Case Document 1 Filed 04/10/15 .Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MINKYUNG KIM 3203 Beech Tree Court Fairfax, Va. 22030 Plaintiff, Civil Action No. V. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY 600 5th Street, NW. Washington, DC. 20001 Defendant. COMPLAINT FOR RELIEF FROM DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT Jurisdiction 1. While working for Defendant the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Plaintiff Minkyung Kim, who is an Asian female, was racially and sexually harassed by her supervisor, Omari June. After enduring months of this harassment, Ms. Kim complained to another WMATA supervisor regarding Mr. June, ?led a union grievance against Mr. June, lodged an internal complaint with Of?ce of Equal Opportunity and Employee Relations, and initiated a complaint of discrimination with the EEOC. response to her complaints was to conduct a ?sham investigation? designed only to trump up an excuse to fire Ms. Kim, give her an unwarranted negative performance review, accuse her of violating EEOpolicies, and summarily ?re her, all in violation of Title VII of the Case Document 1 Filed 04/10/15 Page 2 of 13 Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e eLseq. This Court has jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. 2. At the time of the events at issue in this lawsuit, Plaintiff worked out of Of?ce of MetroAccess Service in Hyattsville, Maryland, although WMATA has its principal place of business in the District of Columbia; the decision to terminate Plaintiff was made Within Washington, DC. headquarters, located at 600 Fifth St., N.W., Washington, and Ms. Kim was noti?ed of the decision to terminate her at D.C. headquarters. Additionally, Of?ce of Equal Opportunity and Employee Relations, which conducted the sham investigation into her complaint of discrimination, is located at headquarters, and the retaliatory ?ndings of that investigation were also made at headquarters. Thus, venue lies in this District under 42 U.S.C. 3. Ms. Kim is a permanent resident of Asian descent who resides in Fairfax, Virginia. She worked for Defendant from March of 2013 until she was ?red on April 14, 2014. 4. WMATA is an entity created by interstate compact to provide bus, rail and paratransit transportation service in the Washington, DC. metropolitan area. principal place of business is located in Washington, DC, where it maintains of?ces, including its headquarters. WMATA is an employer as de?ned in 42 U.S.C. 2000e(b) and employs well over 500 employees. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies 5. On or about July 28, 2014, Plaintiff ?led'a timely charge of sex and race discrimination and retaliation with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Case Document 1 Filed 04/10/15 Page 3 of 13 6. Plaintiff received a letter from the EEOC on her charge on or about April 6, 2015, and has ?led this action within 90 days of receiving it. 7. Plaintiff Minkyung Kim (who goes by Michelle) is a female Asian. She is a 2009 graduate of Virginia Tech where she double majored in English and Political Science. She was hired by WMATA in March 2013 to work as a Service Monitor within Office of MetroAccess, located in Hyattsville, MD. She worked in the Of?ce of MetroAccess until she was abruptly terminated on April 14, 2014. Throughout her brief tenure at WMATA, her work performance was consistently exemplary. 8. During the events at issue in this lawsuit, Plaintiff was supervised directly by Leroy Hayford, the Financial Operations Manager for the MetroAccess department. Her second level supervisor was Omari June, Director of MetroAccess. Both Mr. Hayford and Mr. June are African American males. Mr. June in turn reports to Assistant General Manager of Access Services, Christian Kent, who is Caucasian and works at headquarters. 9. Omari June was a political hire at WMATA who clearly is not held to any standards of quali?cation or conduct. Upon information and belief, he was hired by WMATA in 2007 into a position which had to be speci?cally created for him because he could not otherwise meet minimum qualifications. Prior to his hire by WMATA, Mr. June had absolutely no prior experience dealing with MetroAccess services, or Paratransit services, or the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act, or persons with disabilities, or even with transportation. He is a college drop out who now occupies a director-level position at WMATA. Case Document 1 Filed 04/10/15 Page 4 of 13 Upon information and belief, he is in some way related to a current or former board member at WMATA, and it was this family connection that led WMATA to hire and retain him. 10. Mr. June runs the MetroAccess department like a personal fiefdom. Soon after Plaintiff began working there, Mr. June told her that human resources department] can?t touch me.? 11. Mr. June really likes to talk about sex in the work environment. He jokes about sexual matters on a regular basis. He frequently makes sexual jokes, tells stories of a sexually graphic nature and makes sexual innuendos during work time, in the presence of his co-workers and subordinates, particularly female WMATA employees, including Plaintiff. He seems to believe that this is acceptable managerial behavior. 