Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/101150536/Lawsuit
Timestamp: 2018-01-23 16:27:02
Document Index: 85522610

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2000', '§ 1331', '§ 1343', '§ 2000', '§ 1391', '§ 1981', '§ 1981', '§ 1988']

Lawsuit | Equal Employment Opportunity Commission | Lawsuit
Uploaded by Ryan Ruggiero
Description: Chick-Fil-A Lawsuit
Case 1:12-cv-01676-RLV-AJB Document 1 Filed 05/14/12 Page 1 of 11
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION BRENDA L. HONEYCUTT, * * Plaintiff, * * v. * * CHICK-FIL-A, INC., and, * JEFF HOWARD, d/b/a * CHICK-FIL-A AT HOWELL STATION, * * Defendants. *
COMPLAINT Comes Now, Plaintiff, Brenda L. Honeycutt, and files her Complaint against the above-named Defendants on the following grounds: INTRODUCTION 1. This is an action for gender discrimination pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964), as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991. JURISDICTION 2. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343.
Case 1:12-cv-01676-RLV-AJB Document 1 Filed 05/14/12 Page 2 of 11
3. Defendants are an “employer” engaged in an industry
affecting commerce as defined by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b). 4. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant ChickFil-A, Inc. (“hereinafter referred to as Chick-Fil-A”). At
Defendant Chick-Fil-A is a for-profit Georgia corporation.
all times relevant, Defendant Chick-Fil-A operated its fast food restaurant business within the State of Georgia. 5. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Jeff Howard (“hereinafter referred to as “Howard”). Defendant is an
Owner/Operator of the Chick-Fil-A location at Howell Station in Gwinnett County, Georgia, at which he operates a Chick-Fil-A fast food restaurant. VENUE 6. Defendants operate their business within the Northern
All actions by Defendants alleged herein Venue in this
occurred within the Northern District of Georgia.
district is proper for the Defendant pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) & (c).
Case 1:12-cv-01676-RLV-AJB Document 1 Filed 05/14/12 Page 3 of 11
THE PARTIES 7. The Plaintiff is a female residing in Lawrenceville,
Gwinnett County Georgia, and is a caregiver to her children. 8. Defendant Chick-Fil-A is a for-profit Georgia corporation doing business in the Northern District of the State of Georgia and is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court. Defendant
Chick-Fil-A may be served with summons and process by service upon its registered agent, Susan Tammy Pearson, at 5200
Buffington Road, Atlanta, Fulton County, Georgia 30349. 9. Defendant Howard is a for-profit proprietor doing business in the Northern District of the State of Georgia and is subject to the jurisdiction of this Court. Defendant Howard may be
served with summons and process by service upon Jeff Howard, at 3555 Peachtree Industrial Boulevard, Duluth, Gwinnett County,
Georgia 30096. FACTS 10. Defendants operate a Chick-Fil-A fast food restaurant at 3555 Peachtree Industrial Boulevard, Duluth, Georgia 30096.
Case 1:12-cv-01676-RLV-AJB Document 1 Filed 05/14/12 Page 4 of 11
11. Defendant Chick-Fil-A performs operational decision making for Defendant Howard. 12. Defendant Chick-Fil-A performs, provides and participates in human resource, employee training, and management decision making for employees of Defendant Howard. 13. Defendant Chick-Fil-A provides employee benefits, and
policies and procedures for Defendant Howard. 14. Defendant Chick-Fil-A has financial control and interests over Defendant Howard. 15. Defendants have interrelated operations, centralized control of labor, common management, and maintain common ownership and/or financial control with one another. 16. On or about September 1, 1991, the Plaintiff began her
employment as a Team Member at the Chick-Fil-A restaurant at Howell Station.
