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: [phone]
Facsimile number: [phone]

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: [phone]
Facsimile number: [phone]

~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: [phone]
Facsimile number: [phone]

10