Case 9:06-cv RHC Document 1 Filed 02/28/2006 Page 1 of 7

Similar documents
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA STATESVILLE DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NATURE OF THE ACTION

Case 4:17-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 07/20/17 Page 1 of 8

Case 4:16-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 09/29/16 Page 1 of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA SOUTHERN DIVISION

Case 3:04-cv RLA Document 1-1 Filed 09/30/2004 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

NATURE OF THE ACTION. This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION ) ) ) NATURE OF THE ACTION

Case 3:06-cv JAP-TJB Document 1 Filed 03/27/2006 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Case 3:04-cv JSW Document 168 Filed 10/20/2005 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 1:18-cv RDB Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE DIVISION

Case 3:11-cv CRW-TJS Document 1 Filed 04/06/11 Page 1 of 7

Case 4:07-cv JLH Document 1 Filed 06/29/2007 ( Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF HAWAII CV

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ~,~,~,,.c~...,... ~~"~ ~ " FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLI~ SEP -9 ;i ~ [~: 0~ CBA~OTTE OIVlSlON

Case 1:11-cv LG-JCG Document 2 Filed 11/17/11 Page 1 of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NATURE OF THE ACTION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA DAVENPORT DIVISION. Nature Of The Action

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PENSACOLA DIVISION NATURE OF THE ACTION

)

Case: 1:10-cv Document #: 1-2 Filed: 06/03/09 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:2

) I ClV a S - BUN. 18 This is an action under Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF HA WAIl. Case No.: NATURE OF THE ACTION AND JURISDICTION

)

Case 4:04-cv LLP Document 1 Filed 12/28/2004 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA.

5:06cv1684 JUDGE HICKS MAG. JUDGE HORNSBY

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA DUBLIN DIVISION

Case 2:09-cv BSJ-RLE Document 67 Filed 10/28/11 Page 1 of 6

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NATURE OF THE ACTION

Case 2:14-cv MPK Document 1 Filed 04/22/14 Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA NATURE OF THE ACTION

-CIVIL RIGHTS EMPLOYMENT

This is an action under the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008

Case 2:05-cv JES-SPC Document 47 Filed 04/24/2006 Page 1 of 11

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT. FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS eu,:".' IJ~:'LD~~?~:~~URT EASTERN DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA SOUTHERN DIVISION. Plaintitl, Defendants. COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Case 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 09/27/17 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NATURE OF THE ACTION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA. Plaintiff, Defendant. AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND NATURE OF ACTION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NATURE OF THE ACTION

PLAINTIFF AVA SMITH- THOMPSON S COMPLAINT AGAINST DEFENDANT SARA LEE CORPORATION

ORIGINAL COMPLAINT OF THE UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION TO THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT

IN TI-[E UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO. ..-ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION n/k/a DISH, LTD.,

Case 7:17-cv KMK Document 1 Filed 07/06/17 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Case 6:10-cv TC Document 1 Filed 09/24/10 Page 1 of 7 Page ID#: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

COMPLAINT (Jury Trial Demand)

Case 1:13-cv LEK-KSC Document 1 Filed 12/18/13 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF HAWAII ) ) ) ) )

FILED. , #, Case 5:05-cv WRF Document 29 Filed 06/06/2006Page 1 of 9 JUN COMMISSION, Plaintiff, ALICIA MANSEL, Civil Action No.

Case 4:05-cv CLS Document 1 Filed 05/26/2005 Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF HAWAII ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NATURE OF THE ACTION

Case 1:13-cv Document 1 Filed 06/28/13 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION

2. One of the defendant in the case is Parker & Gould (P&G). What is exactly P&G?

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION. -v- Civil No. 3:12-cv-4176

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA SOUTHERN DIVISION

Case 3:12-cv M Document 6 Filed 11/07/12 Page 1 of 7 PageID 18

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT PIERCE DIVISION

Case 5:14-cv DAE Document 4 Filed 11/10/14 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR~A I FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINO~ STRA~ E EASTERN DIVISION 0~U ) ) tl0v 1 0 7_604 ) ) NATURE OF THE ACTION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA


Case 1:18-cv RP Document 1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION

Case 8:04-cv SCB-TBM Document 32 Filed 10/07/2005 Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

Case 1:14-cv KAM-JO Document 8 Filed 07/02/14 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 36

Case 1:16-cv Document 1 Filed 11/21/16 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT STATE OF RHODE ISLAND COMPLAINT INTRODUCTION

Case 3:10-cv HEH Document 1 Filed 08/19/10 Page 1 of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Case: 1:06-cv JRA Doc #: 28 Filed: 05/08/09 1 of 9. PageID #: 220

Case 2:16-cv RSL Document 1 Filed 08/05/16 Page 1 of 13

Case 1:16-cv Document 1 Filed 11/21/16 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT STATE OF RHODE ISLAND COMPLAINT INTRODUCTION

Case 1:06-cv LTB-CBS Document 1 Filed 09/29/2006 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Introduction. Jurisdiction. Parties

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

Case5:11-cv EJD Document28 Filed09/09/11 Page1 of 10

Case 2:16-cv GMN-VCF Document 1 Filed 04/26/16 Page 1 of 10

Case 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 12/07/17 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. Defendants.

