Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/336127240/Appling-Amended-Complaint
Timestamp: 2017-01-18 00:14:37
Document Index: 432266642

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1331', '§ 2000', '§ 1391', '§ 791', '§ 2000', '§ 2000', '§ 2000', 'art 05', 'art 05', 'art 05']

BrowseInterestsBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipFiction & LiteraturePolitics & EconomyHealth & WellnessSociety & CultureHappiness & Self-HelpMystery, Thriller & CrimeHistoryYoung AdultBrowse byBooksAudiobooksArticlesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinCase 3:16-cv-00105-MMD-WGC Document 38 Filed 01/09/17 Page 1 of 111
Arthur L. Williams, Bar No. 2125
3190 Westwind Rd.
(702) 873-6236
artkente@embarqmail.com
Willie W. Williams, Bar No. 233902 (CA Bar No.)
9327 Fairway View Place, Suite 104
(909) 586-9380 (facsimile)
www@williewilliamslaw.com
DISTRICT OF NEVADA – RENO DIVISION
ARMAND APPLING, an individual,
SAVING AMERICA’S MUSTANGS, a
Nevada corporation, DEL MAR
COUNTRY CLUB, INC., a Delaware
corporation, MADELEINE PICKENS, an
) Case No.: 3:16-cv-00105-MMD-WGC
This is a civil action seeking monetary and injunctive relief for violation of
federal civil rights laws. Plaintiff hereby alleges the following:
Case 3:16-cv-00105-MMD-WGC Document 38 Filed 01/09/17 Page 2 of 11
JURISDICTION, VENUE AND LEGAL BASIS FOR THIS ACTION
This Court possesses jurisdiction to entertain this matter pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1331 because Plaintiff’s claims arise under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
42 U.S.C. § 2000e et. seq.
Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 since
“a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim[s] occurred” in Nevada.
Plaintiff Armand Appling (“Plaintiff” or “Mr. Appling”), who is an
African-American man, was employed as a chef in Elko County, Nevada.
Defendant Saving America’s Mustangs (“SAM”) is a Nevada
corporation. SAM is an organization that operates Mustang Monument, a wild horse resort.
SAM operates its business in Elko County, Nevada.
Del Mar Country Club, Inc. (“DEL MAR”) is a Delaware corporation.
Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that DEL MAR is a company
affiliated with SAM, with business operations in Elko County, Nevada and San Diego County,
California. DEL MAR operates the Del Mar Country Club in Rancho Santa Fe, California.
DEL MAR is no longer a party to this action.
Defendant SAM and DEL MAR employed Plaintiff, shared Plaintiff’s
services, shared direct or indirect control over Plaintiff, and acted in the interest of one another.
Thus, they do constitute a joint employer as defined by relevant U.S. Department of Labor
Regulations. 29 C.F.R. § 791.2.
Plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies.
He filed timely
administrative charges of discrimination against Defendant with U.S. Equal Employment
The EEOC issued a Notice of Right-To-Sue on November 30, 2015. A
true and correct copy of the EEOC Right-To-Sue Letter is attached as Exhibit 1 and is
Case 3:16-cv-00105-MMD-WGC Document 38 Filed 01/09/17 Page 3 of 11
In approximately January 2012, Mr. Appling began working for Del Mar
County Club, Inc., as a sous chef. DEL MAR is an exclusive country club in Rancho Santa Fe,
California. Mr. Appling was the only African-American employee working at this location.
While working for DEL MAR, Mr. Appling was approached by owner Madeleine Pickens, who
is Caucasian, to become the lead chef at her new location, SAM, for a five-month period
beginning May 1, 2014. Mr. Appling expected to return to his position at DEL MAR following
this assignment at SAM.
During the months of March and April 2014, Mr. Appling began
preparing for his new assignment. Mr. Appling’s preparation included cooking sample meals
for Ms. Pickens.
During this time frame, Ms. Pickens told Mr. Appling “I don’t want you
to cook white people food, I want you to cook black people food.” She then began to describe
fried chicken, BBQ ribs, mashed potatoes, and corn bread. For at least two reasons, these
comments were offensive to Mr. Appling based on his race. First, the phrase “black people
food” describes food by skin color instead of by ethnic or national origin. For example, most
Americans use terms such as “Mexican Food” and “Chinese Food” to describe foods eaten in
that region of the world; they do not refer to the food by skin color. The meaning of “Black
people food” is also unclear: Does it mean food that Africans eat? Does it mean Caribbean
food? Moreover, it is not a proper term for the food that Ms. Pickens described because, in a
professional setting, she should have referenced “Soul Food” or African-American cuisine.
