Short Story

Marcus Ashmore and Terrell Lee Green were maintenance workers for J.P. Thayer Co., Inc. under supervisor Gene Fye. After a particular incident of harassment on January 16, 2001, Plaintiffs reported Fye to Tricia Johnson, the Assistant Property Manager. At this time, Johnson did nothing about the complaint. The harassment continued, and on January 26, Plaintiffs complained to the Property Manager, Mary Frances de Rivera. In response, de Rivera verbally reprimanded Fye. This, however, did not stop Fye’s harassment. Instead of reporting the behavior to Defendant, Plaintiffs hired an attorney who wrote a letter to Defendant saying that Ashmore and Green were going to file charges of discrimination with the EEOC. On February 22, Fye was fired by Defendant. This came three days after getting the letter and about a month after the initial harassment complaints.

The company offered inconsistent versions of why Mr. Gill was terminated and who did the termination. They were indifferent to Mr. Gill’s concerns and did nothing to address those employees engaging in blatant racial harassment even after other black employees complained and, most damaging, the company retaliated against Mr. Gill when he complained by terminating his

Plaintiff, Deborah Burke, submits this memorandum in opposition to Defendant Strickland Watson Pierce, P.C.’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff’s retaliation claim should not be dismissed because she exhausted all the administrative remedies by filing a charge of discrimination with the EEOC and being terminated during the investigation. Jones v. Calvert Group, Ltd., 551 F.3d 297 (4th Cir. 2009); Clockedile v. New Hampshire Dept. of Corr., 245 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2001); Franceschi v. U.S. Dept. of Veterans Affairs, 514 F.3d 81 (1st Cir. 2008). Further, the conduct she suffered in the workplace was sufficiently severe to qualify as a sexually hostile environment. The Court should deny the motion.

The lawsuit alleges that students were interviewed during the school day by school district board members, attorneys, or officials. The lawsuit claims that the interviewers of the students committed acts of racial profiling and racial intimidation. The interviews were conducted as a part of an investigation of Felarca. The plaintiffs are seeking class action status on the counts of violations of California’s

On January 16, 2014, a physical altercation took place between your client Daniel Snyder and a fellow hourly union employee Thomas O’Neal. Although multiple witnesses to the altercation offered slightly different descriptions of the factual sequence, all persons including Mr. Snyder agree that he initiated the incident. Specifically, in your letter of July 20, 2015, you contend that Mr. O’Neill became hostile after “frosting fell off of Mr. Snyder’s finger”. Yet, as described in a signed, written statement provided by Mr. Snyder to LM Aero at the time of the incident, your client took frosting from a cake in the employee breakroom and put it on Mr. O’Neal’s face. Specifically, Mr. Snyder attempted to put the frosting on Mr. O’Neal’s nose and, instead, the frosting landed in Mr. O’Neal’s beard. When Mr. O’Neal retaliated by throwing cake and spilling coffee on Mr. Snyder, the matter escalated into a physical fight with both parties throwing punches and grabbing at each other.

Eisenberg made claim of sexual harassment and told of employees using illegal substances in the warehouse

While leaving a VOP Hearing that was held in the Maryland District Court, Ms. Ciere Kelty came up to this Agent and wanted to discuss the final Protective Order hearing that she attended . Ms. Kelty complained that the Subject failed to appear in Court and that her case was postponed, because he was not served. Sher further reported if he’s not served then the case would be dismissed. Ms. Kelty inquired if the Subject warrant had been served as of yet. It was explained that this Agent did not receive anything from the Court as of yet. Ms. Kelty was directed to contact me to follow up on this matter.

Case law suggests that an isolated incident is insufficient to make a prima facie showing of harassment, but does not establish a bright line rule about the quantity of incidents that constitute a course of conduct. In this case, the petition alleges several text messages and fully describes at least two of them. This is sufficient to establish a course of conduct.

TC: On August 16, 2016, Ms. Tierra Brown (victim) contacted this Agent via telephone, in reference to the Subject. It was inquired if the Subject was still in contact with Ms. Brown and if she needed any resources from our agency due to the Protection Order that was filed against the Subject by her. Ms. Brown advised that the Subject and she have not been in contact with each other and was unware of any Protection Order that was filed against him. Ms. Brown states that she will contact the Court to report the Subject has been falsely accused.

The CSD contends that all three counts of Mr. Lopez’s complaint are conclusory statements, making the claims implausible, and failing to state claims upon which relief can be granted. But “a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations.” Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Furthermore, FRCP Rule 8(a)(2) only requires a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Id. at 555. In addition, all reasonable inferences should be drawn in favor of the plaintiff. Omar ex rel. Cannon v. Lindsey, 334 F.3d 1246. While specific facts are not necessary, the plaintiff must allege enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at

In the case of Black v. Usher Transport, 2011 U.S. Dist. 32775 (S.D. Ohio), the text states that Mr. Black was a former truck driver for Usher Transport, who was contacted by a prospective employer of Mr. Black (Walsh, 2013). Usher Transport informed the prospective employers that Mr. Black had failed a drug test, and that he had been arrested, in which the office worker later retracted stating, that both the arrest and drug test were a mistake and that here was not official proof of the arrest (Walsh, 2013). Mr. Black felt that he had a reasonable cause to file for defamation against Usher Transport for falsely reporting information that was incorrect. Black could contend that Usher Transport does not have the proper documentation of Black's alleged arrest and implies that Usher Transport falsely indicated that Black was arrested.

Complainant Jordan rejected his time sheet that showed he had worked the hours he took off work to pick up his wife. Respondent Cook stated that while discussing his time sheet with Complainant Jordan, he raised his voice and said something similar to,“I’m tired of this shit.” Respondent Cook stated that he did not yell or try to intimidate Complainant Jordan.

Complainant Langdon stated that Respondent Llasos approached her at her cubicle and began inquiring about the log entry process she uses. Complainant Langdon stated that when she attempted to explain her process, Respondent Llasos interrupted her several times by shouting, "No!" Complainant Landon stated that she felt intimidated and "bullied." Complainant Langdon stated that as she continued to explain the process, Respondent Llasos again shouted, "No!" and continued to challenge her process while using a loud and aggressive tone of voice. Complainant Langdon stated that she told Respondent Llasos , "You can't talk to me that way. You have to leave my cubicle." Respondent Llasos continued to talking in a loud voice. Complainant Langdon stated

This threatening behavior violates company policy. SEE EXHIBIT “9” Old Employee Handbook p. 86-87. SEE EXHIBIT “29” New Employee Handbook Harassment Free Workplace and Diversity Policy p. 1 -2. On February 27, 2016, the Plaintiff was only permitted to carpool with his coworker James, one last time in the company vehicle. After that day, the Plaintiff had to drive his own vehicle and was instructed that he was not permitted to carpool. SEE EXHIBIT “11” Can & Cannot Carpooling Emails. On March 1, 2016, Charter Communications officially notified the Plaintiff that his original assigned work location would be entirely moved from Riverside to Irwindale, over a 40 mile commute, and company vehicle would be taken away, even though it already was taken away on February 26, 2016 by Lamonea. SEE EXHIBIT “7” Email on March 1, 2016-Company Vehicle Officially Suspended by Company. This was an official discriminatory measure by Charter Communications to make it more difficult for the Plaintiff to afford the longer commute, with the intention to make the Plaintiff constructively quit his job due to the anonymous letter of complaint.