Case 1:12-cv-01676-RLV-AJB Document 1 Filed 05/14/12 Page 5 of 11
17. On or about October of 1997, the Plaintiff was promoted to General Manager by prior management at the Chick-Fil-A restaurant at Howell Station. 18. Throughout her employment, the Plaintiff performed her
duties in a satisfactory or above manner. 19. During the Plaintiff’s employment, Defendant Howard
routinely made comments to the Plaintiff suggesting that as a mother she should stay home with her children. 20. In April of 2011, Defendant Howard hired Bill Green (male) as a General Manager. 21. In April of 2011, Defendant Howard began having management meetings with Jonathan Jurardo (male), Jimmy Guerrero (male), and Green (male), and not including the Plaintiff. 22. On or about June 27, 2011, Defendant Howard told the
Plaintiff she was terminated but he could not provide a reason.
Case 1:12-cv-01676-RLV-AJB Document 1 Filed 05/14/12 Page 6 of 11
23. On or about June 27, 2011, Defendant Howard told Connie Gravitt that he terminated the Plaintiff so she could be a stay home mother. 24. On or about June 27, 2011, Defendant Howard told Barbara Honeycutt that she was being terminated so she could be a stay home mother. 25. On or about June 27, 2011, Defendant Howard told Barbara Lord that he terminated the Plaintiff so she could be a stay home mother. 26. On or about June 27, 2011, Defendant Howard told Wendy
Blankenship that he terminated the Plaintiff so she could be a stay home mother. 27. After the Plaintiff was terminated, the Defendants replaced the Plaintiff in her position as General Manager with Green, who is not a caregiver to any children. 28. The Plaintiff was terminated because of her female gender.
Case 1:12-cv-01676-RLV-AJB Document 1 Filed 05/14/12 Page 7 of 11
29. The Defendant has engaged in a pattern of gender
discrimination against female employees. 30. Patty Fernandez (female), a former Kitchen Manager was
demoted by Defendants after she became a mother, and then later terminated, and replaced by Juan Meza (male). 31. In December of 2011, Wendy Blankenship (female) was demoted by Defendants from her position as a High Performance Leader, while the male High Performance Leaders, Jurardo and Guerrero were not demoted. 32. In November of 2011, Connie Gravitt (female) was demoted by Defendants from her position of Day Shift Manager, and replaced by Guerrero. 33. In January of 2012, Denise Owen (female) was demoted by Defendants from her position of Night Shift Manager, while the male Night Shift Manager, Samuel Germany, was not demoted. 34. In July of 2011, Penney Hinson (female) was demoted by
Defendants from her position of Team Leader.
Case 1:12-cv-01676-RLV-AJB Document 1 Filed 05/14/12 Page 8 of 11
35. The Plaintiff has been treated differently than similarlysituated employees by Defendants in the terms and conditions of her employment because of her gender, and caregiver
responsibilities. 36. Defendants have engaged in illegal discrimination against the Plaintiff because of her gender. COUNT ONE: TITLE VII - GENDER 37. Plaintiff incorporates herein paragraphs 1 through 36 of her Complaint. 38. Defendants have engaged in intentional gender discrimination in the terms and conditions of the Plaintiff’s employment,
including, but not limited to, the Plaintiff’s termination. 39. Defendants’ conduct violates Title VII. 40. On or about August 9, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a timely Charge of Discrimination alleging gender discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). (A true and
accurate copy of EEOC Charge of Discrimination # 846-2011-73377, is attached hereto as Exhibit A)
Case 1:12-cv-01676-RLV-AJB Document 1 Filed 05/14/12 Page 9 of 11
41. The Plaintiff has satisfied all statutory prerequisites for filing this action. 42. On or about February 17, 2012, the Plaintiff received her “Dismissal and Notice Of Rights” letter from the EEOC for her Charge of Discrimination. (A true and accurate copy of the EEOC “Dismissal and Notice of Rights” letter for EEOC Charge of
