EEOC v. Blockbuster Inc.
Filing
1
COMPLAINT against Blockbuster Inc., filed by EEOC. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(raf, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION,
CityCrescentBuilding,3rd Floor
10
South Howard Street
Baltimore,
MD 21201
Plaintiff,
v.
BLOCKBUSTER INC.,
15891 Gaither Drive
Gaithersburg, Maryland 20877
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.
COMPLAINT
AND JURY
TRIAL DEMAND
NATURE OF THE ACTION
This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and
Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis
of sex, retaliation, race and national origin and to provide appropriate relief to Charging
Party Lolita Gonzales, Charging Party Dolores Gonzales, and other similarly situated
female and/or Hispanic employees who were adversely affected by such practices.
As
alleged with greater particularity in Paragraphs 7-24, below, the u.s. Equal Employment
Opportunity
Commission alleges that since at least December 2004 the Defendant
Blockbuster Inc. engaged in sexual, retaliatory and race and national origin motivated
harassment and discrimination at its Gaithersburg warehouse facility.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1.
Jurisdiction ofthis Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337,
1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706(D(1) and
1
(3) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-s(f)(1) and
(3) ("Title VII"), and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,42 U.S.C.§ 1981a.
2.
jurisdiction
The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the
of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, Southern
Division.
PARTIES
3.
Plaintiff,
the
Equal
Employment
Opportunity
Commission
(the
"Commission" or "EEOC"), is the Agency of the United States of America charged with the
administration, interpretation and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to
bring this action by Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-s(f)(1) and
(3).
4.
At all relevant times, Defendant Blockbuster Inc. ("Defendant"), a Delaware
corporation, has continuously been doing business in the State of Maryland, as well as
other jurisdictions, and has continuously had at least 15 employees.
5.
At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously been an employer engaged
in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 701(b), (g) and (h) of
Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 20ooe(b), (g) and (h).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS
6.
More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Lolita and
Dolores Gonzales filed charges of discrimination with the Commission alleging violations
of Title VII by Defendant. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have
been fulfilled.
2
7.
Since at least
December
employment practices at its Gaithersburg,
2004,
Defendant
has engaged
in unlawful
Maryland warehouse facility in violation of
Section 703(a)(1) and (a)(2) of Title VII, 42 D.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1) and (a)(2).
8.
Beginning on or about December 2004, and persisting until on or about July
1, 2005, Defendant, acting through supervisors Thomas A. Johnson, Kofi TuTu, Lincoln
Barrett IV, and other management personnel, subjected Charging Party Lolita Gonzales to
a continuing course of unwelcome and offensive harassment because of her sex, female,
conduct protected under Section 704(a) of Title VII, and race and national
origin,
Hispanic, in violation of Title VII.
9.
The sexual, retaliatory
and race/national
origin harassment
and other
discriminatory terms and conditions of employment that Defendant perpetrated
against
Lolita Gonzales include, but are not limited to, the following: frequent requests for dates
and sexual favors; other frequent sexual comments;
making threats;
insulting her; searching her personal property; excessively monitoring
yelling at her;
her activities;
inappropriately standing in close proximity to her; changing her work duties; making false
accusations; making sexual and other unwelcome sex-related inquiries; touching other
women in intimate body areas while in her presence; subjecting her to discriminatory
work standards, hours of work, and training opportunities;
discriminatory terms and conditions of employment.
Gonzales became aware of Defendant's
racial comments; and other
In addition, during her employment
sexual, retaliatory
and race/national
origin
harassment of a number of her female and/or Hispanic co-workers, which she also found
offensive. The foregoing unlawful harassment created a hostile work environment on the
basis of sex, conduct protected under Section 704(a) of Title VII, and race/national
3
origin.
10.
employment
The
aforementioned
unlawful
culminated
harassment
III
tangible
action, viz., Charging Party Lolita Gonzales's denial of work hours,
disciplinary action and discharge.
Moreover, Defendant had actual and constructive
notice of the unlawful harassment
and failed to take any reasonable
preventive
or
corrective action.
11.
Defendant sent Charging Party Lolita Gonzales home from work, thus
causing her to lose work hours, because of her sex, female, in retaliation for her conduct
protected under Section 704(a), and race and national origin, Hispanic, in violation of
Title VII.
