IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF TULSA COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA (1) CURTIS COUNCE, DISTRICT COURT (2) CARA BROWN, (3) GLORIA FERRELL, (4) WILLIE VAUGHN, DEC 1 3 2013 (5) ALEXIS GREEN, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS CLASS smHowE SMITH, comm REPRESENTATIVES ON BEHALF OF sweorom rwconfmm, ALL SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS Plaintiffs, vs. Judge Linda G. Morrissey (1) STAND-BY PERSONNEL, INC a Domestic For Pro?t Business Corporation, (2) BROWN HARTMAN ENGRAVING INC. a Domestic For Pro?t Business 3? CASE NO. CJ-2013-05636 Corporation, (a (3) BLM EQUIPMENT AND MANUFACTURING, INC. :3 a Domestic Limited Liability Company, (4) AUTO BATTERY ELECTRIC a Domestic For Pro?t Business Corporation 15;; .13: (5) HALCYON MARBLE AND GRANITE) ATTORNEY LIEN CLAIMED INC., A Domestic For Pro?t Business A Corporation Defendants. AMENDED PETITION COME NOW the Plaintiffs, Curtis Counce, Cara Brown, Gloria Ferrell, Willie Vaughn and Alexis Green individually and as Class Representatives on Behalf of All Similarly Situated Persons, by and through their attorneys of record, and hereby ?le this Petition against the Defendants, Stand-By Personnel, Inc., Brown Hartman Engraving, Inc., BLM Equipment and Manufacturing, Inc., Auto Battery and Electric, and Halcyon Marble and Granite, Inc. for Violations of their statutory rights and the statutory protected rights of those similarly situated current and former Stand-By employees and those applicants seeking employment arising out of their employment or application for placement and/or employment with said Defendants. Plaintiffs state and allege as follows: JURISDICTION. PARTIES AND VENUE 1. This is an action for damages and to secure protection of and to redress deprivation of rights secured by the Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act,725 0.8. 1301 et. sec, providing for relief against discrimination in employment on the basis of race and age. This Petition is not subject to removal under the Class Action Fairness Act, codi?ed at 28 U.S.C. 1) Defendants are incorporated under the laws of the State of Oklahoma, as speci?ed below. Removal is also improper since ?home-state? exception is applicable based on the allegations of the Petition. As a result, removal would be patently frivolous and in bad faith based on (1) the complete lack of diversity of citizenship for purposes of federal jurisdiction under CAFA and (2) the applicability of home-state exception as demonstrated on the face of the Petition. 2. Plaintiff Curtis Counce Counce?), an African American male and resident of Tulsa County, ?led a charge of discrimination against the defendant with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Plaintiff complained to the EEOC of discrimination based on his race and age against he and the Class. A Notice of Right to Sue was received by Plaintiff on or about September 13, 2013, and this Petition has been ?led within ninety days (90) of the receipt of the Notice of Right to Sue. As such, Plaintiff has complied fully with all prerequisites in this Court under the Oklahoma Anti? Discrimination Act (OADA) 25 0.8. 1301 et sec. 3. Plaintiff Cara Brown (?Ms Brown?), an African American female and resident of Tulsa County, ?led a charge of discrimination against the defendant with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Plaintiff complained to the EEOC of discrimination based on her gender, race and age against she and the Class. A Notice of Right to Sue was received by Plaintiff on or about September 13, 2013, and this Petition has been ?led within ninety days (90) of the receipt of the Notice of Right to Sue. As such, Plaintiff has complied fully with all prerequisites in this Court under the Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act (OADA) 25 0.8. 1301 et sec. 4. Plaintiff Gloria Ferrell (?Ms Ferrell?), an African American female and resident of Tulsa County, ?led a charge of discrimination against the defendant with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Plaintiff complained to the EEOC of discrimination based on her gender, race and age against she and the Class. A Notice of Right to Sue was received by Plaintiff on or about September 13, 2013, and this Petition has been ?led within ninety days (90) of the receipt of the Notice of Right to Sue. As such, Plaintiff has complied fully with all prerequisites in this Court under the Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act (OADA) 25 0.8. 1301 et sec. 5. Plaintiff Willie Vaughn Vaughn?), an African American male and resident of Tulsa County, ?led a charge of discrimination against the defendant with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Plaintiff complained to the EEOC of discrimination based on his race and age against he and the Class. A Notice of Right to Sue was received by Plaintiff on or about September 13, 2013 and this Petition has been ?led within ninety days (90) of the receipt of the Notice of Right to Sue. As such, Plaintiff has complied fully with all prerequisites in this Court under the Oklahoma Anti- Discrimination Act (OADA) 25 0.8. 1301 et sec. 6. Actual Damages, Injunctive, Equitable including back pay and front pay and Compensatory damages are sought pursuant to 25 0.8. 1301 et sec. 7. Costs and attomey?s fees may be awarded pursuant to 25 0.8. 