Tennessee v. Murphy-Brown, L.L.C.

Filing 1

COMPLAINT against Murphy-Brown, L.L.C. (Filing fee $350.00; receipt number 24683006731) filed by Felicia D. Tennessee. Jury trial demanded. (Attachments: # 1 Receipt, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet, # 3 Cover Letter)(kgri)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUF T

FlLED

NorfCk Division

APR 1 2 2010

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGIN

FELICIA D. TENNESSEE
13025 Old Belfield Road

Capron, Virginia 23829

'

CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
NORO

N0RF0LK VA

PLAINTIFF,

CIVIL ACTION NO.

v.

MURPHY- BROWN, L.L.C,
DEFENDANT.

PLAINTIFF DEMANDS

Serve:

CT Corporation Systems

TRIAL BY JURY

Registered Agent

Murphy - Brown, L.L.C.
4701 Cox Road, Ste. 301
Glen Allen, Virginia 23060

COMPLAINT

COMES NOW Plaintiff FELICIA D. TENNESSEE ("Plaintiff), by counsel,
and for her Complaint against Defendant, MURPHY-BROWN L.L.C. ("Defendant") of
the City of Waverly, Virginia, states as follows:
NATURE OF THE CLAIMS

This is an action for declaratory relief, compensatory damages, and other

appropriate relief, legal and equitable brought by Plaintiff to redress Defendant's
unlawful employment practices of sex discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation

in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. as amended,
(Supp. II. 1991) ("Title VII").

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1.

This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and

1343 because this action involves federal questions regarding the deprivation of
Plaintiffs rights under federal civil rights laws.

2.

Venue is proper in this district pursuant to § 2000e-(5)(f)(3), because the

unlawful employment practices occurred in this district, the relevant employment records

are maintained and administered in this district, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b),
Defendant is located in this district.
PARTIES

3.

Plaintiff is an African American female citizen of the United States of America

and at all times relevant to this cause of action, was a resident of Capron, Virginia and an
employee of Defendant Murphy-Brown, L.L.C.

4.

Defendant, at all times relevant to this cause of action, has been organized and

existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and qualified to do business in
the Eastern District of Virginia.

5.

Defendant is an "employer" within the meaning of sections 703(a) and 704(a) of

Title VII in that it employed more than the requisite number of persons for duration under
Title VII.
PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS

6.

Plaintiff filed a timely charge of sex discrimination, sexual harassment, and

retaliation, against Defendant with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission ("EEOC"), and received her Notice of Right to Sue within Ninety (90) days
of filing this action.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

7.

Plaintiff began working for Defendant on or about August 11,1997.

8.

Defendant owns and operates hog farms.

On several of Defendant's farms,

Plaintiff worked in the farrowing room where the hogs are brought to deliver their sows
after successful breeding in another area of the farm.

9.

Plaintiffs duties included handling the deliveries, maintaining the health of the

hogs and their sows, and processing the sows to the nursery to await transfer for market
sale.

10.

Plaintiff

obtained

high

job

performance

evaluations

throughout

her

employment. She received certificates of recognition, bonuses for high quality work, and

promotions. In 2003, Defendant put Plaintiff in charge of the farrowing room where she
worked with one other female employee, Bridgett Edwards.

11.

Between 2003 and the time of the event, Defendant began hiring a number of

Hispanic males to work on the hog farms.

These employees included, but were not

limited to, Umberto Santiago, Miguel Vazquez, Salvador Hernandez, Jose Rodriquez,
Ignacio Rosario, Miquel Navarro, and Leonardo (Talon) Rodriquez.

12.

On or about October 30, 2003, Ignacio Rosario rubbed Plaintiffs arms, told her

he loved her and wanted her body. Plaintiff told him to stop and reported the incident to

her immediate supervisor.

The management took no disciplinary action against this

employee. The sexual harassment against Plaintiff persisted.
13.

Also in 2003, Umberto Santiago and Ignacio Rosario began showing a sex book

to Plaintiff.

The book was written in Spanish and English.

detailed pictures of male and female genitalia.

It contained graphically

Plaintiff reported this incident to her

supervisor. Although the book later disappeared, Defendant took no disciplinary action
against the employees and the sexual harassment against Plaintiff persisted.
14.

Soon thereafter, Plaintiff learned that one of the workers had been caught

masturbating in a woman's panties on a nearby farm. Some of the male workers on the
farm where Plaintiff worked laughed and talked about the incident in Plaintiffs presence.
Management was informed, but, took no disciplinary action against these employees.
The sexual harassment against Plaintiff persisted.

15.

On the table in the lunchroom, a drawing of male and female sex organs was

discovered scratched into the table.

Plaintiff reported the picture to her supervisor.

While the scratched image was cleared from the table, the same picture was drawn on one

of the sow processing cards which accompanied the hogs from the breeding room, where
Miquel Navarro and Leonoardo Talon worked, to the farrowing room where the two
female employees, Plaintiff and Bridget Edwards, worked.

