Padron et al v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., d/b/a Walmart

Filing 22

RESPONSE by Eusebio R. Calzada, Bobirt R. Miranda, Rolando Padron to MOTION by Defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. to dismiss (MOTION FOR PARTIAL DISMISSAL OF COMPLAINT) 18 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A-B)(Currie, Peter)

EXHIBIT A

Case: 1:10-cv-06656 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/15/10 Page 1 of 27 PageID #:1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
ROLANDO PADRON, BOBIRT R.
MIRANDA and EUSEBIO R.
CALZADA, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
WAL-MART STORES, INC., d/b/a
WALMART,
Defendant.

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

Case No.:
Judge:
Magistrate Judge:

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
NOW COME PLAINTIFFS, Rolando Padron, Bobirt R. Miranda, and Eusebio Calzada
(hereinafter collectively “Plaintiffs” and/or individually, “Padron” “Miranda” and “Calzada”),
individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated present and former warehouse
employees of Defendant, of Cuban national origin, race and ethnicity, by and through their
undersigned Counsel of Record, and for their Class Action Complaint against Defendant, WALMART STORES, INC., d/b/a WALMART (hereinafter “Defendant” or “Walmart”), and in so
doing allege, upon information and belief, except as to allegations particularly pertaining to
themselves, which are based on personal knowledge, as follows against Defendant:
NATURE OF ACTION
1.

On April 12, 2010, the Chicago District Office of the EEOC issued a

“Determination” that the evidence obtained in its investigation of the underlying charges of
discrimination established reasonable cause to believe that Walmart discriminated against

1

Case: 1:10-cv-06656 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/15/10 Page 2 of 27 PageID #:2

Plaintiffs and a class of employees because of their national origin, Cuban, by paying them a
lesser wage, in violation of Title VII.
2.

Plaintiffs bring this nationwide Class Action Complaint against Defendant

Walmart, seeking damages and injunctive relief for Defendant’s widespread Cuban national
origin, race and ethnicity discrimination and related illegal conduct constituting violations of
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000e, et seq. (hereinafter “Title VII”), and
violations of The Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. §1981. Plaintiffs, in their representative
capacities, seek a permanent injunction against Walmart from discrimination based on Cuban
national origin, race and ethnicity, whereby Defendant has intentionally and willfully subjected
Plaintiffs and a class of current and former Cuban warehouse employees to disparate treatment in
the terms and conditions of their employment, by paying them lower wages than similarly
situated non-Cuban employees, based on their Cuban national origin, race and ethnicity, in
violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.,
and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 & 1981(A).
3.

Plaintiffs allege, in the alternative, that Walmart’s facially neutral compensation

policy has a disparate impact on Plaintiffs and a nationwide class of Cuban warehouse
employees, resulting in Plaintiffs and the putative class being paid a lower wage than similarly
situated non-Cuban warehouse employees in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.
4.

Plaintiffs, in their individual capacities also bring claims that Walmart

discriminated against them by subjecting them to different terms and conditions than similarly
situated non-Cuban employees by subjecting them to variable schedules, denials of make-up
days and other discriminatory terms and conditions based on their Cuban national origin, race
2

Case: 1:10-cv-06656 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/15/10 Page 3 of 27 PageID #:3

and ethnicity in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §
2000e, et seq., and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 & 1981(A).
5.

Plaintiffs, in their individual capacities also bring claims that Walmart retaliated

against them for engaging in the protected activity of reporting and opposing discrimination, by
terminating their employment, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§
1981 & 1981(A).
6.

Plaintiffs have been subjected to discrimination on the basis of their Cuban

national origin, race and ethnicity.
7.

Plaintiffs were outstanding warehouse employees of Defendant who made

substantial contributions to Defendant’s operations and during all relevant times performed their
job responsibilities in a manner that met or exceeded Defendant’s legitimate business
expectations.
8.

Plaintiffs have suffered extreme emotional distress, lost wages, disparate pay, lost

benefits, and other significant damages as a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s illegal
conduct as alleged herein.
9.

Plaintiffs bring a Title VII claim and a Civil Rights Act of 1866 claim

individually and on behalf of a nationwide class of all other similarly situated current and former
Cuban warehouse employees of Defendant who were paid lower wages than similarly situated
non-Cuban warehouse employees as a result of Defendant’s intentional and willful national
origin, race and ethnicity discrimination, as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.

3

Case: 1:10-cv-06656 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/15/10 Page 4 of 27 PageID #:4

10.

In the alternative, Plaintiffs bring a Title VII claim individually and on behalf of

a nationwide class of all other similarly situated current and former Cuban warehouse employees
of Defendant who were paid lower wages than similarly situated non-Cuban warehouse
employees as a result of the disparate impact of Defendant’s compensation policy.
11.

All allegations and claims are pled in the alternative to the extent such an

interpretation is necessitated by law, required for proper construction under the law, and
permitted under federal law.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
12.

The subject matter jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§

1331, 1332, 1343(3) and (4), 1658 and 2201 and 2202. This is a suit authorized and instituted
pursuant to the Act of Congress known as “The Civil Rights Act of 1964,” 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et
seq., as amended by the “Civil Rights Act of 1991," and the “Civil Rights Act of 1866,” 42
U.S.C. § 1981 and 1981(a).
13.

Upon information and belief, the amount in controversy in this action exceeds the

sum or value (sic) of $5,000,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs.
14.

Upon information and belief, at least one member of the Rule 23 Class is a citizen

of a different state than that of Defendant.
15.

Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) and (c) because

the Plaintiffs and Defendant either reside in this judicial district and/or because a substantial part
of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred within this judicial district.
16.

Plaintiffs, in their class-wide claims, request injunctive and declaratory relief and

compensation for disparate pay, back pay, lost wages and punitive damages and/or any and all
other damages permitted by applicable law, and attorneys’ fees and costs.
4

Case: 1:10-cv-06656 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/15/10 Page 5 of 27 PageID #:5

THE PARTIES
a.

Plaintiffs

17.

Plaintiff, ROLANDO PADRON, is a resident of the City of West Chicago, in

DuPage County, Illinois.
18.

Plaintiff, BOBIRT R. MIRANDA, is a resident of the City of West Chicago, in

DuPage County, Illinois.
19.

Plaintiff, EUSEBIO R. CALZADA, is a resident of the City of West Chicago, in

DuPage County, Illinois.
b.

Defendant

20.

Defendant, WAL-MART STORES, INC., d/b/a WALMART, is a Delaware

corporation with offices and doing business throughout the State of Illinois and throughout the
United States. At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously been a corporation doing
business in Illinois.
21.

At all relevant times Defendant has continuously had at least fifteen (15)

employees and been engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of §701(b),
(g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§2000e(b), (g) and (h).
CLASS ALLEGATIONS
22.

Plaintiffs bring their claims under Title VII and the Civil Rights Act of 1866,

individually, and as a class action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23. The
Rule 23 Class is defined as:
“All current and former Cuban warehouse employees of Walmart who
were paid a lower wage than similarly situated non-Cuban warehouse
employees, from January 1, 2006, through the present”

5

Case: 1:10-cv-06656 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/15/10 Page 6 of 27 PageID #:6

23.

Excluded from the Rule 23 Class are Defendant’s legal representatives, officers,

directors, assigns, and successors, or any individual who has, or who at any time during the Rule
23 Class period has had: a controlling interest in Walmart; the Judge to whom this case is
assigned and any member of the Judge’s immediate family; and all persons who will submit a
timely and otherwise proper request for exclusion from the Rule 23 Class.
24.

Numerosity: The persons in the Rule 23 Class identified above are

geographically diverse and so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. The precise
number of such persons is unknown, and the calculation of that number is presently within the
sole control of Defendant.
25.