Second, the type of food described was based on stereotypes of African-Americans eating
certain foods such as fried chicken and BBQ ribs.
During this same time frame, Mr. Appling asked Ms. Pickens her
thoughts on the food he had prepared the previous day and she told him “it’s perfect for the
Case 3:16-cv-00105-MMD-WGC Document 38 Filed 01/09/17 Page 4 of 11
ranch, you just need to use less salt. I know that’s hard for you since it’s in your genetics to eat
salty food.” This statement was offensive because it is makes a comment based on the genetic
predisposition of African-Americans to a particular behavior. Suggesting that persons of a
racial group are predisposed to certain behaviors is offensive, particularly when the statement is
On or about May 1, 2014, Mr. Appling started his position as lead chef at
SAM. At that time, Mr. Appling was still an employee of DEL MAR and was expecting to
return upon completion of his assignment.
Mr. Appling soon witnessed Ms. Pickens engage in discriminatory acts
and harassment towards African-American members of his kitchen staff, Jeremy Bodle and
Sylvia Mayo. In speaking to Mr. Appling, Ms. Pickens would frequently refer to Mr. Bodle as
her “ox” or “bull” because of the manual labor she would assign to him. Mr. Appling, based on
his race, was offended by these references. First, Mr. Appling was offended because Ms.
Pickens referred to Mr. Bodle, an African-American, as “her” ox or bull, which implies
ownership of property. This reference is particularly offensive to African-Americans because of
America’s history of slavery where they were considered personal property of their owners.
Second, it is offensive because, throughout American history, African-Americans have been
referred to as various types of animals, including an ox or bull, in a derogatory manner.
On or about May 18, 2014, Ms. Pickens and Monty Heath, property
manager, told Mr. Appling to discipline Ms. Mayo for being “loud” and Mr. Bodle for not
working hard enough. Ms. Pickens also told Mr. Appling that Ms. Mayo would be better off
working as a housekeeper at the ranch (instead of assisting Mr. Appling). Mr. Appling found
this comment offensive because of the historical context of African-American women being
forced to work as housekeepers and related racial stereotypes.
Case 3:16-cv-00105-MMD-WGC Document 38 Filed 01/09/17 Page 5 of 11
Several hours after making these comments, Ms. Pickens instructed Mr.
Appling to terminate Mr. Bodle and Ms. Mayo. Ms. Pickens told Mr. Appling “they don’t look
like the people we have at the county club” and “they did not fit the image” of the staff she
wanted at SAM. Ms. Pickens was referring to their racial background.
The next day, Ms. Pickens told Mr. Appling “I had to get rid of Sylvia,
she has too much personality. We already have one of you.” Ms. Pickens was referring to Mr.
Appling and his race when she made the comment. Mr. Appling was particularly disturbed by
Ms. Pickens’ reference to an African-American colleague as “one of you.” This is offensive
because Mr. Appling understood Ms. Pickens to mean that “one of you” referred to Mr.
Appling’s and Sylvia’s race. Throughout American history, when a non-African-American
referred to an African-American as “you” or “you people” it implies that we are not all equal as
Americans. This is offensive speech.
Furthermore, Ms. Pickens asked Mr. Appling: “How could you hire those
people? They don’t look like the people we have at the country club.” Ms. Pickens also asked
Mr. Appling: “Why would you bring people like that here?” By directing this comment at an
African-American, Ms. Pickens was reinforcing a long history of African-Americans not being
allowed into elite private club settings like DEL MAR. Mr. Appling was well aware that there
were no other African-Americans on staff at DEL MAR and that he had never met an African-
American member. With the proper context, these comments are plainly offensive to Mr.
Appling and would be offensive to other African-Americans.
That same day, Ms. Pickens continued her offensive behavior. While Mr.
Appling plated dinner, Ms. Pickens threw trash at him and said “Here, you take this out.” This
behavior is outside the bounds of a normal employee-employer relationship. Throwing trash at
an employee is dehumanizing and, given Ms. Pickens’ other racially motivated comments, has
Case 3:16-cv-00105-MMD-WGC Document 38 Filed 01/09/17 Page 6 of 11
On several occasions, Mr. Appling complained to Mr. Heath about the
mistreatment directed at him as an African-American. Mr. Heath did not take the workplace
complaint seriously and told Mr. Appling that it was a “learning experience.” He did nothing to
address the racially motivated behavior.