12. For example, Mr. June regularly liked to tell a story in the workplace about a time he had to go to the dermatologist, and during the course of his examination he was told by a female nurse to strip below the waist. According to Mr. June, when the nurse saw him naked, she was so taken by the size of his genitalia that she left the examining room to get the other female employees at the doctor?s office so they too could admire the size of his penis. Mr. June told this story to Plaintiff, as well as multiple other WMATA employees, and has repeated the story in the office on multiple occasions. 13. To provide another illustrative example, during another group discussion at work that included Plaintiff, Mr. June drew the group?s attention to a water bottle of Mr. Hayford?s, and told them that Mr. Hayford would stroke the bottle as if he were masturbating. He then proceeded to stroke the bottle up and down as if it were his penis. 14. Mr. June also takes every opportunity he can, during conversations with co? workers and in meetings, to draw attention to any statement or comment that could possibly be Case Document 1 Filed 04/10/15 Page 5 of 13 construed as having sexual connotations. For example, during one meeting, Mr. Hayford said something to the effect of ?go down on those providers,? referring to the companies that WMATA contracts with to provide its MetroAccess services. As soon as Mr. June heard the statement, he stopped the conversation and said, ?What did you say? What did you say?? He then restated what Mr. Hayford had said and drew everyone?s attention to the double entendre of the phrase. Mr. June did this sort of thing in the workplace with regularity. 15. In fact, Mr. June used to keep a notebook at WMATA which he would bring to MetroAccess meetings, and in which he would write down and keep track of all the things that people said that could be construed, if taken out of context, as somehow sexual. He. showed the notebook, and the things he had written in it, to other employees at WMATA. 16. Mr. June frequently texted Plaintiff, and he made these sexual innuendos to Ms. Kim in text messages as well. For example, one text reads: ?Let me know if Leroy is asking you to do things he shouldn?t be! He just said have her sitting on it until he gets off.? In reference to you! Smh.? Another text from Mr. June reads: ?Frank: ?Allison, in 3 months I?m going to have you on the table?! Allison: ?well I?m ready now? I l? 17. Mr. June also sent photos and Videos via text message to Ms. Kim showing women in various states of undress dancing and acting in a sexual manner. His text messages to Ms. Kim reference ?dildos? and ?tiger penis? and ?weed.? 18. Mr. June also treated female employees, including Plaintiff, markedly differently than he treats male employees. With regard to Plaintiff and other female subordinates, Mr. June interacted on a much more ?personal? level, Whereas his workplace communications with men are relatively more professional. For example, he will repeatedly ask his female staffers personal questions like, ?Do I smell good?? and ?Am I good looking?? and ?Why haven?t you stopped by Case Document 1 Filed 04/10/15 Page 6 of 13 my of?ce to ask me how I am?? He regularly asked Plaintiff these and similar type questions, which made her very uncomfortable. Mr. June also repeatedly asked Plaintiff to tell him how much she weighed, even after she protested that she was uncomfortable discussing her weight. Mr. June tends to favor those female employees willing to tolerate and go along with this behavior. 19. Mr. June also regularly made statements and told jokes regarding race in the workplace. For example, he has told co-workers at WMATA that ?white people never wash their hands,? and ?white peOple smell like wet dog,? and ?white people smell like turkey.? When Ms. Kim began working at WMATA, Mr. June made several racially inappropriate comments to Ms. Kim about the fact that she is of Asian descent. For example, one Friday he asked Plaintiff what color she was. He explained that in his View she wasn?t ?yellow,? and so he wanted to know what color she thought she was. He assigned her ?homework? over the weekend to ?gure out what color she was and to report it back to him the following Monday. On Monday, he followed up with Ms. Kim about it. She was very uncomfortable and didn?t know how to handle the situation, and so she replied that she thought she was the color of ?oatmeal.? On another occasion, Mr. June asked Ms. Kim to explain what ?black food? is. He would refer to the people who worked in a Korean-owned deli near the of?ce as Ms. Kim?s 20. Mr. June also has made comments in the workplace about a male colleague?s sexual orientation, which Mr. June believes is homosexual. He has said things in the workplace such as, ?he likes young boys? and has accused this colleague of acting in a predatory fashion toward another male in the office. He also has made comments regarding two MetroAccess clients who are married transsexuals. He repeatedly draws attention to the fact that one employee in his department is an atheist. Case Document 1 Filed 04/10/15 Page 7 of 13 21. Ms. Kim was always uncomfortable with Mr. une?s inappropriate workplace behavior, particularly his sexual banter, his race-based comments to her, and the weird attention he both gave to and demanded from her. She found this behavior extremely unwelcome, and it became clear to Mr. June and others in the office soon after Ms. Kim was hired that she was uncomfortable participating in such workplace discussions. When Mr. June began talking about sex to a group of WMATA employees that included Plaintiff, she would back out of the room and leave the conversation immediately. On at least two occasions when she was in closed door meetings with Mr. June and Mr. Hayford, and Mr. June began discussing sex, Plaintiff texted another WMATA manager and asked him to interrupt the meeting and say he needed her for some task, so that she would have an excuse to leave the discussion. 