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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF HAWAII CV

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

)

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

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.

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

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

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

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 NORTH DAKOTA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NATURE OF THE ACTION

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

) 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 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PENSACOLA DIVISION NATURE OF THE ACTION

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

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

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

5:06cv1684 JUDGE HICKS MAG. JUDGE HORNSBY

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

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

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 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA DUBLIN DIVISION

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

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

-CIVIL RIGHTS EMPLOYMENT

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

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

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

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

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

)

COMPLAINT (Jury Trial Demand)

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

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

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

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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII

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

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

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

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 NORTHERN DIVISION OF OHIO EASTERN DISTRICT

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

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

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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

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

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

Case 1:15-cv KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2015 Page 1 of 9

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

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "Commission" or

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 PENNSYLVANIA

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA RICHMOND DIVISION

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

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

EEOC v. Brink's Incorporated

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

1/29/2019 8:49 AM 19CV04626

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EEOC and Darmo et al. v. Pinnacle Nissan, Inc. et al.

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

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

Case 1:14-cv KMT Document 1 Filed 09/24/14 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

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


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS. Case No.

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

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY PASSAIC COUNTY, LAW DIVISION CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO.: COMPLAINT & JURY DEMAND

Courthouse News Service

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

Case: 1:13-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 07/25/13 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT ~~"A"!tOl'T~'CTCOURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEX~eRQUE, New MI!XICO ORDER FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Equal Employment Opportunity ) Commission, ) Case No.: CV PHX-DAE

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

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

Case 3:06-cv JAP-TJB Document 5 Filed 05/18/2006 Page 1 of 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Case 5:15-cv SAC-KGS Document 1 Filed 08/06/15 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

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 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION Case No. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Transcription:

", 1 3 7 8 9 10 11 1 13 1 1 1 17 18 19 0 1 3 7 Mary Jo O'Neill #009 C. Emanuel Smith P. David Lopez Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Phoenix District Office 3300 North Central Avenue, Suite 90 Phoenix, Ari~ona 801-988 Telephone: (0) 0-01 Fax: (0) 0~0Q9 Attorneys for Plaintiff E'lual!:;mployment Opportunity Commission, vs. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff, Alamo Rent-A-Car LLC, ANC Rental Corporation, FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Defendants. NATURE OF THE ACTION COMPLAINT (Jury Trial Demanded) This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 19, as amended, U.S.C. 000e et seq. ("Title VJI") and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, U.S.C. 1981 a, to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of religion and to provide appropriate relief to Slian Nur who was adversely affected by such practices. The EEOC alleges Defendants Alamo Rent-A-Car LLC and ANC Rental Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Aiamo") discriminated against Silan Nur because of her religion, Islam, by failing to accommodate her religious beliefs. and disciplining, suspending and discharging her because of her religion. CD

\, 1 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to U.S.C. 1, 3 1331,1337,133 and 13. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Sections 70(f)(1) and (3) of Title Vii of the Civil Rights Act of 19, as amended, U.S.C. 000e-(1)(1) and (3); 000e- and Section 10 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, U.S.C. 1981a. 7. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were and are now 8 being committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the 9 District of Arizona. 10 PARTIES 11 3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the 1 "Commission"), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the 13' administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title Vii, and is expressly 1 authorized to bring this action by Section 70(1)(1) and (3) ottitle VII, U.S.C. 1 000e-(1)(1) and (3). 1. At all relevant times, Defendants Alamo Rent-A-Car LLC and ANC 17 Rental Corporation (Alamo or Defendants) have continuously been Arizona 18 corporations doing business in the State of Arizona, and the city of Phoenix and 19 have continuously had at least 1 employees. 0. At all relevant times, Defendants have continuously been employers 1 engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) oftitie VII, U.S.C. 000e(b), (g) and (h). 3 STATEMENT OF CLAIMS. More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Bilan Nur filed a charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title Vii by Defendants. All administrative conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been 7 fulfilled.