During his tenure at SAM, Mr. Appling also complained, on numerous
occasions by phone, to Tommy DiMella, chef at DEL MAR, about the harassing behavior. At
DEL MAR, Mr. DiMella supervised all kitchen staff, including Mr. Appling. Mr. DiMella
remained in frequent contact with Mr. Appling, as he continued to provide work-related
direction to Mr. Appling.
Defendant’s continuous wrongful acts and intolerable work environment
led to Mr. Appling’s constructive discharge on or about May 19, 2014. Following his formal
departure, Mr. Appling expected to return to work at DEL MAR; however, on or about May 22,
2014, Beth House, Accountant/Director, told Mr. Appling that he was terminated from DEL
MAR because of what occurred at SAM.
During the course of his employment, Ms. Pickens, who owns and is
President of both SAM and DEL MAR, ran the operations of both as a single entity, with
significant overlap in operations and personnel.
including hiring and payroll, were run by DEL MAR and its employees. The DEL MAR
employees instructed Mr. Appling on issues relating, among other things, to accounting, hiring,
The administrative operations for SAM,
and payroll. In addition, Mr. Appling took instructions from Mr. DiMella on numerous workrelated issues. Prior to leaving for Nevada, Mr. Appling performed work for SAM at the DEL
MAR location, while he was on the payroll of DEL MAR. The interests of the two entities were
so intertwined that when Mr. Appling was constructively discharged from SAM, he was also
terminated from DEL MAR.
Case 3:16-cv-00105-MMD-WGC Document 38 Filed 01/09/17 Page 7 of 11
(Unlawful Discrimination and Discharge on the Basis of Race
in Violation of Title VII)
Plaintiff re-alleges, and incorporates by reference as if fully set forth
herein, paragraphs 1 through 23 above.
Defendant’s conduct, by and through management and employees, as
herein alleged violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1),
which makes unlawful discrimination against employees on the basis of race or color.
Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff in violation of Title VII when it
engaged in the following non-exclusive list of acts: (1) subjected Plaintiff to offensive
comments regarding race; (2) subjected Plaintiff to discriminatory acts towards other African-
American members of his staff; (3) forced Plaintiff to discipline and terminate African-
American members of his staff; (4) had trash thrown at him by Ms. Pickens; (5) constructively
discharged Plaintiff from his assignment at SAM; and (6) terminated Plaintiff from DEL MAR.
Other similarly situated applicants and/or employees, who were non-African-American, were
not treated in this manner. Ms. Pickens hired numerous other individuals who were Caucasian
to work at SAM and they were not the subject of derogatory comments and mistreatment based
As a proximate result of Defendant’s discriminatory acts, Plaintiff has
suffered losses in compensation, earning capacity, humiliation, mental anguish, and emotional
distress. As a result of those actions and consequent harms, Plaintiff has suffered such damages
Defendant’s unlawful actions were intentional, willful, malicious and/or
done with reckless regard for Plaintiff’s rights.
Plaintiff requests relief as described in the Prayer for Relief.
Case 3:16-cv-00105-MMD-WGC Document 38 Filed 01/09/17 Page 8 of 11
(Harassment in Violation of Title VII)
herein alleged violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et. seq.,
which requires Defendant to refrain from harassing against any employee, on the basis of race,
Defendant subjected Plaintiff to a continuous pattern of harassment by,
among other things, singling him out with the following derogatory comments: (1) “I don’t
want you to cook white people food, I want you to cook black people food;” (2) “You just need
to use less salt, I know it’s hard for you since it’s in your genetics to eat salty food;” (3) “I had
to get rid of Sylvia, she has too much personality. We already have one of you;” (4) “How could
you hire those people? They don’t look like the people we have at the country club;” and (5)
“They did not fit the image.” The details of those comments are provided in paragraphs 10
As a proximate result of Defendant’s harassment, Plaintiff has suffered
losses in compensation, earning capacity, humiliation, mental anguish, and emotional distress.
As a result of those actions and consequent harms, Plaintiff has suffered such damages in an
Case 3:16-cv-00105-MMD-WGC Document 38 Filed 01/09/17 Page 9 of 11
herein alleged violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et. seq.