22. Ms. Kim also frequently told Mr. June that his sexual banter and behavior made her uncomfortable. Sometimes his response was that Ms. Kim needed to ?woman up.? He also told her she just had to ?get over it.? On other occasions, he told her that he knew she was only pretending to be offended but ?secretly loved it.? On other occasions when she asked him to stop, he would merely shrug his shoulders, or laugh at her, or simply ignore her. He never took her requests seriously or honored them. 23. Once Mr. June realized that his sexual workplace banter made Ms. Kim uncomfortable and was unwelcome, he began to draw attention to her when she would try to subtly leave conversations, by saying things like, ?there she goes again,? as a way of mocking her. She found this embarrassing and insulting. Another WMATA manager, Ryan Parr, at one point explained to Mr. June and Mr. Hayford that the sexual conversations were making Ms. Kim uncomfortable and, in the words of Mr. Parr, ?had to stop.? Mr. June?s only response to Case Document 1 Filed 04/10/15 Page 8 of 13 Mr. Parr was that, ?she [referring to Ms. Kim], doesn?t get to decide what is, and what is not, okay.? 24. Once it became obvious to Mr. June that his sexual workplace banter made Ms. Kim uncomfortable, he, along with Mr. Hayford, began to behave in a more hostile manner toward her. For example, Mr. June began to criticize Ms. Kim?s workplace attitude and interactive style. He falsely accused her of being insubordinate and ?too direct? in her tone, even though she was treating him in a purely professional manner and performing her work as instructed. Plaintiff Engages In Protected Activity 25. On multiple occasions, Plaintiff complained to her immediate supervisor, Leroy Hayward, regarding Mr. une?s harassment and sexually inappropriate behavior in the workplace. But Mr. Hayford did nothing in response to these complaints, and told Ms. Kim, ?I?m sorry Michelle. I can?t control him.? 26. In January or February 2014, Ms. Kim ?led a union grievance against Mr. June, complaining about, inter alia, his discriminatory conduct toward her. i 27. In January 2014, Ms. Kim also reached out to Of?ce of Equal Opportunity and Employee Relations. On January 20, 2014, Plaintiff met with human resources employee Beverly Pollard and discussed the situation. About a week later, she contacted Ms. 'Pollard again and lodged a formal complaint against Mr. June, alleging gender and racial harassment. 28. In February 2014, Ms. Kim initiated a complaint with the EEOC alleging sexual and racial discrimination. 29. These complaints were each protected activity under Title VII. Case Document 1 Filed 04/10/15 Page 9 of 13 30. investigation was conducted by employee Beverly Pollard. Ms. Kim provided her with copies of many documents, including the inappropriate text messages Mr. June had sent her (including the ones containing pictures and videos of scantily clad women), and gave her a list of employees whom she believed would corroborate her story. Ms. Pollard interviewed several of Ms. Kim?s co-workers, including at least one who corroborated her version of events. 31. Office of Equal Opportunity and Employee Relations has a poor record of safeguarding employees from unlawful discrimination and retaliation. Indeed, on several occasions, WMATA has internally cleared managers of wrongdoing in circumstances where federal courts in this jurisdiction later found that the managers? conduct violated Title VII. 1g? Jones v. WMATA, 205 F.3d 428 (DC. Cir. 2000) (af?rming decision of Lamberth, Kumar v. WMATA, 172 F.3d 922 (per curiam, affirming decision of Urbina, Townsend V. WMATA, 746 F. Supp. 178 (D.D.C. 1990 (Richey, Hairston v. WMATA, 1997 WL 411946 (D.D.C. 1997) (Hogan, Mackel v. WMATA, 00CV02753 (Robertson, 32. Office of Equal Opportunity and Employee Relations performed just as poorly, if not more so, in this instance. When it issued its ?ndings in a written letter to Ms. I Kim dated April 10, 2014 four days before she was summarily terminated WMATA concluded that ?there is no evidence to support [your] allegation,? and that ?people who were interviewed did not support your allegation that Mr. June told inappropriate jokes, often with sexual connotations.? It took no disciplinary action against Mr. June. 33. investigation then made a series of additional ?ndings/allegations that Ms. Kim had engaged in inappropriate workplace conduct, including touching others inappropriately and making statements with inappropriate sexual connotations. These Case Document 1 Filed 04/10/15 Page 10 of 13 allegations were false, and known to be false by WMATA at the time it made them. They were retaliatory and trumped up to serve as a rationale for ?ring Ms. Kim four days later. 