Source: https://www.scribd.com/doc/58931913/Guardsman-Complaint
Timestamp: 2017-03-28 17:54:39
Document Index: 762008628

Matched Legal Cases: ['§451', '§2000', '§1981', '§626', '§216', '§2000', '§626', '§2000', '§ 630', '§2000', '§623', '§2000', '§ 623']

BrowseInterestsStay InformedCareerPersonal GrowthFiction & BiographiesHealth & FitnessLifestyleCultureBrowse byBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoin1 23
WILLIAM R. TAMAYO, #084965 JONATHAN T. PECK, #12303 (VA) LINDA ORDONIO DIXON #172830 U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY San Francisco District Office 350 The Embarcadero, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94105-1260 Telephone No. (415) 625-5654 Fax No. (415) 625-5657 Linda.Ordonio-Dixon@eeoc.gov Attorneys for Plaintiff
UNITED STATES DISTRICT NORTHERN DISTRICT
San Jose Division EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, AcL<LNO.
'~3190
Plaintiff, LLC,
Civil Rights - Employment Discrimination: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
" NATURE OF THE ACTION This action is brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of national origin, age and retaliation, and to provide appropriate relief to Inderpal N ayyar who was adversely affected by such practices. Defendant "Guardsmark, LLC, subjected Mr. Nayyar to unlawful harassment based on his national origin, East Indian and age, 66, and unlawfully retaliated against him after he opposed the unlawful harassment.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and
IDruSDICTION AND VENUE
1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706(t)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(t)(l) and (3) (Title VII), Section 102
of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U.S.c. §1981a. and Section 7(b) of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §626(b) (ADEA), which incorporates by reference Section 16(c) and 17 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), as amended, 29 U.S.c. §§216c and 217. 2. The unlawful employment practices alleged herein were committed in the State of California,
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4. 3.
in the County of Santa Clara. Venue is therefore proper In the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
This action is appropriate for assignment to the San Jose Division of this Court as the
violations alleged in the complaint took place in Santa Clara County.
Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (hereinafter EEOC) is the agency
of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII and the ADEA, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706(t)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(t)(1) and (3) and Section 7(b) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. §626(b), as amended by Section 2 of Reorganization Plan No.1 of 1978,92 Stat. 3781, and by Public Law 98532 (1984),98 Stat. 2705. 5. Defendant Guardsmark LLC (Defendant) is a Delaware Limited Liability Corporation, doing
business in the State of California, in the County of Santa Clara, and has continuously had at least 20 employees.
At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry
affecting commerce, within the meaning of Section 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e(b), (g) and (h) and Sections I 1(b), (g) and (h) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.c. §§ 630(b), (g), and (h). STATEMENT 7. OF CLAIMS
More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Charging Party Inderpal Nayyar
(''Nayyar'') filed a-charge with Plaintiff EEOC alleging violations of Title VII and the ADEA by Defendant. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 8. Since at least June of 2007, Defendant has engaged in unlawful practices of national origin
and age discrimination in violation of Section 703(a) of Title VII, 42 V.S.c. §2000e-2(a)(1) and Section 4(a), of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. §623(a), by subjecting Mr. Nayyar to a hostile, abusive, intimidating and offensive work environment due to his national origin, East Indian, and because of his age, 66. The harassment to which Mr. Nayyar was subjected was frequent and pervasive, and included, but was not limited to, constant age-biased comments that he was "too old" "too slow" and "should retire." In addition, Mr. Nayyar was repeatedly ridiculed for wearing a turban and for having an accent. He was also subjected to numerous comments that Guardsmark should not employ (East) Indians. The discriminatory comments and conduct directed towards Mr. Nayyar were deeply offensive to him and would have been offensive to a reasonable person. Mr. Nayyar made repeated complaints to Defendant's managers opposing the harassment, but no corrective action was taken. 9. In addition to the above-referenced harassment of Mr. Nayyar, Defendant engaged in
unlawful employment practices in violation of Section 704(a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.c. §2000e-3(a) and Section 4(d) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 623(d) by taking adverse employment actions against
him, in retaliation for his opposition to and rejection of the national origin and age harassment 2 referenced herein at paragraph 8. ID. The protected activity which forms the bases ofMr. Nayyar's retaliation claims includes, but
is not limited to, his repeated complaints to Defendant's management concerning his harassment as referenced in paragraph 8 above. As a result of this protected activity, Mr. Nayyar was retaliated against with adverse actions which resulted in a reduction of work hours, an involuntary transfer and lost benefits. 11. The effect of the actions complained of in paragraphs 8 through 10 above has been to deprive
Mr. Nayyar of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect his status as an
employee because of his national origin and age. 12. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 8 through 10 above were
The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraph 8 through 10 above were
done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Inderpal Nayyar. PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the EEOC respectfully requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons acting in concert or participation with Defendant, from engaging in national origin or age harassment andlor retaliation discrimination against its employees. B. Order Defendant to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which prohibit national origin and age harassment and retaliation, and which eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices. II II
C. Order Defendant to make whole Mr. Nayyar by providing appropriate back pay, an equal sum of liquidated damages, benefits, prejudgment interest and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of Defendant's unlawful employment practices, in amounts to be determined at trial. D. Order Defendant to make whole Mr. Nayyar by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the.unlawful employment practices complained of above, including but not limited to such out-of-pocket expenses as medical care necessitated by Defendant's unlawful conduct, in amounts to be determined at triaL E. Order Defendant to make whole
by providing compensation for past and future
nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of above including, but not limited to emotional pain and suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life and humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial. F. Order Defendant to pay Mr. Nayyar punitive damages for the malicious and reckless conduct described above, in amounts to be determined at trial. G. Grant such further relief as the Court may deem just and proper in the public interest. H. Award the EEOC its costs of this action.
