IN THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE YOLANDA DIONNE WADE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) AUTOMATION PERSONNEL ) SERVICES, INC. and TAMMY GROSS, ) Individually, ) ) Defendants. ) No. __________________ JURY DEMAND-12 COMPLAINT Comes now Yolanda Dionne Wade (hereinafter, “Mrs. Wade”), by and through counsel, and sues the Defendants, Automation Personnel Services, Inc. and Tammy Gross, for violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act1 (hereinafter, “Title VII”), the Tennessee Human Rights Act2 (hereinafter, “THRA”), and Tennessee common law. Mrs. Wade, in support of this Complaint, would show this Honorable Court as follows: 1. 1. PARTIES Mrs. Wade is an African-American woman and a resident of Chattanooga, Hamilton County, Tennessee. 2. Defendant Automation Personnel Services, Inc. (hereinafter, “Defendant Automation”) is an Alabama corporation with a principal address of 401 Southgate Drive, Pelham, Alabama 35124-1186 and which can be served in Tennessee by its Registered Agent, C T Corporation System, at Suite 2021, 800 South Gay Street, Knoxville, Tennessee 37929-9710.                                                              1 2 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e, et seq.  Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-21-101, et seq.  1    Case 1:12-cv-00375-CLC-WBC Document 1 Filed 11/15/12 Page 1 of 22 PageID #: 1 3. Defendant Tammy Gross (hereinafter, “Defendant Gross”) is a Caucasian woman and a resident of Dalton, Whitfield County, Georgia and can be served at Defendant Automation’s Chattanooga location, 6116 Shallowford Road, Suite 103, Chattanooga, Tennessee 37421. 2. 4. JURISDICTION AND VENUE Mrs. Wade filed an EEOC complaint and received a right to sue letter with a date of the 11th day of September, 2012. [Exhibit A, EEOC Letter]. 5. This Honorable Court has jurisdiction over the Title VII claims by virtue of 28 United States Code § 1331. 6. This Honorable Court has jurisdiction over the THRA and Tennessee common law claims by virtue of 28 United States Code § 1367. 7. This Honorable Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants and constitutes proper venue because all acts and/or omissions complained of herein occurred in Hamilton County, Tennessee. 3. 8. ALLEGATIONS OF FACT Defendant Automation provides staffing services to light industrial clients and operates a branch of its business at 6116 Shallowford Road, Suite 103, Chattanooga, Tennessee 37421. 9. Defendant Gross, a Caucasian female, served as an Office Manager for Defendant Automation at the Chattanooga location. 10. Mrs. Wade, upon learning of her husband being diagnosed with a rare, and potentially fatal, lung disease, elected to return to the workforce in hopes of offsetting the loss of 2    Case 1:12-cv-00375-CLC-WBC Document 1 Filed 11/15/12 Page 2 of 22 PageID #: 2 income and obtained employment as a Staffing Coordinator at Defendant Automation’s Chattanooga location on the 16th day of May, 2011. 11. Mrs. Wade was an at-will employee with Defendant Automation. 12. Defendant Gross was Mrs. Wade’s immediate supervisor. 13. Mrs. Wade and her family are devout Christians and hold a family devotional every evening. 14. Mrs. Wade, when taking the job, had told Defendant Gross about the evening devotional and Defendant Gross had said that the nightly devotional would not be interfered with by her work schedule. 15. Defendant Gross was told and knew of Mrs. Wade’s husband’s serious health conditions and Mrs. Wade’s deeply held religious beliefs. 16. During or around the second week of August, 2011, Mrs. Wade was experiencing severe physical discomfort from an unknown source. 17. Mrs. Wade went to the restroom where she discovered that her strapless brassiere was too tight for comfort and she privately removed this undergarment. 18. Mrs. Wade, upon returning to her office, told her co-worker, Natalie Akins, an African-American female, that she had discovered the cause of her discomfort and that she had removed the offending brassiere. 19. During this conversation, Defendant Gross came into the front office and asked what Mrs. Wade and Ms. Akins were talking about. 20. Mrs. Wade told Defendant Gross that she had been wearing a strapless brassiere that was causing her significant discomfort and that she had removed it accordingly. 