERMINATION

37. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-36 and incorporates the same by reference as 

though fully set out in this Count I.

38. Plaintiff is an African American female and therefore a member of a protected class 

pursuant to Title VII.

39. Plaintiff met or exceeded Defendant’s legitimate performance expectations at all 

relevant times throughout her employment.

Case: 1:20-cv-02484 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/23/20 Page 6 of 10 PageID #:6
40. Plaintiff was terminated for allegedly violating travel and expense policies, while 

other non-female employees in similarly situated positions did not face discipline for comparable 

violations.

41. Defendant’s announced reason for Plaintiff’s termination constituted a pretext for 

unlawful sex discrimination.

42. In terminating Plaintiff’s employment, Defendant treated Plaintiff differently than 

similarly situated non-female employees because the travel and expense policies were 

inconsistently enforced.

43. The forgoing conduct constituted unlawful sex discrimination in violation of 

Plaintiff’s rights guaranteed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964. 

44. The discriminatory conduct of Defendant’s agents, including Earley, was 

intentional and malicious, making punitive or exemplary damages necessary to punish him and 

deter other management employees in similar positions of authority from like misconduct.

45. Investigatory audits should not be used as discriminatory tools by Defendant’s 

agents, and make punitive or exemplary damages necessary. 

46. As a proximate result of the foregoing facts, Plaintiff has suffered the loss of her 

position, lost wages, the value of lost benefits, incidental damages, pain and suffering in the form 

of emotional distress, anxiety, embarrassment, humiliation, and loss of status and self-esteem.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court to:

A. Enter judgement finding that Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis 

of sex in violation of Title VII;

B. Reinstate Plaintiff to her prior position or a comparable position;

Case: 1:20-cv-02484 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/23/20 Page 7 of 10 PageID #:7
C. Award Plaintiff damages for lost wages and employment benefits that she would 

have received but for the discriminatory acts and practices of Defendant;

D. Award Plaintiff compensatory and punitive damages in an appropriate amount;

E. Award Plaintiff attorney’s fees and all costs and expenses associated with this 

litigation; and

F. Such other relief as this Court deems just and appropriate. 

COUNT II

TITLE VII DISCRIMINATION BASED ON RACE - TERMINATION 

47. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-36 and incorporates the same by reference as 

though fully set out in Counts I and II.

48. Plaintiff is an African American female and therefore a member of a protected class 

pursuant to Title VII.

49. Plaintiff met or exceeded Defendant’s legitimate performance expectations at all 

relevant times throughout her employment. 

50. Plaintiff was terminated for allegedly violating travel and expense policies, while 

other non-African American employees in similarly situated positions did not face discipline for 

comparable violations.

51. Defendant’s announced reason for Plaintiff’s termination constituted a pretext for 

unlawful race discrimination.

52. In terminating Plaintiff’s employment, Defendant treated Plaintiff differently than 

similarly situated non-African American employees because the travel and expense policies were 

inconsistently enforced.

53. The forgoing conduct constituted unlawful race discrimination in violation of 

Plaintiff’s rights guaranteed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964.

Case: 1:20-cv-02484 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/23/20 Page 8 of 10 PageID #:8
54. The discriminatory conduct of Defendant’s agents, including Earley, was 

intentional and malicious, making punitive or exemplary damages necessary to punish him and 

deter other management employees in similar positions of authority from like misconduct.

55. Investigatory audits should not be used as discriminatory tools by Defendant’s 

agents, and make punitive or exemplary damages necessary. 

56. As a proximate result of the foregoing facts, Plaintiff has suffered the loss of her 

position, lost wages, the value of lost benefits, incidental damages, pain and suffering in the form 

of emotional distress, anxiety, embarrassment, humiliation, and loss of status and self-esteem.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court to:

A. Enter judgement finding that Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis 

of race in violation of Title VII;

B. Reinstate Plaintiff to her prior position or a comparable position;

C. Award Plaintiff damages for lost wages and employment benefits that she would 

have received but for the discriminatory acts and practices of Defendant;

D. Award Plaintiff compensatory and punitive damages in an appropriate amount;

E. Award Plaintiff attorney’s fees and all costs and expenses associated with this 

litigation; and

F. Such other relief as this Court deems just and appropriate. 

PLAINTIFF DEMANDS TRIAL BY JURY. 

Respectfully submitted,

ANNITRE EDISON

Case: 1:20-cv-02484 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/23/20 Page 9 of 10 PageID #:9
By: /s/__Jaz Park______________

Jaz Park 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

 

JAZ PARK

Attorney for Plaintiff

LAW OFFICES

CHICAGO-KENT COLLEGE OF LAW

565 W. Adams Street, Suite 600

Chicago, Illinois 60661

Tel.: (872) 588-0440

Jaz.park@kentlaw.edu

Attorney No: 6302708

RICHARD J. GONZALEZ

Attorney for Plaintiff

LAW OFFICES

CHICAGO-KENT COLLEGE OF LAW

565 West Adams Street, Suite 600

Chicago, Illinois 60661

Tel.: (312) 906-5079

rgonzale@kentlaw.iit.edu

Attorney No: 24155

Case: 1:20-cv-02484 Document #: 1 Filed: 04/23/20 Page 10 of 10 PageID #:10