Plaintiff informed her

supervisor, but no disciplinary action or investigation took place. The sexual harassment
against Plaintiff persisted.

16.

Plaintiffs co-workers spoke very little English.

The other female employee

who worked with Plaintiff in the farrowing room spoke some Spanish and indicated to
Plaintiff that the male employees were describing female body parts and pointing to

Plaintiff. About this time, Jose Rodriquez began calling Plaintiff "sexy." Plaintiff told
him not to talk to her in that way.

17.

In December 2007, in violation of Defendant's policy, Miquel Navarro brought

a digital camera to work and took a picture of Bridget Edwards against her wishes.

Plaintiff informed Miquel that employees were not allowed to have cameras on the job.

Plaintiff, thereafter, observed the men grouped together and talking among themselves
while pointing at her and gesturing towards her.

Plaintiff was intimidated by their

gesturing. Even though she informed her supervisor about the gestures and her feelings
of intimidation, the management took no disciplinary action against these employees.
The sexual harassment against Plaintiff persisted.

18.

On or about January 23, 2008, Jose while sitting in the lunchroom with the

women, began rubbing Bridgett Edwards' arm and touching her shoulder in Plaintiffs
presence. Plaintiff reported Jose's conduct to her supervisor. The management took no
disciplinary action against Jose. The sexual harassment against Plaintiff persisted.
19.

Plaintiffs immediate supervisor reported to her that the male employees were

complaining about her.

Shortly thereafter, Plaintiffs work boots were removed from

where she usual kept them and hidden from her. Later, Plaintiff found her boots in the
trash.

Someone also tore up Plaintiffs certificate of recognition and award. The

management never investigated the source of this conduct.

Therefore, no disciplinary

action was taken and the sexual harassment against Plaintiff persisted.

20.

For the two female employees who worked in the farrowing room, defendant

required that they shower before entering the farrowing room and shower once they had
completed their duties for the day. At all relevant times, Plaintiff and Bridgett Edwards
were the only females in the farrowing room. They underwent the shower routine on a
daily basis.

21.

On or about January 24, 2008, Plaintiff and her female co-worker, Bridgett

Edwards entered the women's shower room to shower before leaving for the day. Due to

the cold outdoor temperature, Plaintiff decided after entering the shower room to forego

the shower and just wash her hands. When she opened the door to the shower room to

exit into the area where the sinks were located, she encountered Salvatore Hernandez
kneeling against the shower door. Surprised by the door opening, Salvatore fell into the
women's shower room. Upon seeing Plaintiff standing in front of him, Salvatore jumped
up and ran out of the area.

Salvatore jumped up and ran out of the area. Plaintiff upon examining the door

saw three peepholes, two of which were drilled at the doorknob level and the other higher
up on the door.

22.

Plaintiff examined the door and found three drilled holes in the door, two at the

level of the doorknob and one hole at eye level on the door.

23.

Plaintiff called her immediate supervisor Honor Lee Flournoy as soon as she

got home since it was at the end of the workday. When Plaintiff returned to work, Ms.
Flournoy informed her that she would have the holes patched up, but would not remove
the door.

24.

Later that week Lori Brooks from Human Resources called Plaintiff into her

office to offer her a raise. Ms. Brooks never mentioned anything about the holes drilled
in the women's shower door. When Plaintiff later asked Ms Flournoy, what the employer
planned to do about the women's shower door and the employees who had peeped at the
women through the drilled holes, Ms. Flournoy replied that she had done all she could do.

She did not plan to fire Salvatore or any of the other male employees who might be
involved because that would leave the farm short-handed.
25.

When Plaintiff informed the production manager Lewis Epps, who was Ms.

Flournoy's supervisor, about the incident and her fear of working alone in her area and

taking showers, Mr. Epps laughed about the holes in the women's shower door and

proposed that perhaps the women had drilled the holes in the door themselves. Short of
patching the holes, the management took no other action and failed to investigate the
matter. Nor were any of the employees disciplined for their actions.

26.

Salvatore continued to work on the farm in his same area as did any other male

employees who may have participated in peeking into the women's shower room with
him. Management never investigated to see who was involved. No one was disciplined.
27.

When Plaintiff continued to describe her humiliation and her fear of working

among the male employees, management informed Plaintiff it was going to transfer
Plaintiff and her co-worker Bridget Edwards to another farm. Plaintiff was told to report

to the new farm on February 1, 2008, a farm, which Plaintiff, upon information and
belief, knew the male employees participated in the same type of sexual harassing
behavior as she had experienced in her present location.

28.

Plaintiff has been under the care of physicians since the shower door incident

for anxiety attacks, depression and stress.

29.

Salvatore Rodriquez was later arrested, fined and sentenced for his criminal

behavior of peeping at the women through the drilled holes in the women's shower room.
His arrest occurred because Plaintiff reported his crime to the police department. Only
after Salvatore was charged and sentenced, did Defendant terminate him.
COUNT I

(Sexual Harassment in violation of Title VII).