3    Case 1:12-cv-00375-CLC-WBC Document 1 Filed 11/15/12 Page 3 of 22 PageID #: 3 21. Ms. Akins stated that she had recently gotten a comfortable brassiere that had been advertised on television. 22. Defendant Gross then went into her office to answer a phone call but returned shortly thereafter and informed Mrs. Wade and Ms. Akins that she never wore a brassiere or panties. 23. Defendant Gross then lifted her shirt to expose her bare breasts and informed Mrs. Wade and Ms. Akins that this was how “she went out every day.” 24. Mrs. Wade immediately left for lunch because she was upset about the inappropriate behavior of Defendant Gross and, when she got to her vehicle, called her husband to tell him about Defendant Gross’ inappropriate behavior. 25. Upon returning to work, Mrs. Wade spoke with Ms. Akins about how upset she was because of Defendant Gross’ inappropriate behavior and Ms. Akins confirmed that she was also upset about Defendant Gross’ inappropriate behavior. 26. After this incident, Defendant Gross consistently made sexually inappropriate comments to Mrs. Wade about her brassiere and other undergarments. 27. These sexually inappropriate comments included, but were not limited to, Defendant Gross asking “Yolanda, do you have on a bra or panties?”, telling Mrs. Wade that it was too hot to wear any underwear, and advising Mrs. Wade not to wear undergarments of any kind. 28. These statements were made repeatedly and on many different dates by Defendant Gross. 4    Case 1:12-cv-00375-CLC-WBC Document 1 Filed 11/15/12 Page 4 of 22 PageID #: 4 29. After each inappropriate statement, Mrs. Wade informed Defendant Gross that she was offended by the comments and, each time, Defendant Gross would dismissively throw her hands towards Mrs. Wade and laugh. 30. Defendant Gross never apologized for nor stopped making any of these inappropriate, sexual, and ribald comments while Mrs. Wade worked for Defendant Automation. 31. The inappropriate, sexual, and ribald comments continued unabated and, one day, Defendant Gross was passing Mrs. Wade in a narrow hallway and referred to Mrs. Wade’s breasts as “Big Hoobie Boobies.” 32. Specifically, Defendant Gross said, “You and those Big Hoobie Boobies.” 33. Ms. Akins commented on multiple occasions that Defendant Gross’s behavior was inappropriate and not something to laugh about. 34. Defendant Gross, at some point, began to make repeated comments about her lesbian friend to Mrs. Wade and stated that if she, Defendant Gross, was a lesbian, she would date her friend. 35. During or around the first week of September, 2011, Mrs. Wade and Ms. Akins were charged by Defendant Gross with stocking goody bags. 36. While stocking the goody bags, a pair of panties was found in one of the bags and, upon information and belief, the panties belonged to and were placed there by Defendant Gross with the express intention of Mrs. Wade and Ms. Akins finding her panties. 37. During Mrs. Wade’s employment with Defendant Automation, Defendant Gross consistently made comments that her parents were racist but she, Defendant Gross, was not racist. 5    Case 1:12-cv-00375-CLC-WBC Document 1 Filed 11/15/12 Page 5 of 22 PageID #: 5 38. When she made these comments, Defendant Gross would also state that she hated “Mexicans” because they had no right to be in the United States of America but that she liked the Hispanic who worked for Defendant Automation because he did not look like a normal “Mexican” and was a hard worker, not “lazy” like most “Mexicans.” 39. During this time, Ms. Akins was dealing with a customer named Matt, a supervisor for MPW, who consistently said derogatory and insulting things about AfricanAmericans to Ms. Akins. 40. Ms. Akins had told Mrs. Wade about this behavior and had complained of this behavior to Defendant Gross and Renee Clark, a regional manager for Defendant Automation. 41. Defendant Gross and Renee Clark told Ms. Akins and Mrs. Wade that MPW was Defendant Automation’s “bread and butter” and that they would both have to learn to deal with MPW agents. 42. Furthering the special treatment received by MPW, Mrs. Wade and Ms. Akins had been instructed to never permit customers to put complaints about MPW in writing, unlike how they were to deal with other customers. 