As explained above, Mr. Appling, on several occasions, complained to
Mr. Heath and Mr. DiMella about Ms. Pickens’ mistreatment of him based on his race.
Defendant retaliated against Mr. Appling because he complained about
the unlawful acts, by (1) ignoring Plaintiff’s complaints and telling him it was a “learning
experience”; (2) continuously subjecting Plaintiff to illegal acts; (3) constructively discharging
him from SAM; and (4) terminating Plaintiff from DEL MAR. The complaints were almost
immediately followed by an escalation in mistreatment by Ms. Pickens, Mr. Appling’s
constructive discharge from SAM, and Mr. Appling’s termination from DEL MAR. This
temporal association underscores that the cause of the terminations was Mr. Appling’s
complaints about disparate treatment.
As a proximate result of Defendant’s retaliation, Plaintiff has suffered
Plaintiff requests relief as described in the Prayer for Relief
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff pray for relief on all causes of action against Defendant and
each of them as follows:
Enter declaratory judgment that the practices complained of in this complaint are
unlawful and violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964;
Case 3:16-cv-00105-MMD-WGC Document 38 Filed 01/09/17 Page 10 of 11
Grant all injunctive relief necessary to bring Defendant into compliance with the
aforementioned laws;
Order Defendant to pay the wages, salary, employment benefits, and other
compensation denied or lost to Plaintiff to date by reason of Defendant’s unlawful actions, in
the amount to be proven at trial;
Order Defendant to pay compensatory damages;
Order Defendant to pay Plaintiff for his emotional pain and suffering, in the
Order Defendant to pay exemplary and punitive damages;
Order Defendant to pay attorneys’ fees and costs of the action;
Order Defendant to pay interest at the legal rate on such damages as appropriate,
including pre- and post-judgment interest; and
Grant any further relief that the Court deems just and proper.
__/s/ Willie W. Williams_____
Case 3:16-cv-00105-MMD-WGC Document 38 Filed 01/09/17 Page 11 of 11
Armand Appling v. Saving America’s Mustangs, a Nevada corporation; Del Mar Country Club,
Inc., a Delaware corporation; and Madeleine Pickens, an individual.
I am employed in the County of San Bernardino, State of California. I am over the age of
18 years and am not a party to the within action; my business address is The Law Offices of Willie
W. Williams, 9327 Fairway View Place, Ste. 104, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730.
On January 9, 2017, I served the following document(s) described AMENDED COMPLAINT
on interested parties in this action by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes as
Dora V. Lane, Esq.
Ricardo N. Cordova, Esq.
rncordova@hollandhart.com
mfilipas@hollandhart.com
(BY U.S. Mail) I am readily familiar with my employer’s business practice for collection
and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. I am
aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation
date or postage meter is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. I
deposited such envelope(s) with postage thereon fully prepaid to be placed in the United
States Mail at Rancho Cucamonga, CA.
(BY ELECTRONIC MAIL (PDF)) I caused such documents(s) to be sent by electronic
mail as a PDF attachment to the email address listed above.
(By Personal Service) I caused to be delivered by hand on the interested parties in this
action by transmitting the above referenced documents to a qualified courier representative
from First Legal Services in envelope addressed to the office of the addressee(s) listed above
or on attached sheet.