Commonality: There are numerous questions of law and fact common to the Rule

23 Class that predominate over any questions affecting only individual members. The questions
of law and fact common to this Rule 23 Class that predominate over any question solely
affecting individual members of the Rule 23 Class include, but are not limited to, the following:
(a)

Whether Defendant paid Cuban warehouse employees a lower wage than
similarly situated non-Cuban warehouse employees;

(b)

Whether Defendant’s actions in paying Cuban warehouse employees a
lower wage than similarly situated non-Cuban warehouse employees was
intentional, willful and/or deliberate;

(c)

Whether Defendant’s compensation policy has a disparate impact on
Cuban warehouse employees, resulting in Cuban warehouse employees
being paid a lower wage than similarly situated non-Cuban warehouse
employees;

6

Case: 1:10-cv-06656 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/15/10 Page 7 of 27 PageID #:7

(d)

Whether the Defendant was an “employer” of Plaintiffs and the Rule 23
Class within the meaning of Title VII, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866;

(e)

Whether Defendant’s actions as alleged herein violate Title VII; and

(f)

Whether Defendant’s actions as alleged herein violate the Civil Rights Act
of 1866.

26.

Typicality:

The claims of the Representative Plaintiffs are typical of the Rule

Adequacy:

The Representative Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent

23 Class.
27.

the interests of the Rule 23 Class.
28.

Superiority: A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair

and efficient adjudication of the controversy – particularly in the context of wage/back pay
litigation, where individual class members lack the financial resources to vigorously prosecute
separate lawsuits in Federal Court against large corporations like Defendant (the discriminatory
behavior has adversely impacted the Rule 23 Classes ability to bring individual actions).
29.

A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient

adjudication of the controversy – particularly in the context of this litigation where no individual
employee can justify the commitment of the large financial resources to vigorously prosecute a
lawsuit in Federal Court against the corporate Defendant.
30.

The Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the

class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with
respect to the class as a whole.

7

Case: 1:10-cv-06656 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/15/10 Page 8 of 27 PageID #:8

PROCEDURAL HISTORY
31.

Plaintiffs, Rolando Padron, Bobirt R. Miranda and Eusebio R. Calzada, each filed

their respective pro se “Charge of Discrimination” with the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission on November 30, 2006, alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964. See Plaintiffs’ Charges of Discrimination attached hereto as Group Exhibit “A”
32.

On or about April 12, 2010, the commission concluded its investigation and

issued a determination that the “evidence obtained in the investigation establishes reasonable
cause to believe that Respondent discriminated against Charging Party and a class of
employees based on because of their national origin, Cuban, by paying them a lesser wage, in
violation of Title VII.” Following a conciliation failure, the commission issued Plaintiffs a
“Notice of Right to Sue” letter dated July 20, 2010. See Plaintiffs’ Notice of Right to Sue and
Determination Letters attached hereto as Group Exhibit “B”.
33.

Plaintiffs timely filed this lawsuit within ninety (90) days from the date of receipt

of the July 20, 2010, Notice of Right to Sue letters.
COMMON ALLEGATIONS
34.

During all relevant times herein, Defendant was and is an employer as defined by

Title VII.
35.

During all relevant times herein, Representative Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class

are/were employees of Defendant as defined by Title VII.
36.

Plaintiffs are members of a racial minority. Plaintiffs are of Cuban national origin.

37.

Plaintiffs have dark colored hair, eyes, and skin.

38.

Plaintiff Padron worked as a warehouse employee for Defendant from August

2001 through November 12, 2006, when Plaintiff Padron was terminated after engaging in the
8

Case: 1:10-cv-06656 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/15/10 Page 9 of 27 PageID #:9

protected activity of reporting and opposing unlawful national origin, race and ethnicity
discrimination. Plaintiff was a dedicated, hardworking, and loyal employee that contributed to
Defendant in a substantial and meaningful manner. During his employment with Walmart,
Plaintiff Padron worked as a warehouse employee, performing duties such as shipping and
receiving.
39.

Plaintiff Miranda worked as a warehouse employee for Defendant from July 2000

through November 20, 2006, when Plaintiff Miranda was terminated in retaliation for engaging
in the protected activity of reporting and opposing unlawful national origin, race and ethnicity
discrimination. Plaintiff was a dedicated, hardworking, and loyal employee that contributed to
Defendant in a substantial and meaningful manner. During his employment with Walmart,
Plaintiff Miranda worked as a warehouse employee, performing duties such as shipping and
receiving.
40.

Plaintiff Calzada worked as a warehouse employee for Defendant from July 1998

through November 8, 2006, when Plaintiff Calzada was terminated in retaliation for engaging in
the protected activity of reporting and opposing unlawful national origin, race and ethnicity
discrimination. Plaintiff was a dedicated, hardworking, and loyal employee that contributed to
Defendant in a substantial and meaningful manner. During his employment with Walmart,
Plaintiff Calzada worked as a warehouse employee, performing duties such as shipping and
receiving.
41.

Plaintiffs first reported what they believed to be national origin, race and ethnicity

discrimination in 2005, to Store Manager (Brad Wilson). Nothing was done to redress or
eliminate the national origin, race and ethnicity discrimination. Over the next year, and prior to
filing their charges of discrimination, Plaintiffs reported the continuous and ongoing national
9

Case: 1:10-cv-06656 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/15/10 Page 10 of 27 PageID #:10

origin, race and ethnicity discrimination and retaliation against themselves and other Cuban
coworkers, on at least five separate occasions, to Brad Wilson (store manager), “Skip” Turner
(District Manager) and Angel Gomez (Human Resources). Walmart, despite knowledge of the
national origin, race and ethnicity discrimination, continued to pay Cuban warehouse employees
less than non-Cuban warehouse employees, continued to discriminate against, harass and
retaliate against Plaintiffs in the terms and conditions of their employment, with regard to
variable schedules (to which non-Cuban’s were not subjected) and denial of make-up days (to
which non-Cuban’s were not subjected.).
42.

Plaintiffs were qualified, competent and dedicated employees who were paid

lesser wages than similarly situated non-Cuban warehouse employees on the basis of their Cuban
national origin, race and ethnicity.
43.

Defendant’s warehouse employees perform duties such as shipping and receiving.

44.

Plaintiffs and putative class members have been subjected to discrimination as a

result of Defendant’s implementation and enforcement of its “facially neutral” compensation
policies and practices which have had a disparate impact on Cuban warehouse employees,
namely, Cuban warehouse employees have been paid lower wages than similarly situated nonCuban warehouse employees.
45.

Plaintiffs and putative class members have also been intentionally discriminated

against on the basis of their Cuban national origin, race and ethnicity, in that Walmart has
intentionally paid Plaintiffs and putative class members lower wages than similarly situated nonCuban warehouse employees.
46.

At all relevant times herein, Plaintiffs were performing all of their job

duties/responsibilities in an outstanding manner and there was no legitimate non-discriminatory
10

Case: 1:10-cv-06656 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/15/10 Page 11 of 27 PageID #:11

reason for paying Plaintiffs and other Cuban warehouse employees lower wages than similarly
situated non-Cuban warehouse employees.
47.

Plaintiffs have suffered severe damages as a direct and proximate result of

Defendant’s illegal conduct, as alleged herein.
48.

All allegations herein are pled in the alternative to the extent necessitated for

viable construction under applicable federal law.
COUNT I
(DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VII CIVIL RIGHTS
ACT OF 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000e, et seq. – DISPARATE IMPACT)
(Plaintiffs individually, and on behalf of a nationwide class
of similarly situated Cuban warehouse employees)
49.

Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs, as if

fully set forth herein, except for those allegations alleging intentional discrimination.
50.

All conditions precedent to Count I have been satisfied.

51.

Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Class are/were warehouse employees of Defendant.

52.

Plaintiffs are former warehouse employees of Defendant.

53.

Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class are members of a racial minority. Plaintiff and the

Rule 23 Class are of Cuban national origin, race and ethnicity.
54.

Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Class always performed their duties to the legitimate

expectations of their employer.
55.

Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class have suffered adverse job actions, including being

paid lower wages than similarly situated non-Cuban warehouse employees.
56.

Defendant’s facially neutral compensation policy has had a disparate impact on

Plaintiffs, Cuban warehouse employees and the Rule 23 class, as alleged herein.
11

Case: 1:10-cv-06656 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/15/10 Page 12 of 27 PageID #:12

57.

The actions of Defendant as perpetrated by its agents and as described and

complained of above, are unlawful employment practices in that they likely have the effect of
discriminating against, depriving and tending to deprive equal employment to, and otherwise
adversely affecting Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Class because of their Cuban national origin, race
and ethnicity, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended, 42 U.S.C. §
2000e, et seq.
58.

At all times relevant to this cause of action, Defendant had a duty under Title VII

to refrain from discriminating against Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Class based on their Cuban
national origin, race and ethnicity.
59.

