Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/212461515/EEOC-Lawsuit-Against-Wal-Mart
Timestamp: 2015-07-08 01:10:33
Document Index: 134524235

Matched Legal Cases: ['art04', '§ 451', '§ 626', '§ 216', '§12117', '§ 2000', '§1981', '§ 626', '§ 12117', '§ 2000', '§ 630', '§ 12111', '§ 12111', '§ 2000', '§ 12111', '§ 626', '§ 12117', 'art 1', 'art 2']

P. 1EEOC Lawsuit Against Wal-MartEEOC Lawsuit Against Wal-MartRatings: (0)|Views: 2,300|Likes: 0Published by CBS11Keller man & EEOC have filed lawsuit against Wal-Mart for age, disability discrimination.Keller man & EEOC have filed lawsuit against Wal-Mart for age, disability discrimination.More info:Published by: CBS11 on Mar 14, 2014Copyright:Attribution Non-commercialAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee moreSee lesshttps://www.scribd.com/doc/212461515/EEOC-Lawsuit-Against-Wal-Mart04/29/2014pdftextoriginal COMPLAINT 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY § COMMISSION, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § Civil Action No. § WALMART STORES OF TEXAS, L.L.C. § COMPLAINT AND § JURY TRIAL DEMAND § Defendant. § ____________________________________ §
This is an action under Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, (ADEA) and Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended, (ADA) to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of age and disability and to provide appropriate relief to David Moorman who was adversely affected by such practices. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the “Commission”) alleges that Defendant, Walmart Stores of Texas, L.L.C. (“Defendant”) discriminated against David Moorman in violation of the ADEA by subjecting him to harassment that created a hostile work environment, and by terminating him because of his age. The Commission further alleges that Defendant discriminated against David Moorman in violation of the ADA by failing or refusing to provide him with a reasonable accommodation. 1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 7(b) of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 626(b) (the “ADEA”), JURISDICTION AND VENUE
!"#$ &'()*+,*--.-/*0 12+34$56 ( 789$: -&;(<;() =">$ ( 2? / =">$@1 (
COMPLAINT 2 which incorporates by reference Sections 16 and 17 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 216 and 217. This action is also authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 107(a) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), as amended, 42 U.S.C. §12117(a), which incorporates by reference Sections 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) and pursuant to Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §1981a. 2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. 3. Plaintiff, the Commission, is an agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of the ADEA and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 7(b) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 626(b), as amended by Section 2 of Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1978, 92 Stat. 3781, and by Public Law 98-532 (1984), 98 Stat. 2705. The Commission is also charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title I of the ADA, as amended, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by
Section 107(a) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a), which incorporates by reference Sections 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1). PARTIES
4. At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously been doing business in the State of Texas and the City of Keller and has continuously had at least twenty (20) employees. 5. At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce under Section 11(b), (g) and (h) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 630(b), (g) and (h). Defendant has also continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting !"#$ &'()*+,*--.-/*0 12+34$56 ( 789$: -&;(<;() =">$ < 2? / =">$@1 <
COMPLAINT 3 commerce under Section 101(5) of the ADA, as amended, 42 U.S.C.§ 12111(5), and Section 101(7) of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12111(7), which incorporates by reference Sections 701(g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(g) and (h). At all relevant times, Defendant has been a covered entity under Section 101(2) of the ADA, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 12111(2). 6. Prior to institution of this lawsuit, the Commission’s representatives attempted to CONCILIATION eliminate the unlawful employment practice alleged below and to effect voluntary compliance with the ADEA and the ADA through informal methods of conciliation, conference and persuasion within the meaning of Section 7(b) of the ADEA, 29 U.S.C. § 626(b), and Title I of the ADA, 42 USC § 12117(a), which incorporates the conciliation provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. 7. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, David Moorman filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations of the ADEA and Title I of the ADA by Defendant. 8. On February 12, 2013, EEOC issued to Defendant a Letter of Determination finding reasonable cause to believe that the ADA and the ADEA were violated and inviting Defendant to join with the EEOC in informal methods of conciliation. 9. EEOC endeavored to eliminate the unlawful employment practices through informal conciliation methods, but was unable to secure from Defendant a conciliation agreement acceptable to the Commission. 10. EEOC issued to Defendant a Notice of Conciliation Failure on December 13, 2013. 11. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. !"#$ &'()*+,*--.-/*0 12+34$56 ( 789$: -&;(<;() =">$ & 2? / =">$@1 &
More From This UserConstruction ContractCBS11DPA Letter to the MayorCBS11Collect Pros Letter - Part 1CBS11Collect Pros Letter - Part 2CBS11Grassroots Advicory Board Letter Opposes Pre-KCBS11Fans Sue Texas A & M Over Football SeatsCBS11Justice Hull FINAL (2)CBS11Authorization of FundsCBS11Taser International-Halstead EmailsCBS11Nina Pham LawsuitCBS112011 Police ReportCBS11D-1-DC-14-100139_4182CBS11D-1-DC-14-100139_4175CBS11NFL LawsuitCBS11Search Warrant In Disappearance of Christina MorrisCBS11Letter From Navarro CollegeCBS11Perry motion for Immediate Transcription of Grand Jury TestimonyCBS11GPS Alerts May 2014CBS11Wilson ReportCBS11bus crash CBS11Dansby Letter 2CBS11Dansby BreakdownCBS11JANA WECKERLY vs. JERRY JONES, AND DALLAS COWBOYS FOOTBALL CLUB LTD.CBS11Galbraith v H2H Academy - FinalCBS11Flower Mound 2014 Cancer ReportCBS11