Case 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 08/30/17 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 1. No.: Defendants.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

2:04-cv HAB-DGB # 1 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS URBANA DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIVIL DIVISION

Case 4:12-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 06/04/12 Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Case 5:15-cv RWS Document 1 Filed 07/14/15 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DIVISION OF OHIO EASTERN DISTRICT

: : : : : : Plaintiffs Amy Morgan, Terri Smith, and Erin Harris ( Plaintiffs ), upon their INTRODUCTION

EEOC v. Supervalu Holdings, Inc.

CASE NO. 5:00-CV COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION ON BEHALF OF JACKQULINE STOKES

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COU~ NOV - FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS~i.~ SAN ANTONIO DIVISION

Case 1:19-cv Document 1 Filed 01/15/19 Page 1 of 23 ECF CASE NATURE OF THE ACTION

Case 2:07-cv JFB-WDW Document 15-2 Filed 10/11/2007 Page 1 of 10 CIVIL ACTION INTRODUCTION

DJAS FILED. eelveo PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES. Case 1:18-cv RP Document 1 Filed 02/20/18 Page 1 of 18. Case No.

Transcription:

Case 9:06-cv-00056-RHC Document 1 Filed 02/28/2006 Page 1 of 7... _IN_TH~UNITE~S.TATE~DIS.TRICT-CQUB.T..-- FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUFKIN DIVISION Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, v. Plaintiff, Lowe's Home Centers, Inc. Defendant. CIVIL ACTION NO. q:ofoev5lo JURY TRIAL Dl~e Clark --_.._--- - ORIGINAL COMPLAINT This is an action under the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to restrain the unlawful payment of wages to employees of one sex at rates less than the rates paid to employees of the opposite sex, and to provide appropriate relief due to employees as a result of such unlawful practices. The Commission alleges that Lowe' s has paid female employees in the positions of Customer Service Associate, Team Leader, and Department Manager at wage rates which are less than the rates paid to its male employees performing substantially equal work. As alleged with greater particularity below, Carol Baudat and Carol "Joy" Bailey were subjected to such unlawful pay practices. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 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 Sections 16(c and 17 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (the "FLSA", as amended, 29 U.S.c. 216(c and 217, to enforce the requirements of the Equal Pay Act of 1963, codified as Section 6(d of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. 1

Case 9:06-cv-00056-RHC Document 1 Filed 02/28/2006 Page 2 of 7 ---------~0eE~},_and-pul"suant-t0-g cti(n-10e~t'p-_and-t_3-_( -l'itle-v'ii-(j;'the-cl\lilrights-aclol19m~as--.._: amended, 42 U.S.c. 2000e-5(f(l and (3 ("Title VII". This action is also authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 102 of Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. 1981a. 2. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful have been committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for Eastern District of Texas, Lufkin Division. PARTIES 3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission", is ------------------------------------------- the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of the Equal Pay Act and Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Sections l6(c and 17 of the FLSA, 29 U.S.c. 2l6(c and 217, as amended by Section 1 of Reorganization Plan No.1 ofl978, 92 Stat. 3781, and Public Law 98-532 (1984, 98 Stat. 2705; and by Section 706(f(1 and (3 oftitle VII, 42 U.S.c. 2000e-5(f(1and (3. 4. At all relevant times, Defendant Lowe's Home Centers, Inc. ("Lowe's", has continuously been a North Carolina corporation doing business in the State of Texas and the City of Lufkin, and has continuously had at least 15 employees. 5. At all relevant times, Defendant Lowe's has continuously been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 70l(b, (g and (h of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e(b, (g and (h. 6. At all relevant times, Defendant Lowe's has acted directly or indirectly as an employer in relation to employees and has continuously been an employer within the meaning of Section 3(d of the FLSA, 29 U.S.c. 203(d. 7. At all relevant times, Defendant Lowe's has continuously employed employees 2

Case 9:06-cv-00056-RHC Document 1 Filed 02/28/2006 Page 3 of 7 ----------engageei-in-cgmmefge-gi-in-th -pmductign-(}f-g(}(}ds-fm-c(}=erce-within-the-meaning-olsection"s 3(b, (i and (j of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. 203(b, (i and (j and has continuously been an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of Sections 3(r and (s of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. 203(r and (s, in that said enterprise has continuously been an enterprise whose annual gross volume of sales made or business done is not less than $500,000. STATEMENT OF TITLE VII CLAIMS 8. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Carol Baudat filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant Lowe's. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 9. Since at least February 26, 2004, Defendant Lowe's has engaged in unlawful employment practices at its store in Livingston, Texas, in violation of Section 703 of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a. 10. Carol Baudat began working for Lowe's as a Customer Service Associate in the Paint Department of Lowe's store in Livingston, Texas. When Lowe's hired Paul "Paulie" Steil to work in the Paint Department in April 2004, it paid him a higher wage than it was paying Ms. Baudat. This difference in pay was because of sex. 11. Around May 1, 2004, Ms. Baudat received a promotion to Team Leader. As Team Leader, Ms. Baudat had the authority to oversee the work of Steil. Lowe's still paid Ms. Baudat a lower wage than it paid Steil. 12. In mid-july 2004, Ms. Baudat earned a promotion to Department Manager. Lowe's paid Ms. Baudat a lower rate than it paid any male Department Manager at that time. 13. Around the end ofjuly 2004, Lowe's promoted Steil to Team Leader. As Department 3