8. The claims of the individual class members in the aggregate are less than the sum or value of $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs. The damages (actual and punitive) and other relief (attorney?s fees) of the class as a whole sought in this case shall be less than Five Million Dollars exclusive of interest and costs, in sum or value. 9. By de?nition of the class membership, which limits the proposed classes in the aggregate to citizens of the State of Oklahoma as of the date of the ?ling of the Petition, two?thirds or more of the members of all proposed plaintiff classes in the aggregate are citizens of the State of Oklahoma. Moreover, Defendant Stand By Personnel is a citizen of the State of Oklahoma from whom signi?cant relief is sought by members of the Class, whose alleged conduct forms a signi?cant basis for the claims asserted in the Petition by the Class, principal injuries resulting from the alleged conduct or any related conduct of each Defendant were incurred in the State of Oklahoma, and during the 3-year period preceding the ?ling of this class action, no other class action has been ?led asserting the same or similar factual allegations against the Defendant on behalf of the same or other persons. 10. Plaintiffs, individually and as class representatives, assert no federal cause action and all claims are state law claims under Oklahoma law. 11.This action lies properly in Tulsa County as the unlawful employment practices complained of herein occurred Within Tulsa County and because Defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Oklahoma and doing business in Tulsa County. 12. Plaintiffs are citizens of the State of Oklahoma and residents of Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma. 13. Defendant Stand By Personnel is a company doing business in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma and regularly employs more than ?fteen (15) people. 14. Defendant, Brown Hartman Engraving, Inc. is a company doing business in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, is organized under the laws of the State of Oklahoma and regularly employs more than ?fteen (15) people. 15. Defendant, BLM Equipment and Manufacturing, Inc. is a company doing business in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, is organized under the laws of the State of Oklahoma and regularly employs more than ?fteen (15) people. 16. Defendant, Auto Battery and Electric, is a company doing business in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma and is organized under the laws of the State of Oklahoma and regularly employs more than ?fteen (15) people. 17. Defendant, Halcyon Marble and Granite, Inc., is a company doing business in Tulsa County, State of Oklahoma, is organized under the laws of the State of Oklahoma and regularly employs more than ?fteen (15) people. CLASS ALLEGATIONS 18. The Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to 12 OS. 2001 2023 on behalf of a class of all African Americans over forty years of age employed by Stand By Personnel in Tulsa, Oklahoma who were not hired and placed in employment on the basis of their race, African American in Violation of 25 0.8. 1301 et sec. Based upon information and belief, Plaintiffs allege the Defendant engages in a pattern and practice of discrimination by failing to hire based upon race and subsequently failing to place African Americans into open positions based upon race and Defendant?s client?s discriminatory requests contained in their job orders. 19. The Plaintiffs also bring this action pursuant to 12 OS. 2001 2023 on behalf of a class of all over the age of forty (40) years employed by Stand By Personnel in Tulsa, Oklahoma who were not hired and placed in employment on the basis of their age in Violation of 25 0.8. 1301 et sec. Based upon information and belief, Plaintiffs allege the Defendant engages in a pattern and practice of discrimination by failing to hire based upon age and subsequently failing to place individuals over the age of forty (40) years into open positions based upon both their age and Defendant?s client?s discriminatory requests contained in their job orders. 20. Plaintiffs Brown and Ferrell bring class allegations pursuant to 12 OS. 2001 2023 on behalf of a class of all females employed or who sought employment by Stand By Personnel in Tulsa, Oklahoma who were not hired and placed in employment on the basis of their gender in Violation of 25 0.8. 1301 et sec. Based upon information and belief, Plaintiffs allege the Defendant engages in a pattern and practice of discrimination by failing to hire based upon gender and subsequently failing to place females into open positions based upon both their gender and Defendant?s client?s discriminatory requests contained in their job orders. 21. The members of the class are suf?ciently numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the number of African American employees and those applicants seeking employment and employees and those applicants seeking employment over the age of forty (40) years affected by the above-described discrimination is in the hundreds. 