Defendant’s actions have caused Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Class great mental

anguish, humiliation, degradation, physical and emotional pain and suffering, inconvenience, lost
wages and benefits, future pecuniary losses, and other consequential damage.
60.

There is a causal connection between the Plaintiffs’ and the Rule 23 Class’ Cuban

national origin, race and ethnicity and the disparate impact suffered by Plaintiffs and the Rule 23
Class at the hands of the Defendant.
COUNT II
(DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VII CIVIL RIGHTS
ACT OF 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000e, et seq. – DISPARATE TREATMENT)
(Plaintiffs individually, and on behalf of a nationwide class
of similarly situated Cuban warehouse employees)
61.

Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs, as if

fully set forth herein.
62.

All conditions precedent to Count II have been satisfied.

63.

Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Class are/were warehouse employees of the Defendant.
12

Case: 1:10-cv-06656 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/15/10 Page 13 of 27 PageID #:13

64.

Plaintiffs were warehouse employees of the Defendant as alleged herein.

65.

Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class are members of a racial minority. Plaintiff and the

Rule 23 Class are of Cuban national origin, race and ethnicity.
66.

Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Class always performed their duties to the legitimate

expectations of Defendant.
67.

Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class have suffered adverse job actions, including being

paid lower wages than similarly situated non-Cuban warehouse employees.
68.

Defendant intentionally and willfully failed and refused to pay Plaintiffs, Cuban

warehouse employees and the Rule 23 class to equal wages as similarly situated non-Cuban
employees based upon their Cuban national origin, race and ethnicity. Defendant’s conduct has
been intentional, deliberate, willful and conducted with disregard for federal law and for the
rights of the Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Class.
69.

The actions of Defendant as perpetrated by its agents and as described and

complained of above, are unlawful employment practices in that they likely have the effect of
discriminating against, depriving and tending to deprive equal employment to, and otherwise
adversely affecting Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class because of their Cuban national origin, race
and ethnicity, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended, 42 U.S.C. §
2000e, et seq.
70.

At all times relevant to this cause of action, Defendant had a duty under Title VII

to refrain from discriminating against Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Class based on their Cuban
national origin, race and ethnicity.

13

Case: 1:10-cv-06656 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/15/10 Page 14 of 27 PageID #:14

71.

Defendant’s actions have caused Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Class great mental

anguish, humiliation, degradation, physical and emotional pain and suffering, inconvenience, lost
wages and benefits, future pecuniary losses, and other consequential damage.
72.

There is a causal connection between the Plaintiffs’ and the Rule 23 Class’ Cuban

national origin, race and ethnicity and the discriminatory, disparate treatment suffered by
Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Class at the hands of the Defendant.

COUNT III
(DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF RACE IN VIOLATION OF THE CIVIL
RIGHTS ACT OF 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 – DISPARATE TREATMENT)
(Plaintiffs individually, and on behalf of a nationwide class
of similarly situated Cuban warehouse employees)
73.

Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs, as if

fully set forth herein.
74.

All conditions precedent to Count III have been satisfied.

75.

Defendant has discriminated against Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Class by paying

them lower wages than similarly situated non-Cuban warehouse employees because of their
Cuban national origin, race and ethnicity in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C.
§ 1981 and 1981(a).
76.

Defendant’s conduct has been intentional, deliberate, willful and conducted with

disregard for the rights of the Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Class.
77.

By reason of Defendant’s discriminatory employment practices based upon race,

national origin, ethnicity or color, Plaintiffs and the Rule 23 Class have experienced extreme
harm, including loss of compensation, wages, back and front pay, damages and other
14

Case: 1:10-cv-06656 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/15/10 Page 15 of 27 PageID #:15

employment benefits, and as such, are entitled to all legal and equitable remedies available under
the Civil Rights Act of 1866.
78.

There is a causal connection between the Plaintiff’s and the Rule 23 Class’ race,

national origin, ethnicity or color and the discrimination and damages suffered by Plaintiffs at
the hands of the Defendant.
COUNT IV
(NATIONAL ORIGIN DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF
TITLE VII CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000e, et seq.)
(Plaintiff Padron individually v. Defendant)
79.

Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs, as if

fully set forth herein.
80.

All conditions precedent to Count IV have been satisfied.

81.

At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff was an employee of the Defendant.

82.

Plaintiff is of Cuban national origin.

83.

Plaintiff always performed his job duties to the legitimate expectations of

Defendant.
84.

Plaintiff has suffered adverse job actions on the basis of his Cuban national origin,

including, but not limited to:
(a)

Being paid lower wages than similarly situated non-Cuban employees;

(b)

Being subjected to a variable schedule while similarly situated non-Cuban
employees were not subjected to a variable schedule;

(c)

Being denied make-up days while similarly situated non-Cuban employees
were not denied make-up days;
15

Case: 1:10-cv-06656 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/15/10 Page 16 of 27 PageID #:16

(d)

Terminated Plaintiff; and

(e)

Otherwise treated differently and less favorably in the terms and
conditions of his employment than similarly situated non-Cuban
employees.

85.

Defendant treated similarly situated non-Cuban employees more favorably than

the Plaintiff, as alleged herein. Defendant intended to, knowingly engaged in, condoned and/or
ratified severe national origin discrimination, as alleged herein.
86.

The actions of Defendant as perpetrated by their agents and as described and

complained of above, are unlawful employment practices in that they likely have the effect of
discriminating against, depriving and tending to deprive equal employment to, and otherwise
adversely affecting Plaintiff because of his national origin, in violation of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.
87.

At all times relevant to this cause of action, Defendant had a duty under Title VII

to refrain from discriminating against Plaintiff based on his national origin.
88.

Plaintiff reported the national origin discrimination on numerous occasions to

management and supervisory employees of Defendant.
89.

Despite knowledge of the discrimination based on national origin, and despite

repeated reports and complaints by Plaintiff, Defendant refused to take any action to investigate,
remediate, stop, prevent, or otherwise address the ongoing discrimination.
90.

Defendant intentionally subjected Plaintiff to unequal and discriminatory

treatment that altered the conditions of Plaintiff’s employment and by knowingly failing and
refusing to protect Plaintiff from the discriminatory actions alleged herein.

16

Case: 1:10-cv-06656 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/15/10 Page 17 of 27 PageID #:17

91.

The discriminatory actions by Defendant, through their management, agents and

employees, were intentional and willful, and in deliberate disregard of and with reckless
indifference to the federal laws, state laws, and the rights and sensibilities of Plaintiff.
92.

Defendant, by and through their agents, engaged in the foregoing acts and conduct

when they knew or should have known that the same were in violation of Title VII and any
alleged reasons to the contrary are pretextual.
93.

The actions of Defendant in intentionally engaging in and condoning national

origin discrimination against Plaintiff has caused Plaintiff great mental anguish, humiliation,
degradation, physical and emotional pain and suffering, inconvenience, lost wages and benefits,
future pecuniary losses, and other consequential damage.
94.

There is a causal connection between the Plaintiff’s national origin and the

dissimilar treatment suffered by Plaintiff at the hands of the Defendant.
COUNT V
(RETALIATION FOR EXERCISE OF RIGHTS UNDER
TITLE VII CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. – REPORTING
NATIONAL ORIGIN DISCRIMINATION AND
ENGAGING IN A PROTECTED ACTIVITY)
(Plaintiff Padron v. Defendant)
95.

Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs, as if

fully set forth herein.
96.

Plaintiff complained about, reported, and protested against Defendant’s unlawful

employment practices under Title VII, as alleged herein.
97.

Plaintiff complained of ongoing and repeated national origin discrimination and

unequal and adverse treatment based on national origin. On various occasions, most recently in
17

Case: 1:10-cv-06656 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/15/10 Page 18 of 27 PageID #:18

November 2006, Plaintiff made internal complaints and reports to Defendant of ongoing national
origin discrimination.
98.

In retaliation for Plaintiff’s complaints, reports, and protests of unlawful

discrimination, Defendant increased its discrimination based on national origin and ultimately
terminated Plaintiff based on his national origin and his reports and complaints of national origin
based discrimination.
99.

At all relevant times herein, Plaintiff was performing all of his job duties in a

manner that met or exceeded Defendant’s legitimate business expectations.
100.