12.
On or about July 1, 2005, Defendant discharged Charging Party Lolita
Gonzales in retaliation for her conduct protected under Section 704(a), in violation of Title
VII.
13.
Beginning on or about December 2004, and persisting until on or about July
1, 2005, Defendant, acting through supervisors Thomas A. Johnson, Kofi TuTu, Lincoln
Barrett IV, and other management personnel, subjected Charging Party Dolores Gonzales
to a continuing course of unwelcome and offensive harassment because of her sex, female,
and race and national origin, Hispanic, in violation of Title VII.
14.
The sexual and race/national
origin harassment
and other discriminatory
terms and conditions of employment that Defendant perpetrated against Dolores Gonzales
included, but are"not limited to, the following: making threats; yelling at her, insulting her,
searching her personal property;
excessively monitoring
her activities; making false
accusations; making sexual and other unwelcome sex-related inquiries; subjecting her to
discriminatory
work standards,
hours
of work, and training
opportunities;
comments; and other discriminatory terms and conditions of employment.
4
racial
In addition,
during her employment Gonzales became aware of Defendant's sexual, retaliatory and
race/national
origin harassment of a number of her female and/or Hispanic co-workers,
such as her daughter, which she also found offensive. The foregoing unlawful harassment
created a hostile work environment on the basis of sex and race/national origin.
15.
The
aforementioned
unlawful
harassment
culminated
III
tangible
employment action, viz., Charging Party Dolores Gonzales's denial of work hours and
discharge.
Moreover, Defendant had actual and constructive notice of the unlawful
harassment and failed to take any reasonable preventive or corrective action.
16.
Defendant sent Charging Party Dolores Gonzales home from work, thus
causing her to lose work hours, because of her race and national origin, Hispanic, in
violation of Title VII.
17.
On or about July 1, 2005, Defendant discharged Charging Party Dolores
Gonzales in retaliation for her and her daughter Lolita Gonzales's conduct protected under
Section 704(a), in violation of Title VII.
18.
During the period December 2004 until on or about September
2005,
Defendant, acting through supervisors Thomas A. Johnson, Kofi TuTu, Lincoln Barrett IV,
and other management personnel, subjected a class of aggrieved female employees at its
Gaithersburg,
Maryland warehouse facility to a continuing course of unwelcome and
offensive harassment
because of their sex, female, and conduct protected by Section
704(a), in violation of Title VII.
Such harassment
included, but is not limited to,
unwanted touching; sexual comments and requests; making sexual and other unwelcome
sex-related inquiries; leering at their bodies; inappropriately standing in close proximity to
them; making threats; insulting them and leveling unwarranted criticisms of their work;
and other conduct. The aforementioned harassment created a hostile work environment
5
on the basis of sex and culminated in tangible employment actions, such as assignment of
additional duties, sending employees home causing them to lose work hours, discharge
and constructive discharge. Defendant had actual and constructive notice of the unlawful
harassment and failed to take reasonable corrective action or action reasonably calculated
to prevent the harassment.
19.
During the period December 2004 until on or about September
Defendant subjected a class of aggrieved female employees to constructive
2005,
discharge
because of their sex, female, and in retaliation for conduct protected by Section 704(a), in
violation of Title VII. Defendant deliberately created working conditions that these female
employees reasonably viewed as intolerable and that compelled them to resign.
20.
During the period December 2004 until on or about September
2005,
Defendant, acting through supervisors Thomas A. Johnson, KofiTuTu, Lincoln Barrett IV,
and other management personnel, subjected a class of aggrieved Hispanic employees at its
Gaithersburg,
Maryland warehouse facility to a continuing course of unwelcome and
offensive harassment
and other discriminatory
terms and conditions of employment
because of their race and national origin, Hispanic, in violation of Title VII.
Such
harassment and other discriminatory terms and conditions of employment included, but
are not limited to, making threats and using physical gestures to intimidate them; yelling
at them; insulting them and leveling unwarranted
criticisms of their work; making
searches of their personal property; excessively monitoring their activities; making false
accusations about them; subjecting them to discriminatory work standards, hours of work,
and training
conditions
environment
opportunities;
of employment.
racial comments;
The aforementioned
and other discriminatory
harassment
and
created a hostile work
on the basis of race and national origin and culminated
6
terms
in tangible
employment
actions.