1 7. Since at least November, 001 Defendants have engaged in unlawful employment practices at one of its Phoenix, Arizona facilities in violabon 3 of Section 703(a) ottitie VII, U.S.C. 000e-(a) by discriminat-ing against Bilan Nur on the basis of her religion when they failed to accommodate her religious beliefs and when they disciplined her, suspended her and discharged her because of her religion. 7 8. Respondent, Alamo Rental Car. refused to accommodate Charging 8 Party Bilan Nur's reiigious beliefs, disciplined and suspended her because of her 9 religion, Islam, and terminated her from her position as Customer Service 10 Representative because of her religion. Muslim. 11 9. Ms. Nur, who was 0 years old at the time of the termination, 1 recently immigrated to the United States from Somalia during Somalia's civil war. 13' 10. In November, 1999, Defendants hired Ms. Nur as a Customer 1 Service Representative. 1 11. In Ihis position, she worked al the front desk, 9reeted customers, 1 rented them cars and dealt with customer service issues. This was one of Ms. 17 Nur's first job in the United States. 18 1. Ms. Nur's job performance was exemplary up until her termination. 19 13. Ms. Nur's Muslim faith requires her to cover her head with a scarf 0 during the month of Ramadan. 1 1. Respondent permitled Ms. Nur to observe this religious belief of wearing a head scarf during Ramadan in 1999 and 000. 3 1. In or around late November/earty December, 001, Defendants' City Manager told Ms. Nur for the first time that she was in violation of the dress code for wearing the scarf and mandated tllal she remove it. 1. She was told by Defendants that she had to remove the head scarf 7 or she would be fired. J

1 17. Ms. Nur offered to wear a company issued scarf with the Alamo logo as a compromise, but Defendants rejected Ms. Nur's offer. 3 18. Instead, Defendants disciplined, suspended and, on approximately December, 001, discharged Ms. Nur for wearing a scarf to work over her hair due to her religious beliefs. Ms. Nur was wearing the scarf with the Alamo logo the day of her termination. 7 1g. This decision was approved by Defendants' Corporate Human 8 Resources and Legal Department. 9 0. Defendants' dress code does not, in fact, prohibit head coverings. It 10 merely states "[p]lain hair pins or rubber bands should never be visible and can 11 be concealed by using the Alamo scarf." 1 1. The effect of the practices complained of in paragraphs 7-0 above 13 has been to deprive Bilan Nur of equai employment opportunities and otherwise 1 adversely affect her status as an employee because of her religion. 1. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 7-0 1 above were and are intentional. 17 3. The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 7-0 18 above were and are done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally 19 protected rights of Bilan Nur. 0 f'.r!.\yer FOR RELIEF 1 WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court A. Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants, its officers, 3 successors, assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it from engaging in discrimination by failing to accommodate religious beliefs and any other employment practice which discriminates on the basis of religion, and retaliating against employees because they oppose practices made unlawful by 7 Title VII or are participating in a proceeding pursuant to Tille VII.

1 3 7 8 g 10 11 1 13 1 1 1 17 18 19 0 1 3 7 B. Order Defendants to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for employees regardless of their religious beliefs and for those who oppose unlawful employment discrimination, and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices. C. Order Defendants to m"ke whole Bilan Nur by providing appropriate backpay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at triai, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices, including. but not limited to. rightful place reinstatement. D. Order Defendants to make whole Bilan Nur by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary iosses resuiting from the unlawful employment practices described above, in amounts to be determined at trial. E. Order Defendants to make whole Bilan Nur by providing compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices described above, including emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life and humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial. F. Order Defendants to pay punitive damages to Bilan Nur for its malicious and/or reckless conduct, described above, in amounts to be determined at trial. G. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public interest. H. Award the Commission its costs of this action. _JURY TRIAL DEMAND The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by this Complaint.

1 DATED this 7th day of September, 00. 3 7 8 9 10 11 1 13 1 1 1 17 18 19 0 1 3 S 7 Respectfully submitted, GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS Associate General Counsel EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION 1801 LStreet NW. Washington, D.C. 007 C:-~A~- Supervisory Trial Attorney Trial Attorney EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION Phoenix District Office 3300 N. Central Ave.bSuite 90 Phoenix, Arizona 8 1 (0) 0-01 Attorneys for Plaintiff