The discriminatory actions by Defendant, through its management agents and

employees, were intentional and willful, and in deliberate disregard of and with reckless
indifference to the federal laws, state laws, and the rights and sensibilities of Plaintiff.
101.

Defendant, by and through its agents, retaliated against Plaintiff when they knew

or should have known that the same were in violation of Title VII and any alleged reasons to the
contrary are pretextual.
102.

The actions of Defendant in retaliating against Plaintiff caused him great mental

anguish, humiliation, degradation, physical and emotional pain and suffering, inconvenience, lost
wages and benefits, future pecuniary losses, and other consequential damages.
COUNT VI
(NATIONAL ORIGIN DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF
TITLE VII CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000e, et seq.)
(Plaintiff Miranda individually v. Defendant)
103.

Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs, as if

fully set forth herein.
18

Case: 1:10-cv-06656 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/15/10 Page 19 of 27 PageID #:19

104.

All conditions precedent to Count VI have been satisfied.

105.

At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff was an employee of the Defendant.

106.

Plaintiff is of Cuban national origin.

107.

Plaintiff always performed his job duties to the legitimate expectations of

Defendant.
108.

Plaintiff has suffered adverse job actions on the basis of his Cuban national origin,

including, but not limited to:

(a)

Being paid lower wages than similarly situated non-Cuban employees;

(b)

Being subjected to a variable schedule while similarly situated non-Cuban
employees were not subjected to a variable schedule;

(c)

Being denied make-up days while similarly situated non-Cuban employees
were not denied make-up days;

(d)

Terminated Plaintiff; and

(e)

Otherwise treated differently and less favorably in the terms and
conditions of his employment than similarly situated non-Cuban
employees.

109.

Defendant treated similarly situated non-Cuban employees more favorably than

the Plaintiff, as alleged herein. Defendant intended to, knowingly engaged in, condoned and/or
ratified severe national origin discrimination, as alleged herein.
110.

The actions of Defendant as perpetrated by their agents and as described and

complained of above, are unlawful employment practices in that they likely have the effect of
discriminating against, depriving and tending to deprive equal employment to, and otherwise
19

Case: 1:10-cv-06656 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/15/10 Page 20 of 27 PageID #:20

adversely affecting Plaintiff because of his national origin, in violation of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e), et seq.
111.

At all times relevant to this cause of action, Defendant had a duty under Title VII

to refrain from discriminating against Plaintiff based on his national origin.
112.

Plaintiff reported the national origin discrimination on numerous occasions to

management and supervisory employees of Defendant.
113.

Despite knowledge of the discrimination based on national origin, and despite

repeated reports and complaints by Plaintiff, Defendant refused to take any action to investigate,
remediate, stop, prevent, or otherwise address the ongoing discrimination.
114.

Defendant intentionally subjected Plaintiff to unequal and discriminatory

treatment that altered the conditions of Plaintiff’s employment and by knowingly failing and
refusing to protect Plaintiff from the discriminatory actions alleged herein.
115.

The discriminatory actions by Defendant, through their management, agents and

employees, were intentional and willful, and in deliberate disregard of and with reckless
indifference to the federal laws, state laws, and the rights and sensibilities of Plaintiff.
116.

Defendant, by and through their agents, engaged in the foregoing acts and conduct

when they knew or should have known that the same were in violation of Title VII and any
alleged reasons to the contrary are pretextual.
117.

The actions of Defendant in intentionally engaging in and condoning national

origin discrimination against Plaintiff has caused Plaintiff great mental anguish, humiliation,
degradation, physical and emotional pain and suffering, inconvenience, lost wages and benefits,
future pecuniary losses, and other consequential damage.

20

Case: 1:10-cv-06656 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/15/10 Page 21 of 27 PageID #:21

118.

There is a causal connection between the Plaintiff’s national origin and the

dissimilar treatment suffered by Plaintiff at the hands of the Defendant.

COUNT VII
(RETALIATION FOR EXERCISE OF RIGHTS UNDER
TITLE VII CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. – REPORTING
NATIONAL ORIGIN DISCRIMINATION AND
ENGAGING IN A PROTECTED ACTIVITY)
(Plaintiff Miranda v. Defendant)
119.

Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs, as if

fully set forth herein.
120.

Plaintiff complained about, reported, and protested against Defendant’s unlawful

employment practices under Title VII, as alleged herein.
121.

Plaintiff complained of ongoing and repeated national origin discrimination and

unequal and adverse treatment based on national origin. On various occasions, most recently in
November 2006, Plaintiff made internal complaints and reports to Defendant of ongoing national
origin discrimination.
122.

In retaliation for Plaintiff’s complaints, reports, and protests of unlawful

discrimination, Defendant increased its discrimination based on national origin and ultimately
terminated Plaintiff based on his national origin and his reports and complaints of national origin
based discrimination.
123.

At all relevant times herein, Plaintiff was performing all of his job duties in a

manner that met or exceeded Defendant’s legitimate business expectations.

21

Case: 1:10-cv-06656 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/15/10 Page 22 of 27 PageID #:22

124.

The discriminatory actions by Defendant, through its management agents and

employees, were intentional and willful, and in deliberate disregard of and with reckless
indifference to the federal laws, state laws, and the rights and sensibilities of Plaintiff.
125.

Defendant, by and through its agents, retaliated against Plaintiff when they knew

or should have known that the same were in violation of Title VII and any alleged reasons to the
contrary are pretextual.
126.

The actions of Defendant in retaliating against Plaintiff caused him great mental

anguish, humiliation, degradation, physical and emotional pain and suffering, inconvenience, lost
wages and benefits, future pecuniary losses, and other consequential damages.
COUNT VIII
(NATIONAL ORIGIN DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF
TITLE VII CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000e, et seq.)
(Plaintiff Calzada individually v. Defendant)
127.

Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs, as if

fully set forth herein.
128.

All conditions precedent to Count VIII have been satisfied.

129.

At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff was an employee of the Defendant.

130.

Plaintiff is of Cuban national origin.

131.

Plaintiff always performed his job duties to the legitimate expectations of

Defendant.
132.

Plaintiff has suffered adverse job actions on the basis of his Cuban national origin,

including, but not limited to:
(a)

Being paid lower wages than similarly situated non-Cuban employees;
22

Case: 1:10-cv-06656 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/15/10 Page 23 of 27 PageID #:23

(b)

Being subjected to a variable schedule while similarly situated non-Cuban
employees were not subjected to a variable schedule;

(c)

Being denied make-up days while similarly situated non-Cuban employees
were not denied make-up days;

(d)

Terminated Plaintiff; and

(e)

Otherwise treated differently and less favorably in the terms and
conditions of his employment than similarly situated non-Cuban
employees.

133.

Defendant treated similarly situated non-Cuban employees more favorably than

the Plaintiff, as alleged herein. Defendant intended to, knowingly engaged in, condoned and/or
ratified severe national origin discrimination, as alleged herein.
134.

The actions of Defendant as perpetrated by their agents and as described and

complained of above, are unlawful employment practices in that they likely have the effect of
discriminating against, depriving and tending to deprive equal employment to, and otherwise
adversely affecting Plaintiff because of his national origin, in violation of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.
135.

At all times relevant to this cause of action, Defendant had a duty under Title VII

to refrain from discriminating against Plaintiff based on his national origin.
136.

Plaintiff reported the national origin discrimination on numerous occasions to

management and supervisory employees of Defendant.
137.

Despite knowledge of the discrimination based on national origin, and despite

repeated reports and complaints by Plaintiff, Defendant refused to take any action to investigate,
remediate, stop, prevent, or otherwise address the ongoing discrimination.
23

Case: 1:10-cv-06656 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/15/10 Page 24 of 27 PageID #:24

138.

Defendant intentionally subjected Plaintiff to unequal and discriminatory

treatment that altered the conditions of Plaintiff’s employment and by knowingly failing and
refusing to protect Plaintiff from the discriminatory actions alleged herein.
139.

The discriminatory actions by Defendant, through their management, agents and

employees, were intentional and willful, and in deliberate disregard of and with reckless
indifference to the federal laws, state laws, and the rights and sensibilities of Plaintiff.
140.

Defendant, by and through their agents, engaged in the foregoing acts and conduct

when they knew or should have known that the same were in violation of Title VII and any
alleged reasons to the contrary are pretextual.
141.