43. The Defendants, after hearing Ms. Akins’ complaints, presented Ms. Akins with the choice of continuing to work with Matt of MPW or to find another job. 44. The Defendants, in fact, failed to take any corrective action to address this offending behavior by MPW. 45. The failure to act, in additions to the actions of Defendant Gross, created a hostile atmosphere toward African-American workers for Defendant Automation. 6    Case 1:12-cv-00375-CLC-WBC Document 1 Filed 11/15/12 Page 6 of 22 PageID #: 6 46. In September of 2011, Mrs. Wade’s husband’s condition had taken a turn for the worse and it appeared that the medication he had been taking to combat his lung disease had destroyed his liver. 47. Mrs. Wade informed Defendant Gross and Ms. Akins about her husband’s condition. 48. Defendant Gross continued to make inappropriate, sexual, and ribald comments toward and about Mrs. Wade and continued to make the previously outlined racist statements but Mrs. Wade tried to ignore these comments. 49. During this time, Defendant Gross brought in the novel The Help by Kathryn Stockett. 50. Two of the characters in the novel are African-American maids named Aibileen and Minny. 51. Defendant Gross began calling Mrs. Wade and Ms. Akins, both of whom are African-American females, Aibileen and Minny. 52. Mrs. Wade, after Defendant Gross had started with the racist nicknames in addition to the other inappropriate remarks and behavior, had intended on reporting Defendant Gross’s behavior to the Regional Manager, Renee Clark. 53. At some time after Defendant Gross began calling Mrs. Wade and Ms. Akins after characters in The Help but before Mrs. Wade could make the report to Renee Clark, Mrs. Wade overheard Defendant Gross telling Renee Clark about the nicknames and she heard Renee Clark laugh about the names. 7    Case 1:12-cv-00375-CLC-WBC Document 1 Filed 11/15/12 Page 7 of 22 PageID #: 7 54. Coupled with the Defendants refusal to appropriately respond to the racist behavior of their customer and Defendant Gross’s statements and behavior, this incident further communicated a clearly racially hostile work environment to Mrs. Wade. 55. After hearing this response to the nicknames, Mrs. Wade elected not to make the report given the demonstrated callousness for the racist behavior exhibited by Renee Clark, the woman to whom Mrs. Wade would have made the report. 56. Toward the end of September of 2011 or near the beginning of October of 2011, Defendant Gross brought a loaded 9mm handgun into the office and brandished it in front of Mrs. Wade and Ms. Akins. 57. Previous to bringing this handgun into the office, Defendant Gross had frequently bragged about having a carry permit and had stated how much she liked her handgun. 58. The incident began by Defendant Gross telling Mrs. Wade and Ms. Akins about her gun and that she had asked the owner of the company if she could bring the handgun into the office but was told that bringing a gun onto the premises was against company policy. 59. Defendant Gross then stated that she was going to bring the handgun into the office anyway and went outside to her vehicle to retrieve the handgun. 60. Defendant Gross returned to Mrs. Wade and Ms. Akins’ office with the handgun in her holster. 61. Defendant Gross first turned to Mrs. Wade and informed Mrs. Wade that “I am the bitch in charge.” 62. Defendant Gross then turned to Ms. Akins and repeated that “I am the bitch in charge.” 8    Case 1:12-cv-00375-CLC-WBC Document 1 Filed 11/15/12 Page 8 of 22 PageID #: 8 63. Mrs. Wade informed Defendant Gross that she did not like guns and requested that Defendant Gross take the gun out of her office. 64. On that day, Defendant Gross kept the gun on her desk when she was in her office for the entire day. 65. On or around the 18th day of October, 2011, Mrs. Wade could no longer stay quiet and decided to report a series of issues concerning Defendant Gross to Renee Clark during an individual meeting with her. 66. Mrs. Wade orally reported to Renee Clark the following issues: a) Defendant Gross exposing her breasts to Mrs. Wade and Ms. Akins, b) Defendant Gross’s continuous racist statements including, but not limited to, The Help nicknames, c) Defendant Gross’s sexual and ribald statements about undergarments and Mrs. Wade’s breasts, d) Defendant Gross brandishing her 9mm handgun in the office and informing Mrs. Wade and Ms. Akins that she was the “bitch in charge,” e) Defendant Gross’s insistence on seeing the picture of candidates on I-9 forms before they were offered jobs in contravention of Defendant Automation’s policies, f) Defendant Gross’s insistence that Mrs. Wade and Ms. Akins only send young, white females to interview with a certain customer, g) Defendant Gross individually prescreened applicants for office positions, and h) had sent a Caucasian female to a jobsite after the applicant had failed two drug tests in violation of company policy and selected this individual over other qualified candidates. 