30.

Plaintiff herein restates and re-alleges by reference each and every allegation in

ffl[ 1-29 as if set forth fully herein.

31.

Defendant has discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of her gender in

violation of Title VII by allowing continual sexual harassment of Plaintiff by her male
co-workers thereby creating a sexually hostile environment.

32.

Defendant has discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of her gender in

violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 by fostering, accepting, ratifying and/or failing to prevent a

sexually hostile work environment that included among other things, severe and
pervasive sexual harassment of Plaintiff by her male co-workers.

33.

Defendant has discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of her gender in

violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 by engaging in, tolerating or failing to prevent the sexual
harassment as alleged above and by failing to take adequate affirmative action to correct

and redress the unlawful employment practices perpetrated against the Plaintiff.
34.

Plaintiff believes and avers that the effect of Defendant's sexual harassment and

unlawful employment practices against her has been to limit, classify and discriminate

against her in ways that jeopardize and tend to deprive her of the equal employment
opportunities in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981.

35.

Plaintiff is now suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable injury from this

unlawful discrimination.

36.

Defendant is liable for the sexual harassment and unlawful employment

practices against Plaintiff because even though Plaintiff informed Defendant about the
sexual harassment,

Defendant did not respond with remedial action reasonably

calculated to end the harassment.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v.

Central Wholesalers, Inc., 573.3d 167, 177 (4lh Cir.2009).

37.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's discriminatory conduct in

violation of § 1981, Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer monetary and/or
economic harm, including, but, not limited to, loss of past and future income,

compensation and benefits for which she is entitled to an award of damages and other
relief.

38.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's discriminatory conduct in

violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer severe

mental anguish and emotional distress, including but not limited to depression,
humiliation, embarrassment, stress and anxiety, loss of self-esteem and self confidence,
and emotional pain and suffering for which she is entitled to an award of damages.
COUNT II

(Sexual Discrimination and Retaliation in Violation of Title VII)

39.

Plaintiff herein restates and re-alleges by reference each and every allegation in

ffi| 1-38, as if set forth fully herein.

40.

Defendant has discriminated and retaliated against Plaintiff on the basis of her

gender in violation of Title VII by denying her a hostile free work environment free of
unlawful discrimination and harassment. When Defendant was put on notice of the male
workers' unwelcome sexual acts and invasion of Plaintiffs privacy by watching her and
another female co-worker in the shower room, Defendant's informed Plaintiff that she
and her female co-worker were to be transferred to another farm instead of disciplining
the perpetrators for their harassment.

41.

Plaintiff had never worked on the farm to which she was being transferred.

Upon information and belief, Plaintiff was aware of ongoing unlawful sexual conduct at

this new assignment.

In essence, Plaintiff was being transferred from one hostile work

environment to another while the perpetrators remained undisciplined, and employed in
the same area of their present employment.

42.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's discriminatory conduct in

violation of Title VII, Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer monetary and/or
economic harm, including, but, not limited to,

loss of past and future income,

compensation and benefits for which she is entitled to an award of damages and other
relief.
43.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's discriminatory conduct in

violation of Title VII, Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer severe mental
anguish and emotional distress, including but not limited to depression, humiliation,
embarrassment, stress and anxiety, loss of self-esteem and self confidence, and emotional
pain and suffering for which she is entitled to an award of damages.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays this Court enter judgment for Plaintiff and
against Defendant, and order the following relief:
A.

A

declaratory judgment that the actions,

conduct and practices

of

Defendant complained of herein violate the laws of the United States.
B.

An order directing Defendant to place Plaintiff in the position she would

have occupied but for Defendant's discriminatory treatment and unlawful conduct,
including, but not limited to: (1) reinstatement of job status and rank; (2) affirming and
updating of all Plaintiffs certifications; and (3) ensuring that the effects of Defendant's
employment practices do not continue to affect Plaintiffs employment and personal life.

10

C.

An award of damages of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000.00)

plus prejudgment interest, to compensate Plaintiff for harm to her professional and
personal reputations and loss of career fulfillment, mental anguish, humiliation,

embarrassment, stress, anxiety, emotional pain and suffering, emotional distress, and all
monetary and/or non-monetary losses suffered by Plaintiff.
D.

An award of costs and expenses incurred by Plaintiff in this action, and

Plaintiffs attorneys' fees to the fullest extent permitted by law this action.

E.

Such other and further relief to Plaintiff as the Court deems just and

proper.

Respectfully submitted,
FELICIA D. TENNESSEE

Counsel

Henry L. Marsh, III, VSB No. 05691
Frederick H. Marsh, VSB No. 40133
Hill, Tucker & Marsh
422 E. Franklin Street, Suite 301
Richmond, VA, 23219-2226
Phone [phone]
Facsimile [phone]

11