IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE INDUSTRIAL LABOR MANAGEMENT
GROUP, INC.,
Defendant.

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

Civil Action No. 3:13-1060
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Judge Campbell
Magistrate Judge Brown

NATURE OF THE ACTION
This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000e et seq., (Title VII) and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a, to
correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of gender, and to provide appropriate relief
to Sherry Brewer and a class of female applicants who were adversely affected by such practices.
As alleged with greater particularity in paragraphs 6-8 below, Plaintiff Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission alleges Defendant, The Industrial Labor Management Group, Inc.,
failed to refer or place Sherry Brewer and other qualified female applicants for employment,
because of their gender in violation of Title VII. In addition, Defendant unlawfully limited,
segregated, or classified its applicants for employment in a way which would tend to deprive
them of employment opportunities because of their sex.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337, 1343

Case 3:13-cv-01060 Document 24 Filed 04/23/14 Page 1 of 15 PageID #: 92

 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1) and (3) (“Title VII”)
and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a.
2.

The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the

jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville
Division.
PARTIES
3. Plaintiff, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the “Commission”), 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-5(f)(1) and (3).
4. At all relevant times, Defendant, The Industrial Labor Management Group, Inc. (the
“Employment Agency”), has procured employees for an employer and has been an employment
agency within the meaning of Section 701(c) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(c).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS
5.

More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Sherry Brewer filed a

charge with the Commission alleging violations of Title VII by Defendant Employment Agency.
All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.
6.

Since at least March 2010, Defendant Employment Agency has engaged in

unlawful employment practices at its Murfreesboro, Tennessee facility in violation of Section
703 (a) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a).
a. The unlawful employment practices include refusing to refer or place Sherry
Brewer for employment because of her gender, female.
2

Case 3:13-cv-01060 Document 24 Filed 04/23/14 Page 2 of 15 PageID #: 93

 b. In March 2010, Defendant Employment Agency began providing temporary
workers to its Shelbyville, Tennessee client – Manuli Stretch.
c. In January 2011, Sherry Brewer submitted a resume via the Career Builders
website in response to an advertisement by Defendant Employment Agency,
seeking applicants to work in Shelbyville, Tennessee.
d. Within a week of submitting her resume, Ms. Brewer contacted Defendant
Employment Agency directly via telephone to inquire about the status of her
resume submission.
e. Defendant Employment Agency advised Ms. Brewer to come to its office to
complete an application.
f. Ms. Brewer appeared at Defendant Employment Agency’s office.
g. Defendant Employment Agency conducted an interview with Ms. Brewer.
h. Ms. Brewer told the interviewer that she was interested in employment at the
Shelbyville, Tennessee company (Manuli Stretch).
i. Ms. Brewer also told the interviewer that she could lift at least 50 lbs.
j. Defendant Employment Agency Manager advised Ms. Brewer to call back.
k. Shortly thereafter, Ms. Brewer called Defendant Employment Agency
regarding her application.
l. Defendant Employment Agency told Ms. Brewer the job was for men only.
m. Defendant Employment Agency did not refer or place Ms. Brewer for
employment at Manuli Stretch or any other company.
n. Defendant Employment Agency only referred male applicants to work at the
Manuli Stretch worksite in Shelbyville, Tennessee.
3

Case 3:13-cv-01060 Document 24 Filed 04/23/14 Page 3 of 15 PageID #: 94

 o. At least 16 male applicants were placed by Defendant Employment Agency at
Manuli Stretch from March 2010 to December 2011.
p. Several of the male applicants placed by Defendant Employment Agency at
Manuli Stretch did not meet its purported 75 lb weight lifting restriction.
q. Defendant Employment Agency did not ask some male applicants whether
they could meet the specific lifting requirements.
r. Defendant Employment Agency hired the males despite their inability to meet
the stated job lifting requirements.
7.

The unlawful employment practices include refusing to refer or place female

applicants as a class at Manuli Stretch because of their gender.
a. In March 2010, Defendant Employment Agency began providing temporary
workers to its Shelbyville, Tennessee client – Manuli Stretch.
b. Defendant Employment Agency received applications from female applicants
who met the stated qualifications, including lifting requirements to work at
Manuli Stretch.
c. Defendant Employment Agency did not refer or place any female applicants
at Manuli Stretch.
d. Defendant Employment Agency refused to refer or place Mary Barrett for
employment because of her gender, female.
i. In August 2011, Mary Barrett applied for employment with Defendant
Employment Agency.
ii. Ms. Barrett expressed interest in any assignment and any shift.
iii. Ms. Barrett completed a safety test and a math test.
4

Case 3:13-cv-01060 Document 24 Filed 04/23/14 Page 4 of 15 PageID #: 95

 iv. When Ms. Barrett called Defendant Employment Agency regarding
her application Defendant Employment Agency told Ms. Barrett that it
did not have any positions available.
v.

