Courthouse News Service

Transcription

1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE JILRIALE LYLE, Plaintiff, v. No. THE CATO CORPORATION, Defendant. COMPLAINT Comes now the Plaintiff, Jilriale Lyle, by and through counsel, and would sue the Defendant, The Cato Corporation, as follows: JURISDICTION 1. The Plaintiff, Jilriale Lyle, is a citizen and resident of Nashville, Davidson County, Tennessee and is an African American female. 2. The Defendant, The Cato Corporation (hereinafter Cato ), is a foreign corporation organized under the laws of the State of North Carolina authorized to do business in Tennessee with a retail store in Antioch, Davidson County, Tennessee, where this cause of action arose. 3. Jurisdiction is based upon Federal Statute 42 U.S.C and the Tennessee Human Rights Act (TENN. CODE ANN et. seq.) due to the diversity of citizenship of Courthouse News Service the parties. The Plaintiff seeks $500, in damages. Jurisdiction is further based upon Federal Statute 28 U.S.C. 1332(a) as the parties are residents of differing states. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(a)(2) as a substantial part of the events giving rise to this lawsuit arose in this District. 1 Case 3:09-cv Document 1 Filed 04/08/2009 Page 1 of 7

2 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 4. Plaintiff was employed as a first assistant manager by Defendant Cato since November, 2007, working at the Antioch store located at 819 Hamilton Crossing, Antioch, TN Plaintiff worked over thirty (30) hours per week for Defendant while attending school full-time at Middle Tennessee State University. 6. On or about July, 2008, Defendant hired Lori Manna (hereinafter Manna ), a white store manager, to run the Antioch location where Plaintiff worked. Manna was Plaintiff s direct supervisor. 7. Subsequent to her taking the role of store manager, Manna began making repeated demeaning comments with regard to African Americans. Her comments were of the racial stereotype variety and often were directed specifically at Plaintiff. 8. Manna regularly and frequently used such language in the direct presence of Plaintiff and other employees of the store. Said comments included, but are not limited to, statements such as: I didn t know black girls liked Starbucks; I don t trust black people; Most black people don t have to pay taxes; You don t sound like a typical black girl you sound like a white girl; You love your fried chicken; I guess you re happy now that Obama won, I guess you think everything s going to change; black pregnant girls waste taxpayer dollars; blacks are lazy; get in the unemployment line with the rest of the blacks; I don t want to work two (2) blacks together because they get lazy; and other racially discriminatory invective that is too voluminous to list herein. 9. Manna made employment decisions and managerial decisions based solely upon the race of the person with whom she dealt. If African-American prospective employees sought 2 Case 3:09-cv Document 1 Filed 04/08/2009 Page 2 of 7

3 employment with Defendant, Manna would deny interviews while granting interviews to white prospective employees the same day. 10. Manna would have her employees closely monitor African-American customers while they shopped at Defendant s store while not monitoring white customers. 11. Manna told Plaintiff that she needed more white employees, because too many black employees would scare away the customers. 12. Plaintiff objected to the continued racist comments made by Manna as they were made, but Manna would respond by saying, Oh, it doesn t have anything to do with you. I really love you, or don t take it the wrong way, you re not like most blacks. 13. Plaintiff made complaints to the district manager, Desiree Hillis, about the racist language on or about November, Ms. Hillis cut off Plaintiff during her report, stating that Plaintiff was taking the comments the wrong way. Hillis further stated she would speak with Manna about it, and refused to speak with Plaintiff further. 14. Subsequent to the complaint, there was no change in the substance or frequency of the racist language coming from Manna. However, Manna began to take unfounded disciplinary actions against Plaintiff in retaliation for her complaint to Ms. Hillis. 15. On or about March 6, 2009, Manna demoted Plaintiff and cut her hours. 16. On or about March 18, 2009, another new white assistant manager pushed Plaintiff into a wall and stated, I m not scared of you, Lori told me about you and she doesn t like you and I don t like you either. The same day, Plaintiff was suspended indefinitely. 17. Plaintiff complained to Human Resources, who despite being told that Plaintiff needs to work or find another job, stated that Plaintiff s suspension was without pay. 3 Case 3:09-cv Document 1 Filed 04/08/2009 Page 3 of 7