22. There are questions of law and fact common to the class and these questions predominate over individual questions. Such questions include, among others: (1) whether Defendants? policies and practices have a disparate impact on African American employees and those applicants seeking employment with respect to hiring and job placement; (2) whether Defendants? policies and practices have a disparate impact on employees and those applicants seeking employment over the age of forty (40) years with respect to hiring and job placement; (3) whether any disparate impact based upon race or age is justi?ed by business necessity; (4) whether the disparate impact constitutes a Violation of 25 0.8. 1301 et sec; (4) whether Defendants have engaged in a pattern and practice of disparate treatment adverse to African American employees and those applicants seeking employment; (5) whether Defendants have engaged in a pattern and practice of disparate treatment adverse to employees and those applicants seeking employment over the age of forty (40) years; (6) whether injunctive relief and other equitable remedies (including back pay and front pay) and compensatory damages are warranted for the African American employee and those applicants seeking employment class; (7) whether injunctive relief and other equitable remedies (including back pay and front pay) and compensatory damages are warranted for the Age Discrimination employee and those applicants seeking employment class; and (8) whether attorneys fees are warranted. 23. The claims alleged by the Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the class. 24. The Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the class. Plaintiffs? interests do not con?ict with the interests of the Class. Plaintiffs are represented by counsel both skilled and experienced in employment and complex civil litigation matters, including, but not limited to, employment class actions. Plaintiffs? counsel have handled substantial litigation matters in the past. 25. Class certi?cation is appropriate pursuant to 12 0.8. 2001 2023(b)(2) because Defendants have acted and/or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, making appropriate declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the Plaintiffs and the class as a whole. The members of the class are entitled to injunctive relief to end Defendants? common, uniform, and unfair discriminatory personnel policies and practices. 26. Class certi?cation is also appropriate pursuant to 12 0.8. 2001 2023(b)(3) because common questions of fact and law predominate over any questions affecting only individual members of the class, and because a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and ef?cient adjudication of this litigation. The members of the class have been damaged and are entitled to recovery as a result of Defendants? common, uniform, and unfair discriminatory personnel policies and practices. GENERAL PRACTICE OF DISCRIMINATION 27. Stand By Personnel provides job placement of temporary employees, part?time employment general or skilled labor to its client companies. Stand By Personnel specializes in placing people in hundreds of skilled trades including construction, manufacturing, and warehousing. Its? general labor division delivers workers 24-hours a day for temporary to permanent work for its employees. Stand By Personnel is located in Tulsa, Oklahoma and operates in Tulsa, Oklahoma and the surrounding areas. Stand By Personnel receives job orders from client companies including but not limited to Defendants Brown Hartman Engraving, Inc., BLM Equipment and Manufacturing, Inc., Auto Battery and Electric, and Halcyon Marble and Granite, Inc., 28. At all times herein, African American employees or applicants seeking employment at Stand By Personnel were routinely subjected to a pattern and practice of race discrimination and age discrimination affecting the terms and conditions of their employment or sought after employment at Stand By Personnel and its client companies, including but not limited to Brown Hartman Engraving, Inc., BLM Equipment and Manufacturing, Inc., Auto Battery and Electric, and Halcyon Marble and Granite, Inc.. These practices re?ect that discrimination was the Defendants? standard operating procedure the regular, rather than the unusual practice. Speci?cally, Stand By Personnel utilizes a coding system in order to identify its employees and those applicants seeking employment by race. Additionally, Stand By Personnel routinely received discriminatory requests for job placement from its client companies, including but not limited to Defendants Brown Hartman Engraving, Inc., BLM Equipment and Manufacturing, Inc., Auto Battery and Electric, and Halcyon Marble and Granite, Inc., based on race and age and actively participates in discriminating by abiding by and ?lling these discriminatory requests with Caucasian and non-Black individuals under the age of forty (40) years. Speci?cally, BLM Equipment and Manufacturing requested that no one over the age of thirty-?ve (35) years old be placed with them for employment and preferred Hispanic workers. Auto Battery and Electric requested no women and employees placed who were in their thirties. Defendant Stand By also complied with a client requesting only ?Good ole Boys? be placed with them, clearly excluding African American, and female applicants and employees or those seeking employment 29. Stand By Personnel has discriminated against African American employees and those applicants seeking employment and employees and those applicants seeking employment over the age of