67. At this meeting, Renee Clark stated that she would address these issues with Defendant Gross. 68. On or around the 19th day of October, 2011, Renee Clark, in a meeting, told Mrs. Wade that she was not being sexually harassed or otherwise discriminated against but, rather, was merely having personal and cultural issues with Defendant Gross. 9    Case 1:12-cv-00375-CLC-WBC Document 1 Filed 11/15/12 Page 9 of 22 PageID #: 9 69. Renee Clark stated that Defendant Gross was merely trying to make friends with Mrs. Wade and that people from different cultures make friends in different ways. 70. Renee Clark then told Mrs. Wade that she was concerned that Mrs. Wade did not fit in with Defendant Automation’s company culture. 71. Renee Clark also stated that Mrs. Wade’s complaint should have first been brought up with Defendant Gross. 72. Mrs. Wade attempted to explain that she had brought up each of these issues with Defendant Gross but Renee Clark spoke over her and did not permit her to voice her concerns. 73. On or around the 20th day of October, 2011, while Mrs. Wade was at a job fair in Knoxville on behalf of Defendant Automation, she received an email from Defendant Automation that she was being moved to a later shift. 74. The later shift interfered with her nightly family devotional. 75. While in Knoxville, Tennessee, Mrs. Wade called in a complaint to the EEOC for the behavior stated herein. 76. On or around the 24th day of October, 2011, Defendant Gross had a staff meeting to discuss the new working schedules. 77. Ms. Akins was assigned to an earlier shift and Mrs. Wade to a later shift. 78. Defendant Gross assigned Mrs. Wade to the later shift out of religious animus and in hopes of forcing Mrs. Wade to resign her position with Defendant Automation. 79. Defendant Gross’s behavior as previously stated herein continued and escalated. 80. Mrs. Wade was dealing with the stress of her home life with her husband being severely ill and her children being impacted by this illness and this was exacerbated by the unlawful behavior by the Defendants. 10    Case 1:12-cv-00375-CLC-WBC Document 1 Filed 11/15/12 Page 10 of 22 PageID #: 10 81. While Mrs. Wade was working the later shift, Defendant Gross would inexplicably return to the office and stare at Mrs. Wade through the window in her office. 82. Defendant Gross also began to leave the alarm of the building off when she left and left the back door unlocked and, on two occasions, she left the door wide open. 83. These actions were disconcerting to Mrs. Wade given the surrounding area and the ongoing issues with Ms. Akins and the racist customer of Defendant Automation. 84. Upon information and belief, Ms. Akins saw an email dated 2nd day of November, 2011 from Defendant Gross to Renee Brasher asking if there was a way to get rid of Mrs. Wade under the pretext that business was slow. 85. On the 16th day of November, 2011, Mrs. Wade arrived at the office and was informed by Ms. Akins that her final day at work was that day. 86. Mrs. Wade turned in her two (2) weeks’ notice on that same day that would be effective on Friday the 18th day of November, 2011. 87. Mrs. Wade completed orientation for the new hires for Defendant Automation and then was told that she did not have to finish her two weeks. 88. Mrs. Wade was presented with a release in exchange for two weeks pay and some additional holiday pay. 89. Mrs. Wade declined to sign the documents. 90. Mrs. Wade, due to the unlawful actions of Defendant Gross, sought counseling from her pastor’s wife because she had sustained a significant emotional and mental injury through Defendant Gross’s actions and through Defendant Automation’s actions or inactions. 11    Case 1:12-cv-00375-CLC-WBC Document 1 Filed 11/15/12 Page 11 of 22 PageID #: 11 4. CAUSES OF ACTION COUNT 1—HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT THROUGH RACIAL HARASSMENT UNDER TITLE VII AND THE THRA 91. Mrs. Wade incorporates the previous paragraphs as if listed verbatim herein by this reference. 