Defendant Employment Agency never called Ms. Barrett.

vi. Defendant Employment Agency did not refer or place Ms. Barrett for
employment at Manuli Stretch or any other company.
e. Defendant Employment Agency refused to refer or place Rita BatesHumphries for employment because of her gender, female.
i. In April 2011, Rita Bates-Humphries applied for employment with
Defendant Employment Agency after seeing an advertisement in the
local newspaper.
ii. Ms. Bates-Humphries completed a safety test and a math test.
iii. Ms. Bates-Humphries watched a video.
iv. Defendant Employment Agency did not speak with Ms. BatesHumphries about her interests.
v. Defendant Employment Agency asked Ms. Bates-Humphries if she
could lift 50 lbs. Ms. Bates-Humphries responded affirmatively.
vi. When Ms. Bates-Humphries called Defendant Employment Agency
regarding her application Defendant Employment Agency told Ms.
Bates-Humphries that it would call her if work became available.
vii. Defendant Employment Agency never called Ms. Bates-Humphries.
viii. Defendant Employment Agency did not refer or place Ms. BatesHumphries for employment at Manuli Stretch or any other company.
5

Case 3:13-cv-01060 Document 24 Filed 04/23/14 Page 5 of 15 PageID #: 96

 f. Defendant Employment Agency refused to refer or place Arlene Bowen for
employment because of her gender, female.
i. In June 2011, Arlene Bowen applied for employment with Defendant
Employment Agency.
ii. Ms. Bowen expressed interest in an industrial job assignment.
iii. Defendant Employment Agency spoke with Ms. Bowen about her
interests.
iv. Ms. Bowen completed a safety test and a math test.
v. Ms. Bowen told Defendant Employment Agency that she could meet
the lifting requirement.
vi. Defendant Employment Agency Manager advised Ms. Bowen that it
would give her a call.
vii. Defendant Employment Agency never called Ms. Bowen.
viii. When Ms. Bowen called Defendant Employment Agency regarding
her application Defendant Employment Agency told Ms. Bowen that it
would call her.
ix. Defendant Employment Agency did not refer or place Ms. Bowen for
employment at Manuli Stretch or any other company.
g. Defendant Employment Agency refused to refer or place Chattiedra Christmas
for employment because of her gender, female.
i. In May 2011, Chattiedra Christmas applied for employment with
Defendant Employment Agency.
ii. Ms. Christmas watched a video and completed a math and safety test.
6

Case 3:13-cv-01060 Document 24 Filed 04/23/14 Page 6 of 15 PageID #: 97

 iii. Ms. Christmas discussed her past experience with industrial-type jobs.
iv. Defendant Employment Agency told Ms. Christmas that it preferred to
give tow motor and heavy lifting jobs to men.
v. Ms. Christmas told Defendant Employment Agency that she could
meet the stated lifting requirements.
vi. Defendant Employment Agency Manager advised Ms. Christmas that
there were no jobs available that it would give her a call later.
vii. Defendant Employment Agency never called Ms. Christmas.
viii. When Ms. Christmas called Defendant Employment Agency regarding
her application Defendant Employment Agency told Ms. Christmas
that it did not have any available assignments.
ix. Defendant Employment Agency did not refer or place Ms. Christmas
for employment at Manuli Stretch or any other company.
h. Defendant Employment Agency refused to refer or place Wendy Churchwell
for employment because of her gender, female.
i. In June 2011, Wendy Churchwell applied for employment with
Defendant Employment Agency.
ii. Ms. Churchwell completed a math and safety test.
iii. Ms. Churchwell discussed her past work experience.
iv. Ms. Churchwell told Defendant Employment Agency that she could
meet the stated lifting requirements.
v. Defendant Employment Agency Manager advised Ms. Churchwell that
it would give her a call later.
7

