Case 2:06-cv-02624-JPM-cgc Document 1 Filed 09/22/06 Page 1 of 7

PageID 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
PARAMOUNT STAFFING, INC.,
Defendant.

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

CIVIL ACTION NO.
COMPLAINT
JURY TRIAL DEMAND

NATURE OF THE ACTION
This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, as amended (“Title VII”), and Title I of the Civil Rights
Act

of

1991

to

correct

unlawful

employment

practices

and

to

provide appropriate relief to Earnestine Tolar and a class of
African Americans.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

alleges that Paramount Staffing Inc., failed to place Ms. Tolar
and a class of African Americans into temporary positions because
of their race, Black and their national origin, American, and
retaliated against Ms. Tolar for opposing employment practices
made illegal by Title VII.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1.

Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28

U.S.C. S
sS
s451, 1331, 1337, 1343, and 1345.

This is an action

authorized and instituted pursuant to S
s706(f)(1) and (3) of Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. S
s
2000e, et seq.

(“Title VII”).

 Case 2:06-cv-02624-JPM-cgc Document 1 Filed 09/22/06 Page 2 of 7

2.

PageID 4

The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were

and are now being committed within the jurisdiction of the United
States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee,
Western Division.
PARTIES
3.

Plaintiff, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the

“Commission”)

is

an

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
§706(f)(1) and (3) and §707 of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000-5(f).
4.

At all relevant times, Defendant, Paramount Staffing,

Inc., (“Defendant Employer”), was a foreign corporation doing
business in the State of Tennessee and the City of Memphis and
has continuously had at least fifteen (15) employees.
5.

At

all

relevant

times,

Defendant

Employer

has

continuously been and is now an employer 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).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS
6.

More than thirty (30) days prior to the institution of

this lawsuit, Earnestine Tolar filed a charge with the Commission
alleging that Defendant Employer engaged in employment practices
which

violate

Title

VII.

All

conditions

precedent

to

the

institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.
7.
Defendant

On or around February 2004, and continuing thereafter,
Paramount

Staffing,
2

Inc.,

engaged

in

unlawful

 Case 2:06-cv-02624-JPM-cgc Document 1 Filed 09/22/06 Page 3 of 7

PageID 5

employment practices at its facility in Memphis, Tennessee in
violation of §§703(a) and 704(a) of Title VII, as amended, 42
U.S.C.

§§

2000e-2(a)and

include,

but

Earnestine

are

Tolar

not

and

a

2000e-3(a).

The

limited

discriminating

class

to,

of

unlawful

African

Americans

practices
against
who

were

seeking temporary work.
8.

Defendant contracted with a local warehouse to place

temporary workers into unskilled labor positions.

Generally,

individuals seeking work would line up outside the warehouse a
couple of hours before the start of the shift.
9.

The warehouse officials would tell Defendant’s onsite

managers the number of employees needed in each department, each
day.

Then, after all of the positions were filled, the remaining

individuals in line would be told to go home.
10.

Ms.

Tolar

January 2004.
packaging

was

hired

by

Defendant’s

predecessor

in

She was placed at the warehouse in the custom

department

as

an

assembly

line

worker.

She

perform whatever work was available on a particular day.

would
She

could perform the job duties for most of the positions in the
plant.
11.

After

the

warehouse

contracted

with

Defendant,

warehouse officials told Ms. Tolar that if she was interested in
continued employment, she should contact Defendant.
12.

Ms.

Tolar

another application.

went

to

Defendant’s

office

and

completed

Defendant placed Ms. Tolar for a while, but

later Defendant began to send her home when there were numerous
3

 Case 2:06-cv-02624-JPM-cgc Document 1 Filed 09/22/06 Page 4 of 7

PageID 6

assignments available.
13.

Although

Defendant

sent

Ms.

Tolar

home,

Defendant

continued to place Hispanic workers.
14.

On February 29, 2004, and March 16, 2004, Ms. Tolar

complained to Defendant’s onsite manager that its practices of
sending African Americans home while assigning Hispanics to work,
was discriminatory.
15.