92. Mrs. Wade, as an African-American, inhabits a protected class. 93. Mrs. Wade was subject to racially motivated conduct as outlined herein that constituted an abusive or offensive work environment and/or adversely affected Mrs. Wade’s ability, as a reasonable employee, to perform her job. 94. Specifically, the Defendants subjected her co-worker, Ms. Akins, to a racially abusive customer and took no action to curtail these behaviors and, rather, insisted that Ms. Akins continue to subject herself to the abuse. 95. Further, Defendant Gross nicknamed Mrs. Wade after one of the African- American maids in The Help. 96. Further, Defendant Gross consistently stated that her parents were racist but that she was not racist while intermingling her own racist statements about Hispanics. 97. Defendants knew, or should have known, about the harassment and failed to respond with prompt and appropriate corrective action. 98. Specifically, Defendant Gross was a managerial employee and agent of Defendant Automation and, thus, Defendant Gross’ knowledge of her own harassing behavior is imputed to Defendant Automation. 99. Further, Mrs. Wade and Ms. Akins complained of the harassment to agents of Defendant Automation, including, but not limited to, Renee Clark, and such knowledge is imputed to Defendant Automation. 12    Case 1:12-cv-00375-CLC-WBC Document 1 Filed 11/15/12 Page 12 of 22 PageID #: 12 100. Further, Defendant Gross told Renee Clark about the offensive nicknames and Renee Clark merely laughed. 101. Further, Mrs. Wade reported the harassment and other issues, as previously outlined herein on the 18th day of October, 2011, to Renee Clark and Renee Clark, as previously outlined herein on the 19th day of October, 2011, dismissed these complaints as cultural misunderstandings and questioned whether Mrs. Wade was a good fit for Defendant Automation’s culture. 102. Under the totality of the circumstances, including the pattern of sexual, racial, and religious harassment, the actions of the Defendants as outlined herein created an objectively hostile working environment. 103. Under the totality of the circumstances, including the pattern of sexual, racial, and religious harassment, the actions of the Defendants as outlined herein created a subjectively hostile working environment that was offensive and abusive to Mrs. Wade. 104. Mrs. Wade was constructively discharged from her employment with Defendant Automation because the hostile work environment, under the totality of the circumstances, including the pattern of sexual, racial, and religious harassment, was so severe and/or pervasive, as stated herein, was such that a reasonable employer would have foreseen Mrs. Wade’s resignation. 105. Furthermore, Mrs. Wade was constructively discharged from her employment with Defendant Automation because the hostile work environment, under the totality of the circumstances, including the pattern of sexual, racial, and religious harassment, as described herein was orchestrated with the express purpose, by Defendant Gross, that Mrs. Wade would resign her employment and this is expressly captured in the email dated the 2nd day of 13    Case 1:12-cv-00375-CLC-WBC Document 1 Filed 11/15/12 Page 13 of 22 PageID #: 13 November, 2011 sent by Defendant Gross to Renee Clark seeking a pretext to terminate Mrs. Wade as well as implied in Defendant Gross’s actions. 106. The Defendants are liable for all damages proximately caused and sustained by Mrs. Wade through the creation of a hostile work environment through racial harassment. COUNT 2—HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT THROUGH SEXUAL HARASSMENT UNDER TITLE VII AND THE THRA 107. Mrs. Wade incorporates the previous paragraphs as if listed verbatim herein by this reference. 108. Mrs. Wade, as a female, inhabits a protected class. 109. Mrs. Wade was subject to unwelcomed sexual harassment from Defendant Gross. 110. Specifically, Defendant Gross exposed her breasts to Mrs. Wade, commented about her own undergarments, commented about Mrs. Wade’s undergarments, encouraged Mrs. Wade not to wear undergarments, commented on Mrs. Wade’s breasts, and discussed the lesbian relationship of one of Defendant Gross’s friends while she stated that Defendant Gross, if she was a lesbian, would date her lesbian friend. 