Case 9:06-cv-00056-RHC Document 1 Filed 02/28/2006 Page 4 of 7 ----------Manag~~,M&-gaudat-sup~r-\lis~d-St~ih-N~\l~rth~1 'SS,_1~we's-paid-M&--gaudat-a-l~w~I'-wag~thanl---- it paid Steil, an employee Ms. Baudat supervised. 14. When Carol "Joy" Bailey began as a Department Manager at Lowe's Livingston store, Lowe's paid her [like Ms. BaudatJ at a lower rate than it paid male Department Managers. IS. The differences in wages were discriminatorily based on sex. 16. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraphs 9-IS above has been to deprive Carol Baudat and Joy Bailey of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because of their sex. 17. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 9-IS above were and are intentional. 18. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs I O-IS above were and are done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Ms. Baudat, Ms. Bailey and Defendant's other female store employees. 19. Since at least February 26, 2004, Defendant Lowe's has violated Sections 6( d (I and IS(a(2 oftheflsa, 29 U.S.C. 206(d(I and2is(a(2, by paying wages to its female Customer Service Associates, Team Leaders, and Department Managers in its Livingston, Texas, store at rates less than the rates paid to male employees in the same establishment for substantially equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are perfonned under similar working conditions. 20. As a result of the acts complained of above, Defendant Lowe's unlawfully has withheld and is continuing to withhold the payment of wages due to Ms. Baudat, Ms. Bailey, and other females paid at rates less than the rates paid to male employees in the same establishment for 4

Case 9:06-cv-00056-RHC Document 1 Filed 02/28/2006 Page 5 of 7 --------------&ub-stantial1y-~qua1-wmk~. ---------------------- 21. The unlawful practices complained of in paragraphs 10-14 and 19-20 above were and are willful. PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, the Commission requests that this Court: A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining the Defendant Lowe's, its officers, successors, assigns and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in wage discrimination and in any other employment practice which discriminates on the basis of sex. B. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining the Defendant Lowe's, its officers, successors, assigns and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from discriminating within any of its establishments between employees on the basis of sex, by paying wages to employees of one sex at rates less than the rates at which it pays wages to employees of the opposite sex for substantially equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions. D. Order Defendant Lowe's to institute and carry out policies, practices and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for women, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices. E. Order Defendant Lowe's to make whole Carol Baudat and Joy Bailey by providing appropriate backpay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be proved at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices, including but not limited to pay increases and frontpay for Ms. Baudat and Ms. Bailey. F. Order Defendant Lowe's to make whole Carol Baudat and Joy Bailey by providing 5

Case 9:06-cv-00056-RHC Document 1 Filed 02/28/2006 Page 6 of 7 ---G(}IIlJlensati(}n-fm-]}ast-and-futm -]} cuniab'-loss s-f sulting-llgm-th -uillawful-piactices-describedin paragraphs 10-15 above, in amounts to be dete=ined at trial. G. Order Defendant Lowe's to make whole Ms. Baudat and Ms. Bailey by providing compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices complained of in paragraphs 10-15 above, including emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, and humiliation, in amounts to be dete=ined at trial. H. Order Defendant Lowe's to pay Carol Baudat and Joy Bailey punitive damages for its malicious and/or reckless conduct described in paragraphs 10-15 above, in an amount to be dete=ined at trial. 1. Grant a judgment requiring Defendant Lowe's to pay appropriate back wages in amounts to be determined at trial, an equal sum as liquidated damages [or prejudgment interest in lieu thereof] to employees whose wages are being unlawfully withheld as a result of the acts complained of above, including but not limited to Carol Baudat and Joy Bailey. J. Grant such further relief as this Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest. K. Award the Commission its costs of this action. 6

- - ------- -- -- - - -- ------- --------------------- Case 9:06-cv-00056-RHC Document 1 Filed 02/28/2006 Page 7 of 7 mr-,-l'mab-dbmanb The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint. OF COUNSEL: Jim Sacher Regional Attorney Rose Adewale-Mendes Supervisory Trial Attorney Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 1919 Smith Street, 7th Floor Houston, Texas 77002 Respectfully submitted, EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION JAMES L. LEE Deputy General Counsel GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel 1801 L. Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20507 ~ ~~r:3..~ Timothy M~~e L Senior Trial Attorney Attorney-in-Charge Texas Bar No. 00793371 Southern Dist. of Texas No. 20023 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 1919 Smith Street, 7th Floor Houston, Texas 77002 (713 209-3395 (713 209-3402 [facsimile] timothy.bowne@eeoc.gov 7