Case 1:12-cv-01532-SCJ Document 1 Filed 05/02/12 Page 1 of 12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION

DANIEL BROWN,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

PLAINTIFF,
V.
AUTOMATION PERSONNEL
SERVICES, INC.,
DEFENDANT.

CIVIL ACTION FILE NO.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
COMES NOW Plaintiff, Daniel Brown (hereinafter “Plaintiff” or “Plaintiff
Brown”), by and through his undersigned counsel, and sets forth his Complaint for
Damages against the above-named Defendant: Automation Personnel Services,
Inc. (hereinafter “Defendant” or “APS”).
1.
This is a lawsuit for damages arising from gender and race-based
discrimination and retaliation toward the Plaintiff, a former employee of APS,
against his former employers pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (hereinafter “Section
1981”) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.
(hereinafter “Title VII”) and other state-law claims.

1

 Case 1:12-cv-01532-SCJ Document 1 Filed 05/02/12 Page 2 of 12

PARTIES
2.
Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of the State of Georgia. Plaintiff is a white
male whose employment began with Defendant around the middle of 2011.
3.
APS is a corporation formed under the laws of the state of Alabama,
registered to conduct business in the state of Georgia, and subject to the
jurisdiction of this Court. APS may be served by delivering a copy of the
complaint and summons to its registered agent: CT Corporation System, 1201
Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, GA 30361, if service of process is not waived.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4.
Plaintiff is subject to the jurisdiction and venue of this Court.
5.
Defendant is a corporation licensed to do business in the state of Georgia.
6.
Defendant’s registered agent is located in Fulton County Georgia.
7.
This Court has jurisdiction over this case and over this Defendant.

2

 Case 1:12-cv-01532-SCJ Document 1 Filed 05/02/12 Page 3 of 12

8.
All parties to this action reside or are located within the boundaries of this
judicial district, and venue is proper pursuant to, inter alia, 28 U.S.C. Section
1391(b)(2) and 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-(f)(3).
STATEMENT OF FACTS
9.
Defendant APS employed fifteen or more employees for each working day
in each of twenty or more calendar weeks surrounding the Plaintiff’s employment
in 2011.
10.
Defendant APS is subject to the anti-discrimination and anti-retaliation
provisions of Title VII.
11.
Plaintiff Brown was first hired by APS around May, 2011; subsequently, on
a near daily basis, Plaintiff Brown’s manager, Melissa McAllister would make
sexist comments to Plaintiff Brown saying for example: that all men were gross
and smelly; men were not smart enough to write; that Plaintiff Brown was unable
to help his shortcomings because he was a man; that Plaintiff Brown should not try
to control things because he was a man; and accusing Plaintiff Brown of urinating
on the toilet seat.

3

 Case 1:12-cv-01532-SCJ Document 1 Filed 05/02/12 Page 4 of 12

12.
Around June, 2011, Plaintiff contacted his regional manager, Renee Clark,
and complained that he was being discriminated against because of his gender, and
asking that the sexist comments be stopped. Plaintiff Brown also complained that
he had been directed by Melissa McAllister to screen out non-white men for
placement

with

Foley

Concrete,

which

Plaintiff

believed

was

illegal

discrimination. Renee Clark assured Plaintiff that she would deal with the issues.
13.
Subsequently, in retaliation for Plaintiff Brown’s earlier complaint of gender
and race discrimination, Plaintiff was called into a meeting with Renee Clark,
Plaintiff’s regional manager, and Melissa McAllister.

During this meeting,

Plaintiff’s manager accused Plaintiff Brown of spreading rumors that Melissa was
having sexual relations with APS clients. Plaintiff Brown was shocked by those
allegations, and readily denied any such actions.
14.
In mid July 2011, Plaintiff Brown was approached by an employee who had
been sent by APS for a placement at Lufthansa. The employee told Plaintiff that
he had been subjected to racial slurs while assigned to work at Lufthansa. Plaintiff
got a written statement from the employee and gave it to Melissa McAllister. Ms.

4

 Case 1:12-cv-01532-SCJ Document 1 Filed 05/02/12 Page 5 of 12

McAllister told Plaintiff that only white people should be sent to Lufthansa. Ms.
McAllister threw the statement in the trash.
15.
After the incident where Melissa threw the statement in the trash, Plaintiff
Brown again complained to Renee Clark, but it seemed that nothing was done to
deter Melissa McAllister from making sexist and racist comments. A week or two
later, Melissa McAllister told Plaintiff Brown that he should not contact Renee
Clark anymore, that he was annoying Renee. Plaintiff Brown then attempted to
contact corporate human resources, but was unsuccessful.
16.
On or around August 19, 2011, Plaintiff Brown conducted a drug test for a
black male, who was a prospective candidate for employment; Plaintiff Brown
reviewed the results of the drug test that indicated that the candidate had passed the
drug test.
17.
After the prospective candidate passed the drug test, Plaintiff Brown was
berated by Melissa McAllister, who alleged that the prospective employee was
black and could not pass a drug test; she then accused Plaintiff Brown of falsifying
the prospective employee’s drug test.