111. This harassment was because Mrs. Wade is a female because the comments were made to her about her female anatomy and related clothing and the other actions were also committed because of her gender. 112. This harassment affected term(s), condition(s), and/or privilege(s) of employment for Mrs. Wade in that the harassment negatively and adversely impacted her employment as stated herein. 113. Defendants knew, or should have known, about the harassment and failed to respond with prompt and appropriate corrective action. 14    Case 1:12-cv-00375-CLC-WBC Document 1 Filed 11/15/12 Page 14 of 22 PageID #: 14 114. Specifically, Defendant Gross was a managerial employee and agent of Defendant Automation and, thus, Defendant Gross’ knowledge of her own harassing behavior is imputed to Defendant Automation. 115. Further, Mrs. Wade complained of the harassment to agents of Defendant Automation, including, but not limited to, Renee Clark, and this knowledge is imputed to Defendant Automation. 116. Further, Mrs. Wade reported the harassment and other issues, as previously outlined herein on the 18th day of October, 2011, to Renee Clark and Renee Clark, as previously outlined herein on the 19th day of October, 2011, dismissed these complaints as cultural misunderstandings and questioned whether Mrs. Wade was a good fit for Defendant Automation’s culture. 117. Under the totality of the circumstances, including the pattern of sexual, racial, and religious harassment, the actions of the Defendants as outlined herein created an objectively hostile working environment. 118. Under the totality of the circumstances, including the pattern of sexual, racial, and religious harassment, the actions of the Defendants as outlined herein created a subjectively hostile working environment that was offensive and abusive to Mrs. Wade. 119. Mrs. Wade was constructively discharged from her employment with Defendant Automation because the hostile work environment, under the totality of the circumstances, including the pattern of sexual, racial, and religious harassment, was so severe and/or pervasive, as stated herein, such that a reasonable employer would have foreseen Mrs. Wade’s resignation. 120. Furthermore, Mrs. Wade was constructively discharged from her employment with Defendant Automation because the hostile work environment, under the totality of the 15    Case 1:12-cv-00375-CLC-WBC Document 1 Filed 11/15/12 Page 15 of 22 PageID #: 15 circumstances, including the pattern of sexual, racial, and religious harassment, as described herein, was orchestrated with the express purpose, by Defendant Gross, that Mrs. Wade would resign her employment and this is expressly captured in the email dated the 2nd day of November, 2011 sent by Defendant Gross to Renee Clark seeking a pretext to terminate Mrs. Wade and implicit in Defendant Gross’s actions. 121. The Defendants are liable for all damages proximately caused and sustained by Mrs. Wade through the creation of a hostile work environment through sexual harassment. COUNT 3—HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT THROUGH RELIGIOUS HARASSMENT UNDER TITLE VII AND THE THRA 122. Mrs. Wade incorporates the previous paragraphs as if listed verbatim herein by this reference. 123. Mrs. Wade, as a Christian, inhabits a protected class. 124. Mrs. Wade was subject to unwanted religious discrimination by her supervisor, Defendant Gross, when Defendant Gross willfully changed Mrs. Wade’s work schedule to interfere with her family’s nightly devotional. 125. This discrimination was based exclusively on her religion because there were other shifts available that would not have interfered with the nightly devotional but Defendant Gross was adamant that she would work the conflicting shift rather than make a reasonable accommodation. 126. This harassment created an intimidating, hostile, and/or offensive work environment by discriminating against Mrs. Wade’s religious beliefs. 127. Defendants knew, or should have known, about the harassment and failed to respond with prompt and appropriate corrective action. 16    Case 1:12-cv-00375-CLC-WBC Document 1 Filed 11/15/12 Page 16 of 22 PageID #: 16 128. Specifically, Defendant Gross was a managerial employee and agent of Defendant Automation and, thus, Defendant Gross’ knowledge of her own harassing behavior is imputed to Defendant Automation. 