Defendant had actual and constructive notice of the unlawful
harassment and failed to take reasonable corrective action or action reasonably calculated
to prevent the harassment.
21.
The effect of the practices complained of in paragraphs 7-20, above, has been
to deprive Charging Party Lolita Gonzales, Charging Party Dolores Gonzales, and other
similarly-situated
female and/or Hispanic employees of equal employment opportunities
and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because of their sex, conduct
protected by Section 704(a) of Title VII, and race and national origin.
22.
The unlawful employment
above, are part of a continuing
practices complained
of in paragraphs
course of sex, retaliatory, and race/national
7-20,
origin
discrimination perpetrated against female and/or Hispanic employees by Defendant that
persisted throughout the period December 2004 until on or about September 2005.
23.
The unlawful employment
practices complained of in paragraphs
7-20,
The unlaVlrful employment practices complained of in paragraphs
7-20,
above, were and are intentional.
24.
above, were and are done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally
protected rights of Charging Party Lolita Gonzales, Charging Party Dolores Gonzales, and
other similarly-situated female and/or Hispanic employees.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court:
A.
Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant, its officers, successors,
assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in sex,
retaliatory
and
discriminatory
race/national
origin
hours of work, training,
discrimination,
disciplinary
7
including
harassment
action, constructive
and
discharge,
discharge, and any other employment practice which discriminates on the basis of sex,
conduct protected by Section 704(a) of Title VII, or race or national origin.
B.
Order Defendant to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs
which provide equal employment opportunities
for female and Hispanic persons, and
which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices.
C.
Order Defendant to make whole Charging Party Lolita Gonzales, Charging
Party Dolores Gonzales, and other similarly-situated female and/or Hispanic employees
by providing appropriate
back pay with prejudgment
interest,
in amounts
to be
determined at trial, and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its
unlawful employment practices, including but not limited to reinstatement
and front pay
in lieu thereof.
D.
Order Defendant to make whole Charging Party Lolita Gonzales, Charging
Party Dolores Gonzales, and other similarly-situated
by providing compensation
female and/or Hispanic employees
for past and future pecuniary losses resulting
from the
unlawful employment practices described in paragraphs 7-20, above, in amounts to be
determined at trial.
E.
Order Defendant to make whole Charging Party Lolita Gonzales, Charging
Party Dolores Gonzales, and other similarly-situated female and/or Hispanic employees
by providing compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses resulting from the
unlawful practices complained of in paragraphs 7-20, above, including emotional pain,
suffering, inconvenience,
mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other non-
pecuniary losses, in amounts to be determined at trial.
F.
Order Defendant to pay Charging Party Lolita Gonzales, Charging Party
Dolores Gonzales, and other
similarly-situated
8
female and/or
Hispanic
employees
punitive damages for the malicious and reckless conduct described in paragraphs 7-20,
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 its
.Complaint.
Respectfully submitted,
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION
RONALD S. COOPER
General Counsel
JAMES LEE
Deputy General Counsel
GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS
sociate General Counsel
"
~
I
C'(1
r
j
./ I
~
1m,
\J CQU LINE H. MCNAIR
, gional Attorney
EEOC-Philadelphia District Office
(including Baltimore Field Office)
City Crescent Building, 3rd Floor
South Howard Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21201
10
Telephone number: (215) 440-2666
Facsimile number: (215) 440-2600
9
'pM(
DEBRA M. LAWRENCE (Bar No. 04312)
Supervisory Trial Attorney
EEOC-Baltimore Field Office
City Crescent Building, 3rd Floor
10 South Howard Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21201
Telephone number: (410) 209-2734
Facsimile number: (410) 962-4270
~c--J
r-,
/'~../~~
RONALD 1. PHILLIPS
Senior Trial Attorney
EEOC-Baltimore Field Office
City Crescent Building, 3rd Floor
10 South Howard Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21201
Telephone number: (410) 209-2737
Facsimile number: (410) 962-4270
10
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?