Case 3:13-cv-01060 Document 24 Filed 04/23/14 Page 7 of 15 PageID #: 98

 vi. Defendant Employment Agency never called Ms. Churchwell.
vii. When Ms. Churchwell revisited Defendant Employment Agency,
Defendant Employment Agency told Ms. Churchwell that it did not
have any available assignments.
viii. Defendant Employment Agency did not refer or place Ms. Churchwell
for employment at Manuli Stretch or any other company.
i. Defendant Employment Agency refused to refer or place Rose Crigger for
employment because of her gender, female.
i. In April 2011, Rose Crigger applied for employment with Defendant
Employment Agency.
ii. Ms. Crigger completed a math and safety test.
iii. Ms. Crigger discussed her past work experience, including her
preference for industrial-type work.
iv. Ms. Crigger could meet the lifting requirements stated by Defendant
Employment Agency.
v. When Ms. Crigger called Defendant Employment Agency, Defendant
Employment Agency told Ms. Crigger that it did not have any
available assignments.
vi. Defendant Employment Agency never called Ms. Crigger.
vii. Defendant Employment Agency did not refer or place Ms. Crigger for
employment at Manuli Stretch or any other company.
j. Defendant Employment Agency refused to refer or place Paula Currie for
employment because of her gender, female.
8

Case 3:13-cv-01060 Document 24 Filed 04/23/14 Page 8 of 15 PageID #: 99

 i. In March 2010, Defendant Employment Agency began providing
temporary workers to its Shelbyville, Tennessee client – Manuli
Stretch.
ii. In March 2011, Paula Currie applied for employment with Defendant
Employment Agency.
iii. Ms. Currie completed a math and safety test.
iv. Ms. Currie discussed her past work experience, including her
preference for industrial-type work.
v. Ms. Currie was not asked about her ability to lift heavy objects.
vi. Defendant Employment Agency advised Ms. Currie to call Defendant
Employment Agency every Friday to see if work was available.
vii. When Ms. Currie called Defendant Employment Agency, Defendant
Employment Agency told Ms. Currie that it did not have any available
assignments.
viii. Defendant Employment Agency did not refer or place Ms. Currie for
employment at Manuli Stretch or any other company.
k. Defendant Employment Agency refused to refer or place Rosheta Jackson for
employment because of her gender, female.
i. In June 2011, Rosheta Jackson applied online for employment with
Defendant Employment Agency.
ii. Ms. Jackson completed a math and safety test.
iii. Defendant Employment Agency contacted Ms. Jackson and advised
her to come into the office to complete an application.
9

Case 3:13-cv-01060 Document 24 Filed 04/23/14 Page 9 of 15 PageID #: 100

 iv. Ms. Jackson discussed her past work experience, including her
preference for industrial-type work.
v. Ms. Jackson could meet the lifting requirements.
vi. Defendant Employment Agency advised Ms. Jackson to call
Defendant Employment Agency later to see if work was available.
vii. When Ms. Jackson called Defendant Employment Agency, Defendant
Employment Agency told Ms. Jackson that it did hire women for the
jobs that Ms. Jackson was interested in working.
viii. Ms. Jackson became upset and informed Defendant Employment
Agency that it had wasted her time and should have informed her that
it did not hire women for industrial-type jobs.
ix. Defendant Employment Agency never called Ms. Jackson.
x. Defendant Employment Agency did not refer or place Ms. Jackson for
employment at Manuli Stretch or any other company.
l. Defendant Employment Agency refused to refer or place Deana Roundtree for
employment because of her gender, female.
i. Ms. Roundtree completed a safety test and a math test.
ii. Ms. Roundtree watched a safety video.
iii. Defendant Employment Agency did not speak with Ms. Roundtree
about her interests.
iv. Defendant Employment Agency did not ask Ms. Roundtree about her
ability to do heavy lifting.

10

Case 3:13-cv-01060 Document 24 Filed 04/23/14 Page 10 of 15 PageID #: 101

 v. Defendant Employment Agency told Ms. Roundtree that it did not
have any jobs available and it would call her if any jobs became
available.
vi. When Ms. Roundtree called Defendant Employment Agency regarding
her application Defendant Employment Agency told Ms. Roundtree
that it did not have any jobs available.
vii. Defendant Employment Agency never called Ms. Roundtree.
viii. Defendant Employment Agency did not refer or place Ms. Roundtree
for employment at Manuli Stretch or any other company.
m. Defendant Employment Agency refused to refer or place Kimberly Tucker for
employment because of her gender, female.
i. In April 2011, Kimberly Tucker applied for employment with
Defendant Employment Agency.
ii. Ms. Tucker completed a safety test and a math test.
iii. Ms. Tucker discussed her past work experience.
iv. Ms. Tucker could do heavy lifting.
v. Defendant Employment Agency did not ask Ms. Tucker if she could
do heavy lifting.
vi. Defendant Employment Agency advised Ms. Tucker to call back to
check on work availability.
vii. When Ms. Tucker called Defendant Employment Agency, Defendant
Employment Agency told Ms. Tucker that it did not have any available
assignments.
11

Case 3:13-cv-01060 Document 24 Filed 04/23/14 Page 11 of 15 PageID #: 102

 viii. Defendant Employment Agency did not call Ms. Tucker.
ix. Defendant Employment Agency did not refer or place Ms. Tucker for
employment at Manuli Stretch or any other company.
n. Defendant Employment Agency only referred male applicants to work at the
Manuli Stretch worksite in Shelbyville, Tennessee.
o. At least 16 male applicants were placed by Defendant Employment Agency at
Manuli Stretch from March 2010 to December 2011.
p. Several of the male applicants placed by Defendant Employment Agency at
Manuli Stretch did not meet its purported 75 lb weight lifting restriction.
q. Defendant Employment Agency did not ask some male applicants whether
they could meet the specific lifting requirements.
r. Defendant Employment Agency hired the males despite their inability to meet
the stated job lifting requirements.
8.