129. Further, Mrs. Wade complained of the harassment to agents of Defendant Automation, including, but not limited to, Renee Clark, and this knowledge is imputed to Defendant Automation. 130. Further, Mrs. Wade reported the harassment and other issues, as previously outlined herein on the 18th day of October, 2011, to Renee Clark and Renee Clark, as previously outlined herein on the 19th day of October, 2011, dismissed these complaints as cultural misunderstandings and questioned whether Mrs. Wade was a good fit for Defendant Automation’s culture. 131. Under the totality of the circumstances, including the pattern of sexual, racial, and religious harassment, the actions of the Defendants as outlined herein created an objectively hostile working environment. 132. Under the totality of the circumstances, including the pattern of sexual, racial, and religious harassment, the actions of the Defendants as outlined herein created a subjectively hostile working environment that was offensive and abusive to Mrs. Wade. 133. Mrs. Wade was constructively discharged from her employment with Defendant Automation because the hostile work environment, under the totality of the circumstances, including the pattern of sexual, racial, and religious harassment, was so severe and/or pervasive, as stated herein, such that a reasonable employer would have foreseen Mrs. Wade’s resignation. 134. Furthermore, Mrs. Wade was constructively discharged from her employment with Defendant Automation because the hostile work environment, under the totality of the 17    Case 1:12-cv-00375-CLC-WBC Document 1 Filed 11/15/12 Page 17 of 22 PageID #: 17 circumstances, including the pattern of sexual, racial, and religious harassment, as described herein was orchestrated with the express purpose, by Defendant Gross, that Mrs. Wade would resign her employment and this is expressly captured in the email dated the 2nd day of November, 2011 sent by Defendant Gross to Renee Clark seeking a pretext to terminate Mrs. Wade and implied by Defendant Gross’s actions. 135. The Defendants are liable for all damages proximately caused and sustained by Mrs. Wade through the creation of a hostile work environment through religious harassment. COUNT 4—RETALIATION UNDER TITLE VII AND THE THRA 136. Mrs. Wade incorporates the previous paragraphs as if listed verbatim herein by this reference. 137. Mrs. Wade engaged in activity protected by Title VII and the THRA by reporting the racial, sexual, and religious harassment to the EEOC on the 20th day of October, 2011 and to her supervisors on multiple occasions, both before and after, the 20th day of October, 2011 as stated herein. 138. The Defendants knew that Mrs. Wade reported the harassment to the EEOC and to her supervisors. 139. The Defendants took an adverse employment action against Mrs. Wade by moving her shift to the later shift and which interfered with her family’s nightly devotional. 140. Furthermore, Mrs. Wade was constructively discharged from her employment with Defendant Automation because the hostile work environment, under the totality of the circumstances, including the pattern of sexual, racial, and religious harassment, was so severe and/or pervasive, as stated herein, such that a reasonable employer would have foreseen Mrs. Wade’s resignation. 18    Case 1:12-cv-00375-CLC-WBC Document 1 Filed 11/15/12 Page 18 of 22 PageID #: 18 141. Furthermore, Mrs. Wade was constructively discharged from her employment with Defendant Automation because the hostile work environment, under the totality of the circumstances, including the pattern of sexual, racial, and religious harassment, as described herein was orchestrated with the express purpose, by Defendant Gross, that Mrs. Wade would resign her employment and this is captured in the email dated the 2nd day of November, 2011 sent by Defendant Gross to Renee Clark seeking a pretext to terminate Mrs. Wade and implied in Defendant Gross’s actions. 142. Moreover, the Defendants, by and through Mrs. Wade’s supervisor, Defendant Gross, subjected Mrs. Wade to severe and/or pervasive harassment by and through the discriminatory change in her work shift, Defendant Gross returning to work and staring at Mrs. Wade while she worked, Defendant Gross leaving the alarm off and the door unlocked or open to intimidate Mrs. Wade, Defendant Gross previously threatening Mrs. Wade with a firearm, and the continuation of the other sexual and racial harassment. 