5

 Case 1:12-cv-01532-SCJ Document 1 Filed 05/02/12 Page 6 of 12

18.
Plaintiff Brown denied falsifying the prospective employee’s drug test and
asked to show Melissa McAllister the actual drug test result that demonstrated that
the prospective employee had passed the drug test.
19.
Melissa McAllister became enraged and told Plaintiff that he was fired and
ordered him to leave the APS property; upon information and belief, Melissa
McAllister then called the prospective employee to come back to the APS office
and take additional drug tests.
20.
Plaintiff was terminated on August 19, 2011, for refusing to discriminate
against a candidate due to his race.
21.
The true reason for Plaintiff’s termination was his complaint of sex or
gender base discrimination and his opposition to race based discrimination at APS.
22.
On or around September 8, 2011, Plaintiff filed a timely charge of
discrimination against APS with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(“EEOC”) Atlanta District Office.

6

 Case 1:12-cv-01532-SCJ Document 1 Filed 05/02/12 Page 7 of 12

23.
A true and accurate copy of Plaintiff’s Charge of discrimination is attached
hereto as Exhibit “A” and is incorporated herein.
24.
On or around March 9, 2012, Plaintiff George was issued a Notice of Right
to Sue.
25.
A true and accurate copy of the Notice of Right to Sue is attached hereto as
Exhibit “B” and is incorporated herein.
26.
This action has been commenced within 90 days of Plaintiff receiving his
Notice of Right to Sue.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: GENDER DISCRIMINATION
UNDER TITLE VII
27.
Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-26 of this Complaint as if
fully set forth herein.
28.
Plaintiff was employed by Defendant.

7

 Case 1:12-cv-01532-SCJ Document 1 Filed 05/02/12 Page 8 of 12

29.
Defendant has engaged in intentional gender discrimination in violation of
Title VII in its hiring of, promoting of and offering differing terms and conditions
of employment for its male employees, and ratified gender discrimation by its
managers and supervisors.
30.
Plaintiff has suffered damages as a result of this discrimination.
31.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s above-mentioned
discriminatory actions, Plaintiff has suffered lost wages and benefits, significantly
diminished employment opportunities and emotional distress consisting of but not
limited to outrage, shock, and humiliation.
32.
Defendant has engaged in discriminatory practices with malice and reckless
indifference to the Plaintiff’s federally protected rights thereby entitling him to
punitive damages.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: UNLAWFUL RETALIATION
UNDER TITLE VII AND SECTION 1981
33.
Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 32 of this

8

 Case 1:12-cv-01532-SCJ Document 1 Filed 05/02/12 Page 9 of 12

Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
34.
Plaintiff complained about the racial discrimination other employees were
subjected to and the gender based discrimination he was subjected to while
employed with Defendant.
35.
As a result of such complaints, Plaintiff suffered an adverse employment
actions and was retaliated against by Plaitniff ultiamtely being fired .
36.
This retaliation was a result of the Plaintiff’s complaints of race and gender
based discrimination.
37.
Plaintiff suffered damages as a result of Defendant’s retaliatory conduct.
38.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s above-mentioned
discriminatory actions, Plaintiff has suffered lost wages, significantly diminished
employment opportunities and emotional distress consisting of but not limited to
outrage, shock, and humiliation.

9

 Case 1:12-cv-01532-SCJ Document 1 Filed 05/02/12 Page 10 of 12

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: NEGLIENT HIRING, SUPERVISION,
RETENTION AND FAILURE TO INVESTIGATE
39.
Paragraphs 1-38 above are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth
verbatim herein.
40.
At all times material to this complaint, Defendant owed a legal duty of care
toward its employees to exercise reasonable care and prudence in the hiring, and
retention of co-employees, managers, and supervisors.
40.
By and through the conduct, actions, and malfeasance cited above,
Defendant breached the above-described legal duties of care that it owed to
Plaintiff. Specifically, Defendants negligently failed to investigate Plaintiff charge
of race and gender discrimination and to prevent retaliation against Plaintiff.
Defendant’s failure to act encouraged and allowed the creation of a work
environment that was unlawfully discriminatory to Plaintiff.
41.
Defendant’s breach of its legal duties of care directly and proximately
caused or contributed to the injuries incurred by Plaintiff.

10

 Case 1:12-cv-01532-SCJ Document 1 Filed 05/02/12 Page 11 of 12

42.
The above-described actions by Defendant were intentional, willful, wanton,
malicious, and evidence a callous disregard for Plaintiff’s rights.
53.
As a result of Defendant’s tortious actions, Plaintiff has suffered economic,
pecuniary and emotional damages.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays as follows:
(a)

that Summons issue for Defendant;

(b)

that a trial by jury to all issues be had;

(c)

judgment against Defendant for any and all general, special, and,
where applicable, punitive damages as allowed by law under each and
every count and cause of action contained in this complaint;

(d)

for all costs of this action to be taxed against Defendant;

(e)

for all costs and attorneys fees to be awarded to; and

(f)

for any and all other and further relief as this Court may deem just and
equitable under the circumstances.

Respectfully submitted this 2nd day of May, 2012.
(signature on next page)

11

 Case 1:12-cv-01532-SCJ Document 1 Filed 05/02/12 Page 12 of 12

/s/ J. Stephen Mixon, Esq.
J. Stephen Mixon, Esq.
Georgia Bar No. 514050
Attorney for Plaintiff
MILLAR & MIXON, LLC
108 Williamson Mill Road
Jonesboro, Georgia 30236
770-955-0100 (phone)
678-669-2037 (fax)
steve@mixon-law.com

12