Since at least March 2010, Defendant Employment Agency unlawfully limited,

segregated, or classified its applicants for employment in a way which would tend to deprive
them of employment opportunities because of their sex in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000e-2.
a. At its facility in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, Defendant Employment Agency
issued color coded applications based on sex.
b. Female applicants received yellow applications.
c. Male applicants received blue/teal applications.
d. Defendant Employment Agency kept files separated by sex.
e. Defendant Employment Agency maintained female files in the top two
12

Case 3:13-cv-01060 Document 24 Filed 04/23/14 Page 12 of 15 PageID #: 103

 drawers with yellow applications attached.
f. The cabinet file Defendant Employment Agency kept for Manuli Stretch
contained all male and blue/teal applications.
9.

The effect of the practice(s) complained of in paragraph(s) 6-8 above has been to

deprive Sherry Brewer and a class of female applicants of equal employment opportunities and
otherwise adversely affect their status as applicants, because of their gender.
10.

The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 6-8 above were

intentional.
11.

The unlawful employment practices complained of in paragraphs 6-8 above were

done with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Sherry Brewer
and a class of female applicants for employment.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court:
A.

Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendant Employment Agency, its

officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and all persons in active concert or participation
with them, from engaging in any employment practices which discriminate on the basis of
gender.
B.

Order Defendant Employment Agency to institute and carry out policies,

practices, and programs which provide equal employment opportunities for female applicants,
and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices.
C.

Order Defendant Employment Agency to make whole Sherry Brewer and other

female applicants who were denied referral because of their gender, by providing appropriate
backpay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other affirmative
13

Case 3:13-cv-01060 Document 24 Filed 04/23/14 Page 13 of 15 PageID #: 104

 relief necessary to eradicate the effects of its unlawful employment practices, including but not
limited to rightful-place employment referral of Sherry Brewer and other female applicants who
were denied employment referral or placement because of their gender, front pay in lieu of
referral, or otherwise make whole individuals denied employment referral because of their
gender.
D.

Order Defendant Employment Agency to make whole Sherry Brewer and other

female applicants who were denied referral or placement because of their gender, by providing
compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment
practices described in paragraphs 6-8 above, including relocation expenses, job search expenses,
and medical expenses, etc. in amounts to be determined at trial.
E.

Order Defendant Employment Agency to make whole Sherry Brewer and other

female applicants who were denied referral or placement because of their gender, by providing
compensation for past and future nonpecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices
complained of in paragraphs 6-8 above, including emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, loss
of enjoyment of life, and humiliation, in amounts to be determined at trial.
F.

Order Defendant Employment Agency to pay Sherry Brewer and other female

applicants who were denied referral or placement because of their gender, punitive damages for
its malicious and reckless conduct described in paragraphs 6-8 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.

14

Case 3:13-cv-01060 Document 24 Filed 04/23/14 Page 14 of 15 PageID #: 105

 Respectfully submitted,
P. DAVID LOPEZ
General Counsel
GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS
Associate General Counsel
/s/ Faye A. Williams
FAYE A. WILLIAMS
Regional Attorney
TN Bar No. 011730
faye.williams@eeoc.gov
/s/ Joseph M. Crout
JOSEPH M. CROUT
Supervisory Trial Attorney
TN Bar No. 012957
joseph.crout@eeoc.gov
/s/ Markeisha K. Savage
MARKEISHA K. SAVAGE
Trial Attorney
TN Bar No. 024693
markeisha.savage@eeoc.gov
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION
1407 Union Avenue, Suite 900
Memphis, TN 38104
Tel: (901) 544-0133
/s/ Anica C. Jones
ANICA C. JONES
Trial Attorney
TN Bar No. 25325
anica.jones@eeoc.gov
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION
220 Athens Way, Suite 350
Nashville, TN 37228
Tel: (615) 736-2105

15

Case 3:13-cv-01060 Document 24 Filed 04/23/14 Page 15 of 15 PageID #: 106