BENTON v. FISHERS LIBRARY
AMENDED COMPLAINT and DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL against HAMILTON EAST PUBLIC LIBRARY, filed by PENNY BENTON. (TMA)
BENTON v. FISHERS LIBRARY
UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION PENNY BENTON, Plaintiff, v. HAMILTON EAST PUBLIC LIBRARY, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
CASE NO.: 1:10-cv-918-LJM-DML
AMENDED COMPLAINT and DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Comes now Plaintiff, Penny Benton, by counsel, and for her Amended Complaint and Demand for Trial by Jury, state as follows: I. INTRODUCTION This is an action brought by Plaintiff against Hamilton East Public Library ("Defendant"). Defendant violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII"), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e et seq., when it terminated Plaintiff's employment. Defendant violated Title VII when it took retaliatory measures against Plaintiff for complaining about the more favorable treatment given to Defendant's employees who were not African-American. II. PARTIES 1. At all times relevant to this litigation, Plaintiffs resided within the geographical
boundaries of the Southern District of Indiana. 2. At all times relevant to this litigation, Defendant is an Indiana corporation which
maintained offices and conducted business within the geographical boundaries of the Southern District of Indiana.
III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-5, 28 U.S.C. Sec.
1331, and 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1343. 4. 5. 6. Plaintiff is an "employee" as that term is defined by 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e(f). Defendant is an "employer" as that term is defined by 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e(b). Plaintiff satisfied her obligation to exhaust her administrative remedies by having
timely filed U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Charge No. 470-2008-01248. Plaintiff received her Dismissal and Notice of Rights and timely files this action. 7. All of the events, transactions, and occurrences pertinent to this lawsuit have
occurred within the geographical environs of the Southern District of Indiana, and all parties are located therein. Therefore, venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1391. VI. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 8. Plaintiff is an African-American female who was originally hired by Defendant in
December of 2006. 9. At all times relevant, Plaintiff met or exceeded Defendant's legitimate
performance expectations. 10. Defendant. 11. Defendant would subject Plaintiff to different standards for work performance At all times relevant, Plaintiff was the only African-American employee of
than other similarly-situated employees. 12. Defendant would discipline Plaintiff for alleged conduct which other similarly-
situated employees were not disciplined for engaging in the same conduct.
In May 2008, Plaintiff brought the unequal treatment to the attention of
Defendant's management; however, such unequal treatment continued. 14. On or about August 18, 2008, Plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination with the
EEOC alleging discrimination based upon race and retaliation. 15. Plaintiff subsequently filed a formal pro se lawsuit against Defendant in the
United District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Case Number 1:09-cv-00496-RLYTAB, which was ultimately settled by the parties on or about December 7, 2009. 16. Defendant's unequal treatment of Plaintiff continued and Defendant ultimately
terminated Plaintiff's employment on March 31, 2010. V. LEGAL CLAIMS COUNT 1: Disparate Treatment under Title VII 17. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the foregoing paragraphs one (1) through sixteen
(16) of her Amended Complaint and, in addition, alleges and states that Defendant's actions violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e et seq., as amended. 18. Defendant intentionally discriminated against Plaintiff by treating similarly-
situated employees who were not African-American more favorably. 19. Defendant's actions were intentional, malicious, and done with reckless disregard
to Plaintiff's federally protected rights to be free from discrimination on the basis of race. 20. Plaintiff has suffered, and will continue to suffer, harm as a result of Defendant's
COUNT 2: Unlawful Retaliation under Title VII 21. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs one (1) through twenty-one (21) of their
Amended Complaint and, in addition, alleges and states that Defendant retaliated against her for complaining about discriminatory treatment, which is also a violation of Title VII. 22. Plaintiff voiced opposition to Defendant's practices and conduct which she
reasonably believed to be discriminatory on the basis of race. Plaintiff's complaints of discrimination constitute conduct protected under Title VII. 23. As a result of voicing such opposition, Defendant willfully and intentionally, with
malice and/or reckless disregard of Plaintiffs' rights, retaliated against Plaintiff. 24. Plaintiff has suffered, and will continue to suffer, harm as a result of Defendant's
unlawful actions. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that the Court find in her favor and order the following relief: A. Order that Plaintiff be awarded damages sufficient to compensate her for all lost
wages and benefits; B. Order compensatory damages at the statutory maximum for substantive claims
under Title VII; C. D. E. Order that Plaintiff be awarded her attorney fees and costs; Order that Plaintiff be awarded pre- and post-judgment interest; and Order all other monetary and/or equitable relief that the Court deems just and
proper in the premises.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff, by counsel, respectfully requests a jury trial for all issues deemed so triable. Respectfully submitted, RAMEY & HAILEY /s/ Joel S. Paul Joel S. Paul, Atty. #422921 Attorneys for Plaintiff 9333 N. Meridian Street, Suite 105 Indianapolis, IN 46260 Tel: (317) 582-0000 Fax: (317) 582-0080 E-mail: email@example.com
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?