34. Of?ce of Equal Opportunity and Employee Relations is located at the Washington, DC. Headquarters building. The employee who conducted the EEO investigation into Plaintiff?s complaint, Beverly Pollard, worked in that of?ce at headquarters. The WMATA employee who signed the April 10, 2014 letter to Ms. Kim containing its EEO investigation ?ndings also works in headquarters building in DC. Documents associated with EEO investigation into Plaintiff complaint thus would be maintained at the DC. headquarters. WMATA Retaliates 35. Ms. Kim had consistently received nothing but positive feedback regarding her work at WMATA until she began complaining of Mr. June?s sexist and racist behavior. For example, Mr. June wrote her in May 2013, wanted to let you know that I have already noticed that you are living up to the expectations I had once I hired you. You are doing excellent work and I don?t want you to be saddled down with the fears and insecurities of others who may not be able to do some of the things you Both Mr. June and Mr. Hayford regularly complimented her on her work performance and told her she was doing a good job. Then, after management learned of her protected complaints Of discrimination, Mr. June and Mr. Hayford began . retaliating against her by being overly and unreasonably critical of her work and her workplace ?communication style.? 36. On April 8, 2014 six days before she was ?red -- Mr. Hayford presented Plaintiff with her only written performance review that was highly critical of her work. The 10 Case Document 1 Filed 04/10/15 Page 11 of 13 review contained wholly false and manufactured criticisms of her work. Mr. Hayford told Ms. Kim he intended to place her on a performance improvement plan. 37. Two days later, as noted above, WMATA issued the results of investigation into Ms. Kim?s claims of discrimination and harassment, and concluded that Ms. Kim had engaged in inappropriate workplace conduct of a sexual nature. WMATA Fires Plaintiff 38. On April 14, 2014, Christian Kent summoned Ms. Kim to headquarters building, where he works, and told her she was being summarily ?red. He explained that his decision was based on her negative performance review, and the ?ndings from the EEO investigation into her complaint. Mr. Kent was quick to emphasize that, had it not been for the ?ndings against her contained in the EEO report, he would not have ?red her, but instead would have put her on a performance improvement plan (consistent with what Mr, Hayford had told Ms. Kim several days earlier when he presented her with the performance review). Mr. Kent told her, in the presence of a union representative, that the EEO ?ndings, in combination with her lousy performance review, caused him to decide to terminate her immediately. 39. Plaintiff termination occurred within the District of Columbia. Records related to the termination also are maintained within the District of Columbia. COUNT ONE HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT 40. Paragraphs 1-39 are realleged. 41. The actions of Mr. June, including his sexual banter, his racial comments, his lewd text messaging, the inappropriate attention he gave Ms. Kim, his mockery of her when she sOught to avoid interactions with him, and his reprimands and criticism of her when she would 11 Case Document 1 Filed 04/10/15 Page 12 of 13 not tolerate his conduct, created a sexual, racial and retaliatory hostile work environment that altered the terms and conditions of Plaintiffs employment in violation of Title VII. COUNT TWO TERMINATION 42. Paragraphs 1?39 are realleged. On multiple occasions, Plaintiff verbally complained to her immediate supervisor, Leroy Hayward, regarding Mr. June?s harassment and sexually inappropriate behavior in the workplace. In January 2014, she ?led a union grievance against Mr. June, complaining about, inter alia, Mr. June?s discriminatory conduct toward her. In January or early February 2014, Ms. Kim also lodged a formal complaint of discrimination/harassment with Office of Equal Opportunity and Employee Relations. Also in February 2014, Ms. Kim initiated a complaint of discrimination/harassment with the EEOC. All of this behavior was protected activity under Title VII. 43. WMATA terminated Plaintiff in retaliation for her protected activity, in violation of Title VII. RELIEF Plaintiff requests that this Court: 1) Declare that Defendant has violated Title 2) Reinstate Plaintiff to her employment with WMATA, effective April 14, 2014, and place her in the position that she would have held in the absence of the retaliation, or alternatively, to an equivalent position, together with full back pay and related bene?ts, with prejudgment interest; 3) Award Plaintiff compensatory damages in an amount to be proved at trial; 4) Enj oin Defendant from further acts of discrimination and retaliation; 12 Case Document 1 Filed 04/10/15 Page 13 of 13 5) Award Plaintiff her reasonable attorneys? fees and expenses; 6) Issue such other relief as the Court deems just. JURY DEMAND Plaintiff requests trial by jury as to all issues in this case. 13 Respectfully submitted, skan Huhta, #45 478 Richard A. Salzma #422497 HELLER, HURO CHERTKOF SALZMAN 1730 Street, N.W., Suite 412 Washington, DC. 20036 (202) 293-8090 (ph) (202) 293 -71 10 (fax) SEH@HellerHuron.com RAS@HellerHuron.com Attorneys for Plaintiff