The actions of Defendant in intentionally engaging in and condoning national

origin discrimination against Plaintiff has caused Plaintiff great mental anguish, humiliation,
degradation, physical and emotional pain and suffering, inconvenience, lost wages and benefits,
future pecuniary losses, and other consequential damage.
142.

There is a causal connection between the Plaintiff’s national origin and the

dissimilar treatment suffered by Plaintiff at the hands of the Defendant.
COUNT IX
(RETALIATION FOR EXERCISE OF RIGHTS UNDER
TITLE VII CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. – REPORTING
NATIONAL ORIGIN DISCRIMINATION AND
ENGAGING IN A PROTECTED ACTIVITY)
(Plaintiff Calzada v. Defendant)
143.

Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs, as if

fully set forth herein.

24

Case: 1:10-cv-06656 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/15/10 Page 25 of 27 PageID #:25

144.

Plaintiff complained about, reported, and protested against Defendant’s unlawful

employment practices under Title VII, as alleged herein.
145.

Plaintiff complained of ongoing and repeated national origin discrimination and

unequal and adverse treatment based on national origin. On various occasions, most recently in
November 2006, Plaintiff made internal complaints and reports to Defendant of ongoing national
origin discrimination.
146.

In retaliation for Plaintiff’s complaints, reports, and protests of unlawful

discrimination, Defendant increased its discrimination based on national origin and ultimately
terminated Plaintiff based on his national origin and his reports and complaints of national origin
based discrimination.
147.

At all relevant times herein, Plaintiff was performing all of his job duties in a

manner that met or exceeded Defendant’s legitimate business expectations.
148.

The discriminatory actions by Defendant, through its management agents and

employees, were intentional and willful, and in deliberate disregard of and with reckless
indifference to the federal laws, state laws, and the rights and sensibilities of Plaintiff.
149.

Defendant, by and through its agents, retaliated against Plaintiff when they knew

or should have known that the same were in violation of Title VII and any alleged reasons to the
contrary are pretextual.
150.

The actions of Defendant in retaliating against Plaintiff caused him great mental

anguish, humiliation, degradation, physical and emotional pain and suffering, inconvenience, lost
wages and benefits, future pecuniary losses, and other consequential damages.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant as follows:
i.

Acceptance of jurisdiction of this cause;
25

Case: 1:10-cv-06656 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/15/10 Page 26 of 27 PageID #:26

ii.

A declaratory judgment that the employment practices challenged herein
are illegal and violative of the rights secured to Plaintiffs and the Class;

iii.

A preliminary and permanent injunction against the Defendant and its
partners, officers, owners, agents, successors, employees, representatives
and any and all persons acting in concert with it, from engaging in any
further unlawful practices, policies, customs, usages, and discrimination as
set forth herein;

iv.

An Order requiring the Defendant to initiate and implement programs that:
(1) provide equal employment opportunities for Cuban employees; (2)
remedy the effects of the Defendant’s past and present unlawful
employment practices; and (3) eliminate the continuing effects of the
discriminatory practices described herein above;

v.

Certification of this case as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure;

vi.

Designation of the Plaintiff as representative of the Rule 23 Class, and
counsel of record as Class Counsel;

vii.

Damages sufficient to compensate Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class for their
injuries;

viii.

Back Pay, inclusive of lost wages and any benefits;

ix.

Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest;

x.

Reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of this action;

xi.

Punitive damages; and

26

Case: 1:10-cv-06656 Document #: 1 Filed: 10/15/10 Page 27 of 27 PageID #:27

xii.

Any and all other relief that this Honorable Court may deem just and
equitable.
DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff demands a trial
by jury on all questions of fact raised by the complaint.

Dated: October 15, 2010

Respectfully submitted,
ROLANDO PADRON, BOBIRT R. MIRANDA
and EUSEBIO R. CALZADA
FOOTE, MEYERS, MIELKE & FLOWERS, LLC
/s/Robert M. Foote _____
Robert M. Foote, Esq. (#03124325)
Matthew J. Herman, Esq. (#06237297)
Michael D. Wong, Esq. (#6291089)
FOOTE, MEYERS, MIELKE & FLOWERS, LLC
3 North Second Street
Suite 300
Saint Charles, IL 60174
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Kathleen C. Chavez, Esq. (#6255735)
CHAVEZ LAW FIRM, P.C.
3 North Second Street
Suite 300
Saint Charles, IL 60174
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Peter L. Currie, Esq. (#06281711)
THE LAW FIRM OF PETER L. CURRIE, P.C.
536 Wing Lane
Saint Charles, Illinois 60174
Telephone: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
27

Case: 1:10-cv-06656 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 10/15/10 Page 1 of 14 PageID #:28

EXHIBIT A

EEOC Form 5 (5101)

Case: 1:10-cv-06656 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 10/15/10 Page 2 of 14 PageID #:29
Charge Presented To:
Agency(ies) Charge No(s):
CHARGE OF DISCRIMINATION

D

FEPA

[K]

This form is affected by the Privacy Act 0f1974. See enclosed ·Privacy Act
Statement and other information before completing this form

EEOC

440-2007 -01452

Illinois Department Of Human Rights

and EEOC

State or local Agency, if any

Name (indicate Mr. Ms., Mrs.)

Home Phone (Incl. Area Code)

[phone]

Mr. Rolando Padron
Street Address

Date of Birth

08-14-1962

City, State and ZIP Code

253 Joliet Street, West Chicago, IL 60185
Named is the Employer, Labor Organization. Employment Agency, Apprenticeship Committee, or State or Local Government Agency That I Believe
Discriminated Against Me or Others. (If more than two, list under PARTICULARS below.)
Name

No Employees. Members

500 or More

Streel Address

[phone]

.N"~ Employees. Members

WALMART

Phone No. (Include Area Code)

Phone No. (Include Area Code)

City. State and ZIP Code

150 Smith Road, Saint Charles, IL 60174

Street Address

City. State and ZIP Code

DISCRIMINATION BASED ON (Check appropriate box(es).)

c==J

RACE

o

c==J

COLOR

RETALIATION

c==J

SEX

AGE

c==J DISABILITY

c==J

RELIGION

0

c==J

DATE(S) DISCRIMINATION TOOK PLACE
Latest
Earliest
NATIONAL ORIGIN

01-01-2006

11-12-2006

OTHER (Specify below.)
CONTINUING ACTION

THE PARTICULARS ARE (If additional paper is needed, attach eKtra sheet(s)):

I began my employment with Respondent in August 2001 and my last position was Receiving, Beginning
on or about January 1, 2006 and continuing, I have been subjected to different terms and conditions than my
non-Cuban co-workers such as a variable schedule, denial of make-up days, and lower wages, On various
occasions, most recently in November 2006, I complained internally regarding natronal origin discrimination.
On November 12, 2006, I was discharged,
I believe that I have been discriminated against because of my national origin, Cuban, and have been

against in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.

retaliat~d

NOV 30

I want this charge filed with both the EEOC and the State or local Agency, if any. I
will advise the agencies if I change my address or phone number and I will cooperate

fully with them in the processing of my charge in accordance with their procedures

NOTARY

When necessary for State and Local Agency Requirements

-:-:--:--_-,-_ _-:---::-__.--.---.--:--__- - - : - - - - : - - - - - - ; I swear or affirm that I have read the above charge and that it is true to
I declare under penalty of perjury that the above is true and correct.
the best of my knowledge, information and belief
SIGNATURE OF COMPLAINANT

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS DATE
Date

EEOC Form 5 (5101)

Case: 1:10-cv-06656 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 10/15/10 Page 3 of 14 PageID #:30
Charge Presc .. ted To:
Agency(ies) Charge No(s)
CHARGE OF DISCKIMO:~1TlOr(

D

FEPA

[R]

This form is affected by the Privacy Act of 1974. See enclosed Priv3CY Act
Statement and other Information before completlilg this form.

EEOC

440-2007-01458

Illinois Department Of Human Rights

and EEOC

____________________________________________ ._S_ta_~~o_r_~c~a_IA~g~e_nc~y~,1_fa_n~y_____.--------------------~---------------

Name (indicate Mr, Ms., Mrs.)