Pursuant to the provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b), Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial.
P. DA VID LOPEZ General Counsel JAMES L. LEE Deputy General Counsel GWENDOL YN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20507 COMMISSION
Dated: June/D,
Dated: June 1Q_, 2011
Dated: June lO,2011
LINDA ORDONIO DIXON Senior Trial Attorney EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT OFFICE
More From This UserSkip carousel2011 CARB Enforcement Report2011-09-01 Stinnett v Tam - Court of Appeal Decision F057784Gavello2010 Adult and Youth Prevalence Memo_figures v2Coachella Valley Healthcare Access and Wellness Strategic Plan 2010Major Infrastructure - 2012CCCIvModestoamendedD02 County RDA Infrastructure Project AgreementMatheny Tract MOUAmicus CiproCIPROGrantCipro - petition for CA Supe Ct ReviewDMAA -- Health Canada 2011Bates v GNCWI Complaint -- HospiceGA Complaint -- HospiceRichardsonvGoldenGateAseraCare DOJ complaintCA Teen Drug Use StatsIDEA ACTBi Swat Notice of ClaimBis Was 052411 City Hall StatementGrassley Letter H1BZoe Lofgren remarks on H-1B, 3.31.11
Sign up to vote on this titleUsefulNot usefulGuardsman Complaint by bmyeung0.0 (0)EmbedDownloadRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentMore informationShow less
Related2011 CARB Enforcement Reportby bmyeung2011-09-01 Stinnett v Tam - Court of Appeal Decision F057784by bmyeungGavelloby bmyeung2010 Adult and Youth Prevalence Memo_figures v2by bmyeungCoachella Valley Healthcare Access and Wellness Strategic Plan 2010by bmyeungMajor Infrastructure - 2012by bmyeungCCCIvModestoamendedby bmyeungD02 County RDA Infrastructure Project Agreementby bmyeungMatheny Tract MOUby bmyeungAmicus Ciproby bmyeungCIPROGrantby bmyeungCipro - petition for CA Supe Ct Reviewby bmyeungDMAA -- Health Canada 2011by bmyeungBates v GNCby bmyeungWI Complaint -- Hospiceby bmyeungGA Complaint -- Hospiceby bmyeungRichardsonvGoldenGateby bmyeungAseraCare DOJ complaintby bmyeungCA Teen Drug Use Statsby bmyeungIDEA ACTby bmyeungBi Swat Notice of Claimby bmyeungBis Was 052411 City Hall Statementby bmyeungGrassley Letter H1Bby bmyeungZoe Lofgren remarks on H-1B, 3.31.11by bmyeungZL Letter to Issa April 21by bmyeungAFLCIOLetterH1Bby bmyeungInfosys Lawsuitby bmyeungSu Civil Complaintby bmyeungMore From bmyeungSkip carousel2011 CARB Enforcement Report2011-09-01 Stinnett v Tam - Court of Appeal Decision F057784Gavello2010 Adult and Youth Prevalence Memo_figures v2Coachella Valley Healthcare Access and Wellness Strategic Plan 2010Major Infrastructure - 2012CCCIvModestoamendedD02 County RDA Infrastructure Project AgreementMatheny Tract MOUAmicus CiproCIPROGrantCipro - petition for CA Supe Ct ReviewDMAA -- Health Canada 2011Bates v GNCWI Complaint -- HospiceGA Complaint -- HospiceRichardsonvGoldenGateAseraCare DOJ complaintCA Teen Drug Use StatsIDEA ACTBi Swat Notice of ClaimBis Was 052411 City Hall StatementGrassley Letter H1BZoe Lofgren remarks on H-1B, 3.31.11ZL Letter to Issa April 21AFLCIOLetterH1BInfosys LawsuitSu Civil ComplaintQ111VC Fundraising Release FINAL-Rev