143. The Defendants are liable for all damages proximately caused and sustained by Mrs. Wade through the creation of a hostile work environment through retaliation. COUNT 5—RETALIATORY DISCHARGE UNDER TENNESSEE COMMON LAW 144. Mrs. Wade incorporates the previous paragraphs as if listed verbatim herein by this reference. 145. Mrs. Wade was an at-will employee of Defendant Automation. 146. Mrs. Wade was constructively discharged through the actions of the Defendants as outlined in detail herein. 147. Mrs. Wade was discharged for seeking the protection and reporting of violations of Title VII and the THRA. 19    Case 1:12-cv-00375-CLC-WBC Document 1 Filed 11/15/12 Page 19 of 22 PageID #: 19 148. Mrs. Wade’s attempts to utilize the protections of Title VII and the THRA were a substantial factor in the Defendants’ constructive discharge of Mrs. Wade. 149. The Defendants are liable for all damages proximately caused and sustained by Mrs. Wade through the creation of a hostile work environment through retaliatory discharge. COUNT 6—INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 150. Mrs. Wade incorporates the previous paragraphs as if listed verbatim herein by this reference. 151. Defendant Gross, at all times relevant herein, was an agent of Defendant Automation and Defendant Automation is, thus, vicariously liable for Defendant Gross’s actions or inactions. 152. Defendant Gross knew, or should have known, that the Mrs. Wade was in a precarious emotional state with her husband’s ongoing illness and the related problems, financial and her children’s reaction to their father’s sickness, etc., at home. 153. Defendant Gross, either intentionally or recklessly, caused Mrs. Wade to endure severe emotional distress and a serious mental injury through the sexual, racial, and religious discrimination as described in detail herein. 154. Defendant Gross’s racist, sexist, and religious bigotry and actions in furtherance thereof constitutes outrageous conduct that cannot be tolerated by a civilized society. 155. Defendant Automation’s failure to act to ameliorate Defendant Gross’s racist, sexist, and religious bigotry is independently outrageous conduct that cannot be tolerated by a civilized society. 20    Case 1:12-cv-00375-CLC-WBC Document 1 Filed 11/15/12 Page 20 of 22 PageID #: 20 156. As a direct result of the Defendants’ conduct, as herein complained of, Mrs. Wade suffered serious mental injuries that manifested themselves in depression, high anxiety, and in many other related forms for which she sought counseling from her pastor’s wife. 157. The conduct herein complained of was the proximate result of the Mrs. Wade’s serious mental injury. 158. The Defendants are liable for all damages proximately caused and sustained by Mrs. Wade through the commission of this tort. 5. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Mrs. Wade prays that this Court empanel a jury of twelve (12) to try this cause and enter a judgment as follows: 1. Award compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial not to exceed THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($300,000.00) to compensate Mrs. Wade for all injuries and damages, including, but not limited to, lost wages, back pay, front pay, medical bills, pain and suffering, humiliation and embarrassment, and any and all other compensable injuries suffered by Mrs. Wade as a proximate result of the Defendants’ unlawful acts. 2. Award Mrs. Wade punitive damages against the Defendants in an amount to be determined at trial not to exceed NINE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($900,000.00) for the Defendants’ intentional, reckless, or grossly negligent acts. 3. Award Mrs. Wade all costs, attorney’s fees, and discretionary costs incurred in prosecution of this case. 4. Award such other and further relief that this Court finds appropriate. 21    Case 1:12-cv-00375-CLC-WBC Document 1 Filed 11/15/12 Page 21 of 22 PageID #: 21 Respectfully submitted. /s/ Jeremy M. Cothern______________ Marvin B. Berke (TN Bar No. 1740) Jeremy M. Cothern (TN Bar No. 27166) BERKE, BERKE & BERKE 420 Frazier Avenue Post Office Box 4747 Chattanooga, TN 37405 Tel: (423) 266-5171 Fax: (423) 265-5307 Email: marvin@berkeattys.coms jeremy@berkeattys.com Attorney for Yolanda Dionne Wade 22    Case 1:12-cv-00375-CLC-WBC Document 1 Filed 11/15/12 Page 22 of 22 PageID #: 22