Home Phone (Incl. Area Code)

[phone]

Mr. Bobirt R. Miranda
Street Address

Date of Birth

09-30-1975

City, State and ZIP Code

253 Joliet Street, West Chicago, IL 60185
Named is the Employer, Labor Organization, Employment Agency, Apprenticeship Committee, or State or Local Government Agency That I Believe
Discriminated Against Me or Others. (If more than two, list under PARTICUL,~RS below.)
Name

No Employees Membars

500 or More

WALMART
Street Address

Phone No, (Include Area Code)

[phone]

City, State and ZIP Code

150 Smith Road, Saint
Name

I?hone No. (Include Area Code)

Street Address

City. State and ZIP Code

DISCRIMINATION BASED ON (Check appropriate box(es).}
DRACE

00

D

SEX

COLOR

RETALIATION

D

AGE

DATE(S) OISCRIMINATION TOOK PLACE
Earliest
Latest
RELIGION

D

DISABILITY

D

X

NATIONAL ORIGIN

01-01-2006

11-20-2006

OTHER (Specify below)
D

CONTINUING ACTION

THE PARTICULARS ARE (If addilional paper is needed, attach extra sheet(s));

I began my employment with Respondent in July 2000 and my last position was Receiving. Beginning on or
about January 1, 2006 and continuing, I have been subjected to different terms and conditions than my non­
Cuban co-workers such as a variable schedule, denial of make-up days, and lower wages. On various
occasions, most recently in November 2006, I complained internally regarding n'ational origin discrimination.
On November 20,2006, I was discharged.
I believe that I have been discriminated against because of my national origin, Cuban, and have been

retaliated against in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.

I want this charge filed with both the EEOC and the State or local Agency, if any, I
will advise the agencies if I change my address or phone number and I will cooperate
fully with them in the processing of my charge in accordance with their procedures.

NOTARY - When necessary for State and Local Agency Requirements

--:-:--:--__---,-____.,-----:----,__-::---:-__-:-__-:--:____-:-__,--________--; I swear or affirm that I have read the above charge and that it is true to
the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
I declare under penalty of pe~ury that the above is true and correct.
SIGNATURE OF COMPLAINANT

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS DATE
--,~---,--,-",

Date

.

I

,----­

Charging Party Signature

Case: 1:10-cv-06656 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 10/15/10 Page 4 of 14 PageID #:31
EEOC

Form

1

5 (5101)

-=-C-H-A-R-G-E-O~F-D-ISCRIMINATIONc_
This form ;s affected by the Pnvacy Act~r;- 974. See en~losed ~nv.acy Act

Charge Presented To:

o
o

Statement and other Information beFore completing this form

Agency(ies) Charge No(s):

FEPA

440-2001-01448

EEOC

Illinois Department Of Human Rights

and EEOC

State or local Agency. if any

Name (indicate Me Ms. Mrs.)

Home Phone (Incl. Area Code)

Date of Birth

[phone]

12-15-1964

Mr. Eusebio R. Calzada
Street Address

C,ty. State and ZIP Code

600 West Forest Avenue, Apartment 312, West Chicago, IL 60185
Named is the Employer. labor Organization. Employment Agency. Apprenticeship Committee. or State or local Government Agency That I Believe
Discriminated Against Me or Others. (If more than two. list under PARTICULARS be/ow.)
______

Name

No

Employees. Membe-:'Tphone No. (include Area Code)

500 or More~_

WALMART
Street Address

[phone]

City. State and ZIP Code

150 Smith Road, Saint Charles,
Name

Street Address

City. State and ZIP Code

DISCRIMINAnON BASED ON (Check appropriate box(es).}
DRACE

o

0

RETALIATION

COLOR

0

0

SEX

AGE

0

o

RELIGiON

DISABILITY

0

[RJ

OATE(S) DISCRIMINATION TOOK PLACE
Earliest
latest
NAnONAL ORiGIN

OTHER (Specify below.)

01-01-2006

o

11-08-2006

CONTINUING ACTION

fHE PARTICULARS ARE (If additional paper IS needed. attach extra sheet(s))'

I began my employment with Respondent in July 1998 and my last position was Receiving. Beginning on or
about January 1, 2006 and continuing, I have been subjected to different terms and conditions than my non­
Cuban co-workers such as a variable schedule, denial of make-up days, and lowE:lr wages. On various
occasions, most recently in November 2006, I complained internally regarding national origin discrimination.
On November 08, 2006, I was discharged.
I believe that I have been discriminated against because of my national origin. Cuban. and have been

retaliated against in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.

lant this charge filed with both the EEOC and the State or local Agency. if any. I
I advise the agencies if I change my address or phone number and I will cooperate
Iy with them in the processing of my charge in accordance with their procedures.

NOTARY - When necessal}' for State and Local Agency Requirements

I swear or affirm that I have read the above charge and that it is true to
the best of my knowledge. information and belief.
SIGNATURE OF COMPLAINANT

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS DATE
Date

Charging Party Signature

Case: 1:10-cv-06656 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 10/15/10 Page 5 of 14 PageID #:32

EXHIBIT B

Case: 1:10-cv-06656 Document #: 1-1 OPPORTUNITY COMMISSIONof 14 PageID #:33
u.s. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT Filed: 10/15/10 Page 6

EEOC Form 161·A (11109)

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUE

(CONCILIA nON FAILURE)
To:

Rolando Padron
253 Joliet Street
West Chicago, IL 60185

From:

Chicago District Office
500 West Madison St
Suite 2000
Chicago, IL 60661

CERTIFIED MAIL 7099 3400 0018 8816 4082

D

On behalf of person(s) aggrieved whose identity is
CONFIDENTIAL (29 CFR §1601.7(a))

EEOC Charge No.

EEOC Representative

Telephone No.

440-2007 -01452

Michael J. Honkanen,
Investigator

[phone]

TO THE PERSON AGGRIEVED:
This notice concludes the EEOC's processing of the above-numbered charge. The EEOC found reasonable cause to believe
that violations of the statute(s) occurred with respect to some or all of the matters alleged in the charge but could not obtain a
settlement with the Respondent that would provide relief for you. In addition, the EEOC has decided that it will not bring suit
against the Respondent at this time based on this charge and will close its file in this case. This does not mean that the EEOC
is certifying that the Respondent is in compliance with the law, or that the EEOC will not sue the Respondent later or intervene
.
later in your lawsuit if you decide to sue on your own behalf.

- NOTICE OF SUIT RIGHTS ­
(See the additional information attached to this form.)

Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, or the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act: This will be the only notice of dismissal and of your right to sue that we will send you.
You may file a lawsuit against the respondent(s) under federal law based on this charge in federal or state court. Your
lawsuit must be filed WITHIN 90 DAYS of your receipt of this notice; or your rjght to sue based on this charge will be
lost. (The time limit for filing suit based on a claim under state law may be different.)
Equal Pay Act (EPA): EPA suits must be filed in federal or state court within 2 years (3 years for willful violations) of the
alleged EPA underpayment. This means that backpay due for any violations that occurred more than 2 years (3 years)
before you file suit may not be collectible.
If you file suit, based on this charge, please send a copy of your court complaint to this office.
On behalf of the Commission

f·
EnciosLires(s)

cc:

WALMART

John P. Rowe,
District Director

(Date Mailed)

Case: 1:10-cv-06656 Document #: 1-1 OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION of 14 PageID #:34
Filed: 10/15/10 Page 7
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT

EEOC Form 161-A{11f09)

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUE

(CaNCILlA TfON FAILURE)
To:

Bobirt R. Miranda
660 Bell Rd, Apt 307
Antioch, TN 37013

From:

Chicago District Office
500 West Madison St
Suite 2000
Chicago, IL 60661

CERTIFIED MAIL 7099 3400 0018 8816 4075

o

On behalf of person(s) aggrieved whose identity is
CONFIDENTIAL (29 CFR §1601.7(a))

EEOC Charge No.

EEOC Representative

Telephone No.

440·2007 ·01458

Michael J. Honkanen,
Investigator

(312) 353·7312

TO THE PERSON AGGRIEVED:
This notice concludes the EEOC's processing of the above-numbered charge. The EEOC found reasonable cause to believe
that violations of the statute(s) occurred with respect to some or all of the matters alleged in the charge but could not obtain a
settlement with the Respondent that would provide relief for you. In addition, the EEOC has decided that it will not bring suit
against the Respondent at this time based on this charge and will close its file in this case. This does not mean that the EEOC
is certifying that the Respondent is in compliance with the law, or that the EEOC will not sue the Respondent later or intervene
later in your lawsuit if you decide to sue on your own behalf.

