Jefferson Circuit Court Division Judge

Transcription

1 No. KELLY BORDERS and DENA BRUMMETT v. AT&T CORPORATION Serve Registered Agent: CT Corporation System 306 W. Main Street Suite 512 Frankfort, KY Jefferson Circuit Court Division Judge PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANT package : of COMPLAINT 1. Plaintiffs Kelly Borders and Dena Brummett allege that AT&T discriminated against them on the basis of their Christian religion when it fired them after they disclosed their faith-based beliefs. Borders and Brummett were responsible for supervising a transgender employee. They treated this employee consistently with AT&T policy and, at times, more favorably than other employees. Neither Borders nor Brummett disclosed their religious opposition to transitioning from birth-assigned gender to AT&T or to this employee until forced to do so by AT&T management. Upon disclosing their religious values, AT&T terminated their employment for allegedly mishandling transgender issues. COM : of Filed 17-CI /08/2017 David L. Nicholson, Jefferson Circuit Clerk

2 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2. Borders is a resident of Lanesville, Floyd County, Indiana. 3. Brummett is a resident of Louisville, Jefferson County, Kentucky. 4. Defendant AT&T is a for-profit foreign corporation that operates a call center located in Louisville, Jefferson County, Kentucky. package : of The actions complained of herein and decisions regarding Borders and Brummett s employment with AT&T occurred in Louisville, Jefferson County, Kentucky. 6. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action and venue is proper. Plaintiffs claims involve an amount in excess of the jurisdictional limit of this Court. PARTIES 7. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Borders and Brummett were employees of AT&T as that term is defined by KRS (5). 8. At all times relevant to this Complaint, AT&T was an employer as that term is defined by KRS (2). FACTS 9. In 1989, AT&T hired Borders as a customer service representative. 10. Over the next 27 years, AT&T promoted her multiple times. Eventually, in 2007, AT&T made her the highest-ranking individual at the Louisville call center: Center Director. She held this position until her unlawful termination on or about June 1, COM : of Filed 17-CI /08/2017 David L. Nicholson, Jefferson Circuit Clerk 2

3 11. As Center Director, Borders oversaw as many as 120 employees who were responsible for (a) responding to customer calls seeking to start, end or modify their cell, telephone or cable service, (b) answering technical questions and billing questions and (c) responding to other service requests. 12. AT&T evaluated Borders and the call center s performance based on package : of objective numerical measures. When AT&T promoted Borders to Center Director the Louisville call center was ranked 27 out of 32 in the country. During Borders tenure, the call center was repeatedly ranked as the top call center in the country. 13. Throughout Borders employment she met or exceeded all performance based criteria. 14. AT&T hired Brummett as a service representative in 2002 and promoted her to Sales Coach in She reported to Borders in this position. Brummett held the Coach position from 2013 until her unlawful termination on or about June 1, As a Coach, Brummett was responsible for training new employees and working with current employees to meet their performance goals. 16. At all times relevant to this complaint, Brummett reported to Borders and Borders reported to General Manager Juan Soliz. 17. Soliz was not physically assigned to the Louisville call center, but visited the Louisville center occasionally. COM : of Filed 17-CI /08/2017 David L. Nicholson, Jefferson Circuit Clerk 3

4 18. In or around 2012, AT&T hired who then identified as as a sales associate at the Louisville call center. 19. Based on performance, Brummett added her to Brummett s work team in January Newton remained on Brummett s team until September 2014 when AT&T assigned Brummett to a new team. package : of Call center employees are evaluated based on certain objective performance metrics. was originally considered a satisfactory employee based on these measures. 21. In 2014, informed Brummett that she is transgender and would begin transitioning from male to female. asked that Brummett not tell anyone, including Borders, of this decision. 22. Approximately two months later, advised Brummett that Brummett could inform Borders of her decision to transition. 23. Borders contacted her supervisor, Geoffrey Lee, who advised her to contact AT&T s Human Resources department for advice regarding announcement. The Human Resources representative advised Borders to inform the work team of transition and further advised that should not be permitted to use the women s restroom until after surgical transition was complete. 24. In early 2015, Borders met with who advised that she would begin presenting as female in her attire and physical attributes. also advised that she was changing her first name to. She further advised COM : of Filed 17-CI /08/ David L. Nicholson, Jefferson Circuit Clerk

5 that at some point in the transition, she would begin using the women s restroom. 25. Borders continued to apprise Human Resources of the status of transition. Human Resources maintained that could not use the women s restroom until she surgically transitioned. package : of In or around June 2015, asked Borders where she purchased the skirts she wore to work. Borders provided the names of several stores that she knew sold skirts. 27. Shortly after, Human Resources contacted to report that a complaint was made about Borders response to question regarding Borders attire. Borders advised Human Resources that her husband purchases her clothing and that she provided the names of two stores in response to question. 28. Soon after this, advised Brummett that she now wished to be addressed as rather than. later sent an to her team advising them of her legal name change. Borders informed the call center s employees that should be addressed as. 29. Borders consistently referred to as throughout the rest of her employment. 30. At the same time that changed her appearance and name, her work performance on the call center s objective sales measurements substantially diminished. In addition, she repeatedly used profanity when speaking to COM : of Filed 17-CI /08/ David L. Nicholson, Jefferson Circuit Clerk

