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

Similar documents
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 WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA STATESVILLE 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 4:17-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 07/20/17 Page 1 of 8

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

5:06cv1684 JUDGE HICKS MAG. JUDGE HORNSBY

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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF HAWAII CV

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

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

-CIVIL RIGHTS EMPLOYMENT

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

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

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

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

)

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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

) 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

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

)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COMPLAINT (Jury Trial Demand)

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

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

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 WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NATURE OF THE ACTION

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 ) ) ) ) )

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUFKIN DIVISION

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

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 DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION. -v- Civil No. 3:12-cv-4176

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

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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

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

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

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

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

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

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Case 4:14-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 09/08/14 Page 1 of 6

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

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

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

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

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

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

Case 3:13-cv B Document 1 Filed 03/27/13 Page 1 of 10 PageID 1

EEOC v. Merrill Pine Ridge, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA RICHMOND DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT. lj'lhed States FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS E,.'/';~rn DiStrict. HOUSTON DIVISION CONSENT DECREE

Case 3:18-cv Document 1 Filed 10/03/18 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA

EEOC v. Family Dollar Stores of Arkansas

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION

Case 2:17-cv EJF Document 2 Filed 10/02/17 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION NO. } 1 COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA SOUTHERN DIVISION

Case 2:03-cv BBD-sta Document 14 Filed 08/05/2004 Page 1 of 7

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 1:19-cv LY Document 1 Filed 04/12/19 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION

Courthouse News Service

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

Transcription:

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Plaintiff, v. BROWN GROUP RETAIL, INC. d/b/a FAMOUS FOOTWEAR Defendant. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT 1. This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e, et seq. and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1981 et seq. to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of race, and to provide appropriate relief to Princess Uzor who was adversely affected by such practices. As alleged herein, the Defendant, Brown Group Retail, Inc. d/b/a Famous Wear ("Famous Footwear") unlawfully refused to hire Princess Uzor ("Charging Party" or "Uzor") because of her race, Black, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2. 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 706 (f)(1) and (3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e, et seq. ("Title Villi) and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U.S.C. 1981A. 3. Venue is proper in this Court because the unlawful employment practices alleged below were and are now being committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division.

PARTIES 4. Plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("Commission") is an agency ofthe United States of America charged with the administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by Section 706 (f)(1)(3), 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5 (f)(1) and (3). 5. Defendant Famous Footwear has continuously been and is now doing business in the State of Texas and the City of Houston and has continuously had more than 15 employees. Famous Footwear may be served with process by serving its registered agent in Texas, CT Corporation System, 350 N. St. Paul Street, Dallas, Texas 75201. 6. At all relevant times, Defendant Famous Footwear has continuously been and is now an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701 (b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e(b), (g) and (h). STATEMENT OF CLAIMS 7. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Princess Uzor filed a charge of discrimination with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant Famous Footwear, her former employer. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled. 8. Since at least 2006, Famous Footwear has engaged in unlawful employment practices at its store # 2312 located on State Highway 249 in Houston, Texas, in violation of Section 703(a)(1) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 9. In February 2006, Charging Party, a Black female, went to Famous Footwear's store located on State Highway 249 and asked for an application for 2

employment from one of the store's managers. She was treated rudely and told that the store was not hiring. She was also told they did not have any applications available and therefore she could not be given an application to complete. Suspecting that the manager was not being honest, Charging Party contacted one of her friends, a white female, and asked her if she would be willing to go to the store and request a job application. The friend agreed, went to the store and was immediately provided with an original application. Upon learning that the white female was given an employment application, Charging Party immediately returned to the store and was denied an application on the same grounds that had been asserted earlier. Both of the store managers who refused to give Charging Party an employment application were white females. Despite her best efforts, Charging Party was barred from applying for a position by company managers who knew she was Black. 10. The effect of the practices complained of herein has been to deprive Ms. Uzor of equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect her status as an employee by refusing to hire her because of her race. 11. The conduct described in the paragraphs above was intentional and was committed with malice or with willful disregard for the federally protected civil rights of Ms. Uzor. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court: 12. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, its officers, successors, assigns and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in an employment practice which discriminates on the basis of race; 13. Order Defendant to institute and carry out policies, practices and procedures 3

which provide equal employment opportunities for African-Americans and which eradicates the effects of its unlawful employment practices. 14. Order Defendant to make Ms. Uzorwhole by providing appropriate back pay, with prejudgment interest in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of the unlawful employment practices to which she was subjected. 15. Order instatement of Ms. Uzor into the same or a comparable position, or award her front pay in the amounts to be proved at trial, if instatement is impractical; 16. Award compensatory damages to Ms. Uzor in amounts to be proved at trial; 17. Award punitive damages to Ms. Uzor in amounts to be proved at trial; 18. Award pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on all amounts recovered as allowed by law; 19. Order all affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of Defendant's unlawful employment practices; 20. Award the Commission its costs in this action; and 21. Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper. JURY TRIAL DEMAND 22. The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint. 4

Respectfully submitted, EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION RONALD S. COOPER GENERAL COUNSEL JAMES LEE Deputy General Counsel GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel 1801 L. Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20507 By: thy D. Boutchee Attorney-in-Charge Houston District Office TBN:02717500 SDN:10145 1919 Smith Street, 7th Floor Houston, Texas 77002 (713) 209-3399 Fax: (713) 209-3402 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF OF COUNSEL Jim Sacher Regional Attorney. Rose Adewale-Mendes Supervisory Trial Attorney Houston District Office 1919 Smith, 7th Floor Houston, Texas 77002 5