- NOTICE OF SUIT RIGHTS ­
(See the additional information attached to 'this form.)

Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, or the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act: This will be the only notice of dismissal and of your right.to sue that we will send you.
You may file a lawsuit against the respondent(s) under federal law based on this charge in federal or state court. Your
lawsuit must be filed WITHIN 90 DAYS of your receipt of this notice; or your right to sue based on this charge will be
lost. (The time limit for filing suit based on a claim under state law may be different.)
Equal Pay Act (EPA): EPA suits must be filed in federal or state court within 2 years (3 years for willful violations) of the
alleged EPA underpayment. This means that backpay due for any violations that occurred more than 2 years (3 years)
before you file suit may not be collectible.
If you file suit, based on this charge, please send a copy of your court complaint to this office.
On behalf of the Commission

Enclosures(s)

cc:

WALMART

John P. Rowe,
District Director

(Date Mailed)

Case: 1:10-cv-06656 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 10/15/10 Page 8 of 14 PageID #:35
EEOC Form 161·A (11/09)

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUE
(CONCILIA TlON FAILURE)
To:

From:

Eusebio R. Calzada
600 West Forest Avenue, Apt. 312
West Chicago, IL 60185

Chicago District Office
500 West Madison St
Suite 2000
Chicago, IL 60661

CERTIFIED MAIL 7099 3400 0018 8816 4099

o

On behalf of person(s) aggrieved whose identity is
CONFIDENTIAL (29 CFR §1601.7(a))

EEOC Charge No.

EEOC Representative

Telephone No.

440-2007-01448

Michael J. Honkanen,
Investigator

(312) 353·7312

TO THE PERSON AGGRIEVED:
This notice concludes the EEOC's processing of the above-numbered charge. The EEOC found reasonable cause to believe
that violations of the statute(s) occurred with respect to some or all of the matters alleged in the charge but could not obtain a
settlement with the Respondent that would provide relief for you. In addition, the EEOC has decided that it will not bring suit
against the Respondent at this time based on this charge and will close its file in this case. This does not mean that the EEOC
is certifying that the Respondent is in compliance with the law, or that the EEOC will not sue the Respondent later or intervene
later in your lawsuit if you decide to sue on your own behalf.
w

NOTICE OF SUIT RIGHTS ­

(See the additional information attached to this form.)

Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, or the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act: This will be the only notice of dismissal and of your right to sue that we will send you.
You may file a lawsuit against the respondent(s) under federal law based on this charge in federal or state court. Your
lawsuit must be filed WITHIN 90 DAYS of your receipt of this notice; or your right to sue based on this charge will be
lost. (The time limit for filing suit based on a claim under state law may be different.)
Equal Pay Act (EPA): EPA suits must be filed in federal or state court within 2 years (3 years for willful violations) of the
alleged EPA underpayment. This means that backpay due for any violations that occurred more than 2 years (3 years)
before you file suit may not be collectible.
If you file suit, based on this charge, please send a copy of your court complaint to this office.
On behalf of the Commission

Enclosures( s)

cc:

WALMART

(Date Mailed)

Case: 1:10-cv-06656 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 10/15/10 Page 9 of 14 PageID #:36
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Chicago District Office

500 West Madison Street, Suite 2000
Chicago, IL 60661
(3 I 2) 353-2713

TTY (3 12) 353-2421
FAX [phone]

EEOC Charge Number: 440-2007-01452
Rolando Padron
253 Joliet Street
West Chicago, IL 60185

Charging Party

v.

Wal-Mart

Respondent

150 Smith Road

Saint Charies, IL 60174
DETERMINATION

Under the authority vested in me by the Commission:s Procedural Regulations, I issue the
following determination on the merits of the subject charge filed under Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, as amended (Title VII).
The Respondent is an employer within the meanmg of Title VII and all requirements for
coverage have been met.
Charging Party alleged that the Respondent discriminated against him, because of his national
origin, Cuban, in that he was subjected to different terms and condition of employment than non­
Cuban coworkers, such as a variable schedule, denial of make-up days, and lower wages, in
violation of Title VII. Charging Party also alleged that he complained internally regarding
national origin discrimination and was subsequently discharged, in violation of Title VII.
I have detenuined that the evidence obtained in the investigation establishes reasonable cause to
believe that the Respondent discriminated against Charging Party and a class of employees
because of their national origin, Cuban, by paying them a ksser vv'age, in violation of Title VII.

This determination is final. When the Commission finds that violations have occurred, it
attempts to eliminate unlawful practices by infonual methods of conciliation. Therefore, I invite
the parties to join with the Commission in reaching a just resolution of this matter. Disclosure of
information obtained during the conciliation process will be made only in accordance with the
Commission's Procedural Regulations (29 CFR Part 1601.26).
If the Respondent wishes to accept this invitation to participate in conciliation efforts, it may do
so at this time by proposing tenus for a conciliation agreement; that proposal should be provided
to the Commission representative within 14 days of the date of determination. The remedies for
violations of the statutes we enforce are designed to make the identified victims whole and to
provide corrective and preventive relief. These remedies may include, as appropriate, an
agreement by the Respondent not to engage in unlawful employment practices, placement of

Case: 1:10-cv-06656 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 10/15/10 Page 10 of 14 PageID #:37
EEOC Charge No. 440-2007-01452
Page 20f2
identified victims in positions they would have held but for discriminatory actions, back pay,
restoration of lost benefits, injunctive relief, compensatory and/or punitive damages, and notice
to employees of the violation and the resolution of the claim.
Should the Respondent have further questions regarding the conciliation process or the
conciliation terms it would like to propose, we encourage it to contact the assigned Commission
representative. Should there be no response from the Respondent within 14 days, we may
conclude that further conciliation efforts would be futile or nonproductive.

On Behalf of the Commission,

&~e t eOd-u-R. ~

District Director

Case: 1:10-cv-06656 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 10/15/10 Page 11 of 14 PageID #:38
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Chicago District Office

500 West Madison Street, Suite 2000
Chicago. IL 60661
[phone]
TTY [phone]
FAX [phone]

EEOC Charge Number: 440-2007-01458
Bobirt Miranda
253 Joliet Street
West Chicago, IL 60185

Charging Party

v.
Wal-Mart
150 Smith Road
Saint Charles, IL 60174

Respondent

DETERMINATION
Under the authority vested in me by the Commission's Procedural Regulations, I issue th~
following determination on the merits of the subject charge filed under Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, as amended (Title VII).
The Respondent is an employer within the meamng of Title VII and all requirements for
coverage have been met.
Charging Party alleged that the Respondent discriminated against him, because of his national
origin, Cuban, in that he was subjected to different terms and condition of employment than non­
Cuban coworkers, such as a variable schedule, denial of make-up days, and lower wages, in
violation of Title VII. Charging Party also alleged that he complained internally regarding
national origin discrimination and was subsequently discharged, in violation of Title VII.
I have determined that the evidence obtained in the investigation establishes reasonable cause to
believe that the Respondent discriminated against Charging Party and a class of employees
because of their national origin, C'lban, by pc_ying them a lesser wage, in violation of Title VII.
This determination is finaL When the Commission finds that violations have occurred, it
attempts to eliminate unlawful practices by informal methods of conciliation. Therefore, I invite
the parties to join with the Commission in reaching a just resolution of this matter. Disclosure of
information obtained during the conciliation process will be made only in accordance with the
Commission's Procedural Regulations (29 CFR Part 1601.26).
~,\

If the Respondent wishes to accept this invitation to participate in conciliation efforts, it may do
so at this time by proposing terms for a conciliation agreement; that proposal should be provided
to the Commission representative within 14 days of the date of determination. The remedies for
violations of the statutes we enforce are designed to make the identified victims whole and to
provide corrective and preventive relief. These remedies may include, as appropriate, an
agreement by the Respondent not to engage in unlawful employment practices, placement of

Case: 1:10-cv-06656 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 10/15/10 Page 12 of 14 PageID #:39
EEOC Charge No. 440-2007-01458
Page 20f2
identified victims in positions they would have held but for discriminatory actions, back pay,
restoration of lost benefits, injunctive relief, compensatory and/or punitive damages, and notice
to employees of the violation and the resolution of the claim.
Should the Respondent have further questions regarding the conciliation process or the
conciliation terms it would like to propose, we encourage it to contact the assigned Commission
representative. Should there be no response from the Respondent within 14 days, we may
conclude that further conciliation efforts would be futile or nonproductive.