4 CAUSES OF ACTION 42 U.S.C Plaintiff avers that the conduct set forth hereinabove establishes a violation of 42 U.S.C et seq., in that the Defendant intentionally discriminated against the Plaintiff upon the basis of her race. Plaintiff was denied the right to work in an environment free from racial discrimination. 19. Defendant created a hostile environment for Plaintiff based on Plaintiff s race. Defendant then retaliated against Plaintiff resulting in a demotion, then lost hours and eventually a constructive discharge where Plaintiff has no hours to work and is on unpaid leave. Plaintiff was denied the full rights and benefits of her employment due to her race. 20. Plaintiff hereby adopts all of the factual allegations set forth in the foregoing TENN. CODE ANN (Tennessee Human Rights Act) 21. Defendant created a hostile environment for Plaintiff based on Plaintiff s race. Defendant then retaliated against Plaintiff resulting in a demotion, then lost hours and eventually a constructive discharge where Plaintiff has no hours to work and is on unpaid leave. 22. Plaintiff avers that the conduct set forth hereinabove establishes a violation of Tennessee Code Annotated et seq., in that the Defendant discriminated in the workplace against the Plaintiff upon the basis of her race. 23. Plaintiff hereby adopts all of the factual allegations set forth in the foregoing 4 Case 3:09-cv Document 1 Filed 04/08/2009 Page 4 of 7

5 TENN. CODE ANN et seq. (Retaliation) 24. Defendant cannot willfully retaliate or discriminate in any manner against a person because such person has opposed a practice declared discriminatory by the Tennessee Human Rights Act. TENN. CODE ANN et seq. 25. Plaintiff avers that the conduct set forth hereinabove establishes a violation of Tennessee Code Annotated et seq., in that the Defendant retaliated against the Plaintiff by taking adverse employment actions against her due to her opposition of discriminatory practices within her workplace. 26. Plaintiff hereby adopts all of the factual allegations set forth in the foregoing TENN. CODE ANN et seq. (Hostile Work Environment) 27. Defendant cannot discharge or otherwise discriminate against Plaintiff, an African-American with respect to compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment because of her race. 28. Defendant s discriminatory conduct with regard to Plaintiff was sufficiently severe or pervasive such that it altered the conditions of Plaintiff s employment and created an abusive working environment. 29. As such, Plaintiff avers that she endured a hostile work environment and said condition resulted in her discharge from employment. 30. Plaintiff hereby adopts all of the factual allegations set forth in the foregoing 5 Case 3:09-cv Document 1 Filed 04/08/2009 Page 5 of 7

6 DAMAGES 31. Plaintiff seeks damages pursuant to the Tennessee Human Rights Act and 42 U.S.C. 1981, including all compensatory damages available for embarrassment and humiliation, emotional injuries, and loss of sleep and anxiety. Plaintiff further seeks damages for lost earnings, including front and back pay and lost future income. Plaintiff additionally seeks punitive damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1981, which is in the discretion of the trier of fact and as provided by statutory authority and case law. 32. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend her complaint to add any and all damages claims she may have available under Title VII, after the EEOC is notified and a right to sue letter has been issued. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff respectfully prays: 1. That proper process issue against the Defendant requiring the Defendant to answer in the time provided by law; 2. That after the discovery process, this case be heard on its merits; 3. For Five Hundred Thousand ($500,000.00) in compensatory damages and lost wages, plus One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) in punitive damages; 4. That at the trial of this cause, the Plaintiff be awarded all damages available pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1981, the Tennessee Human Rights Act, and if applicable, Title VII; 5. For attorney fees and costs as provided by statute; 6 Case 3:09-cv Document 1 Filed 04/08/2009 Page 6 of 7

7 6. For any and all other such relief to which the Plaintiff may be entitled. Respectfully submitted, PARKER & CROFFORD. /s/ Paul W. Moser Stephen Crofford, BPR No Paul W. Moser, BPR No Attorneys for Plaintiff 1230 Second Avenue South Nashville, Tennessee (615) Fax: (615) Case 3:09-cv Document 1 Filed 04/08/2009 Page 7 of 7