(By Facsimile) I served a true and correct copy by facsimile pursuant to C.C.P. 1013(e),
calling for agreement and written confirmation of that agreement or court order, to the
number(s) listed above or on attached sheet. Said transmission was reported complete and
(By Overnight Courier) Served the above referenced document(s) enclosed in a sealed
package, for collection and for delivery marked for next day delivery in the ordinary course
of business, addressed to the office of the addressee(s) listed above or on attached sheet.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the Unites States that the foregoing is
true and correct, and that this declaration was executed on January 9, 2017
_/s/ Surina Ramirez
Case 3:16-cv-00105-MMD-WGC Document 38-1 Filed 01/09/17 Page 1 of 3
Case 3:16-cv-00105-MMD-WGC Document 38-1 Filed 01/09/17 Page 2 of 3
Case 3:16-cv-00105-MMD-WGC Document 38-1 Filed 01/09/17 Page 3 of 3
More From This UserMathews v HarrisOrder Jim Hanson & CSP2017.01.09 [the Blaze] Order Granting the Blaze and Beck's Anti-Slapp Mt...Martin 10-Day Charge LtrBackpage Report 2017.01.10 FINALCalifornia Assembly Bill 1687IMDb Motion for Preliminary InjunctionWhite v PaulyHillary R. Clinton Part 05Hernandez v AlfordTelsa LawsuitTexas Transgender TRO — 46 Page OrderRun DMC Walmart lawsuit complaintalexsey-belanEvgeniy Mikhailovich BogachevBurke Ramsey Complaint vs CBS Et AlVersace Racist Code Lawsuit Complaint OCRAaaron Farrer v. Indiana University complaintBarrett v. Claycomb Linn State Technical CollegeGertie v Karis ComplaintEpstein 7thCirc 122016John Doe v GoogleMicheal+Baca+Elector+OathMicheal+Baca+Elector+Oath.pdf
Appling - Amended Complaint by LawNewz441 viewsEmbedDownloadDescriptionRacial Discrimination lawsuit refiled against Madeline Pickens, ex-wife of T. Boone PickensRacial Discrimination lawsuit refiled against Madeline Pickens, ex-wife of T. Boone Pickens Interests: DamagesRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: © All Rights ReservedDownload as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentShow moreShow less
RelatedHernandez v Alfordby LawNewzHillary R. Clinton Part 05by LawNewzSample Request for Judicial Notice for Californiaby Stan BurmanDefendant City's Reply to Plaintiff’s Non-opposition to Defendants Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint 02-27-15 (m130393)by L. A. PatersonMustoe, et al v. Bayer Corporation - Document No. 18by Justia.com02843789-Page0-2by IralistyaTrial Requestby soyjairoManchester Caseby Gissy GaudielGoogle Inc. v. American Blind & Wallpaper Factory, Inc. - Document No. 168by Justia.com08-03-28 Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) US District Court, Central District of California,Dkt #020 Request for Judicial Notice filed by the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angelesby Human Rights Alert, NGOBus Org 1st Case Compilationby Natasha MilitarRULE 111 Rules of Courtby shevwitchRebecca Steed Re Letters to Bradley Manning at Fort Leavenworthby mary engThe Tale of Two Kingdoms - OSI analogyby Gabriel GalangJobswire.com Resume of Smithtown212by api-239038302002 Casesby Gi Dela CruzFink v. Municipality of Anchorage, Alaska (2016)by Scribd Government DocsSetting server mail rulesby bkiran633Fink v. Municipality of Anchorage, Alaska (2016)by Scribd Government DocsHow to Increase Mailing Productivityby NeopostUKRitu Project1by Mukesh Manwani2nd Rnd Recitby Jm Cruz2015 Merdeka Order Formby www.tuitionking7637Bradley v. Google, Inc. et al - Document No. 23by Justia.com116642-2007-Cruz_v._Minaby MikhoYabut1997 Rules of Civil Procedure - Howard Chanby Jonathan GoodwinBill Sunday Blairby chechi10Parrish et al v. National Football League Players Incorporated - Document No. 138by Justia.comSimilar to Appling - Amended ComplaintHernandez v AlfordHillary R. Clinton Part 05Sample Request for Judicial Notice for CaliforniaDefendant City's Reply to Plaintiff’s Non-opposition to Defendants Demurrer to Plaintiff's Complaint 02-27-15 (m130393)Mustoe, et al v. Bayer Corporation - Document No. 1802843789-Page0-2Trial RequestManchester CaseGoogle Inc. v. American Blind & Wallpaper Factory, Inc. - Document No. 16808-03-28 Zernik v Connor et al (2:08-cv-01550) US District Court, Central District of California,Dkt #020 Request for Judicial Notice filed by the Superior Court of California, County of Los AngelesBus Org 1st Case CompilationRULE 111 Rules of CourtRebecca Steed Re Letters to Bradley Manning at Fort LeavenworthThe Tale of Two Kingdoms - OSI analogyJobswire.com Resume of Smithtown2122002 CasesFink v. Municipality of Anchorage, Alaska (2016)Setting server mail rulesFink v. Municipality of Anchorage, Alaska (2016)How to Increase Mailing ProductivityRitu Project12nd Rnd Recit2015 Merdeka Order FormBradley v. Google, Inc. et al - Document No. 23116642-2007-Cruz_v._Mina1997 Rules of Civil Procedure - Howard ChanBill Sunday BlairParrish et al v. National Football League Players Incorporated - Document No. 138In Coming Mail10000021572Appling - Amended Complaint