On Behalf of the Commission,

ql:r::w(;CocA
~tnct
Dlrector

L

Case: 1:10-cv-06656 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 10/15/10 Page 13 of 14 PageID #:40
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Chicago District Office

500 West Madison Street. Suite 2000
Chicago. IL 60661
[phone]
TrY [phone]
FAX [phone]

EEOC Charge Number: 440-2007-01448
Eusebio Calzada
600 Forest Ave #3 12
West Chicago, IL 60185

Charging Party

v.

Wal-Mart
150 Smith Road
Saint Charles, IL 60174

Respondent

DETERMINATION
Under the authority vested in me by the Commission's Procedural Regulations, I issue the
following determination on the merits of the subject charge filed under Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, as amended (Title VII).
The Respondent is an employer within the meanmg of Title VII and all requirements for
coverage have been met.
Charging Party alleged that the Respondent discriminated against him, because of his national
origin, Cuban, in that he was subjected to different terms and condition of employment than non­
Cuban coworkers, such as a variable schedule, denial of make-up days, and lower wages, in
violation of Title VII. Charging Party also alleged that he complained internally regarding
national origin discrimination and was subsequently discharged, in violation of Title VII.
I have determined that the evidence obtained in the investigation establishes reasonable cause to
believe that the Respondent discriminated against Charging Party and a class of employees
because of their m~tional orig:n, Cuban, by paying them a lesser 'vage, in violation of Title VII.

>

This determination is final. When the Commission finds that violations have occurred, it
attempts to eliminate unlawful practices by informal methods of conciliation. Therefore, I invite
the parties to join with the Commission in reaching a just resolution of this matter. Disclosure of
information obtained during the conciliation process will be made only in accordance with the
Commission's Procedural Regulations (29 CFR Part 1601.26).
If the Respondent wishes to accept this invitation to participate in conciliation efforts, it may do
so at this time by proposing terms for a conciliation agreement; that proposal should be provided
to the Commission representative within 14 days of the date of determination. The remedies for
violations of the statutes we enforce are designed to make the identified victims whole and to
provide corrective and preventive relief. These remedies may include, as appropriate, an
agreement by the Respondent not to engage in unlawful employment practices, placement of

Case: 1:10-cv-06656 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 10/15/10 Page 14 of 14 PageID #:41
EEOC Charge No. 440-2007-01448
Page 2 of2
identified victims in positions they would have held but for discriminatory actions, back pay,
restoration of lost benefits, injunctive relief, compensatory and/or punitive damages, and notice
to employees of the violation and the resolution of the claim.
Should the Respondent have further questions regarding the conciliation process or the
conciliation terms it would like to propose, we encourage it to contact the assigned Commission
representative. Should there be no response from the Respondent within 14 days, we may
conclude that further conciliation efforts would be futile or nonproductive.

On Behalf of the Commission,

Dat~

District Director

EXHIBIT B

EEOC Form 136
(Test 10194)

UNI'J.' D STATES OF AMER A
EQUAL EMPLOYMEN'f OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

SUBPOENA

TO:

NO.

Chief Executive Officer
Wal-Mart

CH-07-358

150 Smith Road
Saint Charles, IL 60174

IN THE MATTER OF:

Eusebio Calzada v. Wal-Mart

Charge No.

440·2007 -01448

Having failed to comply with previous request(s) made by or. on behalf of the undersigned Commission official, YOU ARE HEREBY REQUIRED AND
DIRECTED TO:

o

D

Testify

D

Produce access to the evidence described below for the purpose of.examination or copying to:

Omayra Rodriguez, Investigator
at

Produce and bring * or

lL.",;;.;X,----, Mail * the documents described below to:

of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

500 W. Madison St. Suite 2800, Chicago, IL 60661

on

June 1, 2007

at

10:00 a.m. o'clock

The evidence required is
1.) The Documents Requested in Exhibit B attached

See definition attached hereto as Exhibit A which state, describe, constitute, refer to, or relate in any way to the following (Exhibit B
attached hereto and made a part hereof):

cc: Jeremy B. Lewin, Esq.
Barnes & Thornburg, LLP.
One North Wacker Drive, Suite 4400
Chicago, IL 60606

This subpoel)a is issued pursuant to

Q

(Title VII) 42 U.S.C. 2000e·9

D

(AOEA) 29 U.S.C. 626(a)

D

(EPA) 29

U.SC2~9

(ADA)42U.S.C.12117(a)

ISSUING OFFICIAL (Typed name, title and address)

e
f>

ON BEHALF OF THE COMMISSION

John P. Rowe, District Director
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
500 W. Madison St., Suite 2800
Chica!=lo. IL 60661

0

.

~.

•

~.

~.
Date
"

SUBPOENA

PROOF OF SERVICE
\
I

I hereby certify that being ~ver 18 years of age and not a party to or any way
interested in these proceedings, I duly served a copy of the subpoena on the
persons named in this subpoena.

D

[ZJ

tJ

inperson
by certified mail
by leaving a copy with a responsible person. at the
principal offiCe or place of business, to wit:

Name

~bI\ ·Wx..+V"",

On

State
Parishf
r.nllnlv

CERTIFICATION OF ATTENDANCE
I certify that the person named herein was in attendance and satisfactorily
produced the records requested or gave oral testimony at

On

(Mo, day & year)

(Signarure ofperson maliillg sen/ice)

(Official title, if allY)

Page 2 of Form 136 (Test 10/94)

EXHIBIT A

"Documents" shall mean and include all written, printed, typed or graphic material, or
other tangible mediums of reproduction or communication·, of every kind and
. description, however produced or reproduced, including, but not limited to:
correspondence, statements, memoranda. films, microfilms, microfiche, pictures,
videotapes, recordings of any type, transcripts,' notes, photographs, slides, drawings,
sketches, diagrams, graphs, charts, forms, letters, lists, reports, medical reports,
studies, working papers, financial statements, bills, checks, vouchers, telegrams,
abstracts, news releases, periodicals, bulletins, circulars, diaries, calendars, desk
calendars, rules, regulations, codes, contracts, agreements, notebooks, files, records,
books, manuals, machine~readable documents from which any of the foregOing
documents are or may be produced, documents which contain, include, and/or explain
any and all codes appearing on said machine-readable documents, or material similar
to any of the foregoing, however denominated, by whomever prepared, to whomever
addresses, which are in the possession, custody or control of the person or entity to
which this Subpoena is directed or to which such person or entity has, has had, or can
obtain access. Further, the term "documents" includes any copies of documents which
are not identical duplicates of the originals, including but not limited to, all drafts of
whatever date, copies with typed or handwritten notations, and copies of documents the
originals of which are not in the possession, custody. or control of the person or entity to
which the Subpoena is directed.
.

,I

'~'.'

EXHIBIT B

Su poena No. CH-07 -358

Euse io Calzada v. Wal-Mart

Charge Number: 440-2007-01448

1.) Charging Party's employment files, including but not limited to all discipline (s)

issued.

2.) All employees employed by Respondent at any time during the period from

January 1, 2005 through the present, their name, national origin/race, date of

hire, po~ition title, starting pay rate, resume, salary history, current employment

status, reason and date of separation, if applicable, and last known home

address and home telephone number.

3.) All Respondent employees issued discipliq,e during the period from January 1,
. 2005 through the present, their name, national origin/race, date(s) of disciplinary
action(s), reason for disciplinary action, type of disciplinary action and, name and
position title of the individual who issued the disciplinary action (include a copy of
. each disciplinary action issued) ..
4.) Any and all investigative file(s) regarding any allegations and/or complaints of

discrimination made against Brad Wilson at any time during his employment with

Respondent.

5.) Any and all investigative file(s) regarding any allegations and lor complaints of

discrimination made by Ch~rging Party at any time during his employment.

~. 6.) The video showing Charging Party's iAfraction(s) that led to' ~is discharge .

.

,

,,