Discrimination # 846-2011-73377, is attached hereto as Exhibit B) 43. The Plaintiff has filed this action under Title VII within ninety (90) days after receipt of her “Notice Of Right to Sue” letter from the EEOC. 44. Defendants’ discriminatory conduct, in violation of Title VII, has caused the Plaintiff to suffer a loss of pay, benefits, and prestige. 45. Defendants’ actions have caused Plaintiff to suffer mental and emotional distress, entitling her to compensatory damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981a. 46. Defendants have engaged in discriminatory practices with
malice and reckless indifference to the Plaintiff’s federally
Case 1:12-cv-01676-RLV-AJB Document 1 Filed 05/14/12 Page 10 of 11
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981a. PRAYER FOR RELIEF 47. Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for a judgment as follows: 1. That the Court order Defendants to reinstate Plaintiff's employment; 2. That the Court grant full front pay to the Plaintiff; 3. That the Court grant full back pay to the Plaintiff; 4. That the Court grant Plaintiff compensatory damages for the humiliation, emotional distress, and other damages caused by Defendants' conduct; 5. That the Court grant Plaintiff punitive damages for
Defendants' malicious and recklessly indifferent conduct; 6. That the Court grant Plaintiff all employment benefits she would have enjoyed had she not been discriminated and retaliated against; 7. That the Court grant Plaintiff expenses of litigation, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, pursuant to the
Title VII, and/or 42 U.S.C. § 1988; 8. That the Court grant Plaintiff a jury trial; 9. That the Court grant Plaintiff all other relief the Court deems just and proper; and,
Case 1:12-cv-01676-RLV-AJB Document 1 Filed 05/14/12 Page 11 of 11
permanent injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants from engaging in further discriminatory conduct. Respectfully submitted this 14th day of May 2012. THE REDDY LAW FIRM, P.C. /s/ K. Prabhaker Reddy K. PRABHAKER REDDY Attorney at Law Georgia Bar No. 597320 Please serve: K. Prabhaker Reddy THE REDDY LAW FIRM, P.C. 1325 Satellite Boulevard Suite 1506 Suwanee, Georgia 30024 Telephone: (678) 629-3246 Facsimile: (678) 629-3247 Email: kpr@reddylaw.net
Case 1:12-cv-01676-RLV-AJB Document 1-1 Filed 05/14/12 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:12-cv-01676-RLV-AJB Document 1-2 Filed 05/14/12 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:12-cv-01676-RLV-AJB Document 1-3 Filed 05/14/12 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:12-cv-01676-RLV-AJB Document 1-3 Filed 05/14/12 Page 2 of 2
Documents Similar To Lawsuit
Human Resource Management 14th Edition Test Bank by R. Wayne Dean Mondy, Joseph J. Martocchio
Hunt v. Northland Trucking, Inc. - Document No. 4
arefelonsdiscriminatedbyemployers
40 Fair empl.prac.cas. 847, 39 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 36,084 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Ocean City Police Department, 787 F.2d 955, 4th Cir. (1986)
Helen McCray v. Corry Manufacturing Company, 61 F.3d 224, 3rd Cir. (1995)
32 Fair empl.prac.cas. 594, 32 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 33,727, 13 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 953 Dorothy M. Ezell, Ronald S. Smith and Walter Lee Mixon, Administrator of the Estate of Bettye Jo Powell Evans, Deceased v. Mobile Housing Board, 709 F.2d 1376, 11th Cir. (1983)
Ejectment - Forcible Entry.docx
34 Fair empl.prac.cas. 861, 34 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 34,296 Addie Johnson v. Al Tech Specialties Steel Corp., 731 F.2d 143, 2d Cir. (1984)
Paulette F. Campbell, Telma D. Murray v. McLean Trucking Company, 862 F.2d 313, 4th Cir. (1988)
43 Fair empl.prac.cas. 401, 42 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 36,913 Nathaniel Harvey v. City of New Bern Police Department, 813 F.2d 652, 4th Cir. (1987)
More From Ryan Ruggiero