After Ms. Tolar complained the second time, she was

escorted off the property and terminated from her employment.
16.
contract,

Furthermore, when Defendant’s predecessor had the

When

the

Defendant

work

force

was

predominantly

over

the

contract

took

in

African

American.

February

2004,

its

management it essentially replaced the African Americans with
Hispanics.
17.
American

The dramatic reduction in the placement of African
workers

was

accomplished

by

several

discriminatory

practices.
18.

Hispanics

were

selected

before

African

Americans,

without regard to each individual’s prior experience, place in
line, or availability.
19.

There

were

times

when

Defendant’s

on-site

managers

would announce in English that there were no jobs available and
the African Americans would leave.

After the African Americans

left, the Hispanics were allowed to come into the warehouse and
work.
20.

The effect of the practices complained of above has
4

 Case 2:06-cv-02624-JPM-cgc Document 1 Filed 09/22/06 Page 5 of 7

been

to

deprive

Ms.

Tolar

and

a

class

of

African

PageID 7

American

individuals placement into temporary positions, because of their
race, African American, and national origin, American, and to
retaliate

against

Ms.

Tolar

for

opposing

the

alleged

discrimination.
21.

The unlawful employment practices complained of above

were and are intentional.
22.

Defendant Employer at all relevant times acted with

malice or reckless indifference to the federally protected rights
of African American and American workers.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE,

the

Commission

respectfully

prays

that

this

Court:
A.

Grant a permanent injunction enjoining the Defendant

Employer, its officers, successors, assigns and all persons in
active concert or participation with it, from engaging in any
employment practice which discriminates because of race, African
Americans and national origin, American.
B.

Grant

a

permanent

injunction

enjoining

Defendant

Employer and its officers, successors, assigns, and all persons
in active concert or participation with it, from engaging in any
employment practices that retaliate against persons who oppose
employment practices made illegal by Title VII.
C.

Order Defendant Employer to institute and carry out

policies, practices and programs which provide equal employment
opportunities for African Americans and Americans which eradicate
5

 Case 2:06-cv-02624-JPM-cgc Document 1 Filed 09/22/06 Page 6 of 7

the

effects

of

its

past

and

present

unlawful

PageID 8

employment

practices.
D.
and

a

Order Defendant Employer to make whole Earnestine Tolar
class

of

African

Americans

and

Americans

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 rightful place hiring.
E.

Order

Defendant

Employer,

to

make

whole

Earnestine

Tolar and a class of African Americans and Americans by providing
compensation for pecuniary losses, including but not limited to
costs to be incurred for the costs of seeking new employment, in
amounts to be determined at trial.
F.
and

a

Order Defendant Employer to make whole Earnestine Tolar
class

of

African

Americans

and

Americans

by

providing

compensation for nonpecuniary losses, including emotional pain,
suffering, inconvenience and mental anguish in amounts to be
proven at trial.
G.
its

Order Defendant Employer to pay punitive damages for

malicious

and/or

reckless

conduct,

in

an

amount

to

be

determined at trial.
H.

Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary

and proper.
I.

Award the Commission its costs in this action.

6

 Case 2:06-cv-02624-JPM-cgc Document 1 Filed 09/22/06 Page 7 of 7

PageID 9

JURY TRIAL DEMAND
The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of
fact raised by its Complaint.
Respectfully Submitted
RONALD S. COOPER
General Counsel
JAMES LEE
Deputy General Counsel
GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS
Associate General Counsel
S/ Faye A. Williams (by permission DS)
FAYE A.WILLIAMS
Regional Attorney
Tennessee Bar No. 011730
s/ Terry Beck (by permission DS)
TERRY BECK
Supervisory Trial Attorney
Tennessee Bar No. 9346
s/ Deidre Smith
DEIDRE SMITH
Senior Trial Attorney
Tennessee Bar No. 018499
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION
1407 Union Avenue, Suite 621
Memphis, Tennessee 38104
Telephone: (901) 544-0140

7