6 customers, engaged in physically hostile actions including breaking an item on her desk and started speaking to other employees and customers in a much louder and more hostile manner. 31. Borders maintained a rule prohibiting all profanity in the call center. Although Borders would normally have implemented disciplinary action package : of including suspending, Human Resources advised her to report issues with to them rather than treat her as she would any other employee. 32. Borders reported use of profanity and violent conduct to Human Resources, who failed to take any action. 33. later asked permission to use the women s restroom at work. Borders contacted Human Resources who changed their earlier advice and informed Borders that could use the women s restroom if she was presenting as female. 34. Borders advised that she could use the women s restroom. Soon after, however, other women employees complained that was in the women s restroom. 35. On the advice of Human Resources, Borders met with to discuss how to handle this issue. Borders suggested meeting with the women employees, explaining that would use the women s restroom and advising that all women in the workplace, including, could use any of the five women s restrooms in the building. confirmed that she was agreeable to this meeting. COM : of Filed 17-CI /08/ David L. Nicholson, Jefferson Circuit Clerk

7 36. Borders and a union representative met with all the call center s employees in small groups. During these meetings many employees expressed concern about sharing the restroom with. Borders and the union representative advised them to use a different restroom if they had an issue. Borders further advised Human Resources of the complaints. package : of Despite Borders efforts to smooth the transition for, made it more difficult by posting derogatory statements on social media about her colleagues. For instance, tweeted, just punked a girl out of restroom after a woman left the restroom when she found there. 38. Borders received complaints from women employees about on a daily basis. Throughout these complaints, she steadfastly maintained that had a right to use the women s restroom and that the complaining employees would have to adjust to presence. 39. Borders received ongoing complaints regarding use of profanity in the workplace. She also received a complaint that was sharing nude photos. Borders reported this conduct to Human Resources but, again, they refused to address these clear violations of policy. 40. Because AT&T would not allow Borders to implement her normal employee discipline response to policy violations with respect to, Borders simply reported violations as well as the ongoing complaints by other employees about to Human Resources. COM : of Filed 17-CI /08/ David L. Nicholson, Jefferson Circuit Clerk

8 41. Human Resources staff repeatedly asked Borders whether she personally objected to decision to transition from male to female. Borders consistently responded that her personal beliefs regarding transgender issues were irrelevant to her management of the call center. 42. Human Resources continued to demand that Borders take a personal position package : of on transition. Eventually Borders stated that her religious beliefs do not support transgender status or transitioning from one gender to another. Borders again explained that her religious beliefs did not impact her management decisions and that she treated all employees equally in accordance with company policy. 43. Borders is a member of the Branham Tabernacle, a non-denominational Christian church. The Tabernacle believes in a literal reading of the Bible and members refrain from drinking alcohol, using profanity, getting a tattoo, smoking, listening to secular music and engaging in same sex romantic relationships. Female members refrain from cutting their hair and wearing pants. 44. Borders spent over ten years supervising individuals at AT&T who do not share these beliefs while consistently meeting all of AT&T s performance measures. 45. Borders only shared her personal religious beliefs after being subjected to repeated demands that she do so from AT&T s Human Resources staff. COM : of Filed 17-CI /08/ David L. Nicholson, Jefferson Circuit Clerk

9 46. After disclosing her religious beliefs, AT&T terminated Borders for mishandling transgender issues. 47. This allegation was unsupported because Borders treated more favorably than non-transgender employees. 48. Brummett s duties included taking photographs of each call center employee package : of annually. These photographs were used for bulletin board displays in the call center throughout the year. 49. In or around March 2015, Brummett completed the task of photographing all current call center employees including. 50. In September 2015, Brummett created a bulletin board of all current employees in anticipation of a visit from a high level manager. She used the picture of taken during the annual photo session six months earlier. 51. became upset because the photograph was pre-transition and lodged a complaint against Brummett. 52. When notified of concern, Brummett immediately apologized, took a new photograph, and replaced the older photograph of. 53. Like Borders, AT&T s Human Resources staff repeatedly demanded that Brummett disclose her personal beliefs regarding decision to transition. 54. Brummett eventually stated that as a Christian she did not approve of individuals transitioning from the gender assigned at birth. COM : of Filed 17-CI /08/ David L. Nicholson, Jefferson Circuit Clerk

10 55. Subsequent to this forced disclosure, AT&T terminated Brummett s employment for mishandling transgender issues based on the bulletin board issue in September 2015, despite the fact that this allegation had no factual basis. 56. Borders and Brummett were terminated based on their religious beliefs in package : of violation of KRS 344, et seq. CLAIM ONE Violation of KRS 344, et seq. 57. AT&T terminated Border s and Brummett s employment because of their religious beliefs in violation of KRS AT&T s unlawful conduct caused Borders and Brummett to suffer harm in the form of lost wages and benefits, pain and suffering, mental and emotional anguish and other damages in an amount to be determined by a jury at trial. 59. Borders and Brummett are also entitled to attorney s fees and costs pursuant to KRS WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, by counsel, requests that this Court provide a trial by jury on all claims so triable and grant judgment against the Defendant for: 1. Compensatory damages; 2. Equitable relief, including reinstatement; 3. Attorney fees and costs; and, 4. All other relief to which Plaintiff is entitled. COM : of Filed 17-CI /08/2017 David L. Nicholson, Jefferson Circuit Clerk 10

11 Respectfully submitted, CRAIG HENRY PLC /s/ Michele Henry Michele D. Henry 239 South Fifth Street Suite 1400 Louisville, KY Ph: (502) Fax: (502) COM : of package : of Filed 17-CI /08/2017 David L. Nicholson, Jefferson Circuit Clerk 11