forty (40) years seeking general and skilled labor positions by refusing to consider African American employees and those applicants seeking employment and employees and those applicants seeking employment over the age of forty (40) years for positions with its Client companies, including but not limited to Brown Hartman Engraving, Inc., BLM Equipment and Manufacturing, Inc., Auto Battery and Electric, and Halcyon Marble and Granite, Inc., by placing Caucasian and non-Black employees or applicants into positions or employees or applicants under the age of forty (40) years into positions with client companies, including but not limited to Brown Hartman Engraving, Inc., BLM Equipment and Manufacturing, Inc., Auto Battery and Electric, and Halcyon Marble and Granite, Inc., and generally by awarding such positions simply on the basis of race and age or in response to client requests. Speci?cally, BLM Equipment and Manufacturing requested that no one over the age of thirty-?ve (35) years old be placed with them for employment and preferred Hispanic workers. Auto Battery and Electric requested no women, and employees placed who were 10 in their thirties. Defendant Stand By Personnel also complied with a client requesting only ?Good ole Boys? be placed with them, clearly excluding African American applicants and employees or those seeking employment and women. 30. The owner of Stand By Personnel, Mark Morris, is a Caucasian male. 31. There is no legitimate business justi?cation or necessity for Defendants? discriminatory practices in hiring and job placement. As a result, quali?ed African American employees and those applicants seeking employment and employees and those applicants seeking employment over the age of forty (40) years have been intentionally denied employment opportunities and bene?ts that were available to similarly situated Caucasian employees and employees under forty (40) years of age. Moreover, African American employees and those applicants seeking employment have been adversely affected by these excessively discriminatory practices. Accordingly, the practices identi?ed above are being challenged under systematic disparate treatment and disparate impact theories of discrimination. 32. Defendants pursued policies and practices on a continuing basis, which has had the effect of denying equal job opportunities to quali?ed African Americans and quali?ed employees and those applicants seeking employment over the age of forty (40) years. Such policies and practices include, without limitation: a. Reliance upon unweighted subjective, race-based and/or arbitrary criteria utilized by Defendants? workforce in making hiring and placement decisions; b. Failure to follow a uniform job posting procedure to guarantee that all employees have notice of openings; 11 c. Discouraging African American employees and applicants and employees or applicants over the age of forty (40) years from seeking or applying for certain positions with client companies; d. Failing and refusing to consider African American employees and applicants and employees and applicants over the age of forty (40) years for hiring and job placement on the same basis as non- African Americans and employees under the age of forty (40) are considered; e. Failing and refusing to compensate African American employees and applicants and employees and applicants over the age of forty (40) years for consideration, hire and placement on the same basis as non?African Americans and employees under the age of forty (40) are compensated; f. Failing to provide African American employees and applicants and employees and applicants over the age of forty (40) years with accurate and timely notice of job placement opportunities; g. Providing African American employees and applicants and employees and applicants over the age of forty (40) years shifting, inconsistent and inaccurate statements about the requirements and quali?cations necessary for hiring and job placement; h. Denying African American employees and applicants and employees and applicants over the age of forty (40) years the training and assignments that would enhance their ability for job placement and hiring; 12 i. Maintaining and fostering a reputation for discriminatory conduct which deters African American employees and applicants and employees and applicants over the age of forty (40) years from pursuing hiring and placement opportunities with Stand By Personnel; j. Establishing and maintaining arbitrary and subjective requirements for job placement and hiring which have the effect of excluding quali?ed African American employees and applicants and employees and applicants over the age of forty (40) years and which have not been shown to have any signi?cant relationship to job performance or to be necessary to the safe and ef?cient conduct of Defendants? business; and k. Failing and refusing to take adequate steps to eliminate the effects of its past discriminatory practices. 33. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that because of its discriminatory policies, Defendants hire and place African American employees and applicants and employees and applicants over the age of forty (40) years at a substantially lower rate than would be expected based on the number of African American employees and applicants and employees and applicants over the age of forty (40) years in the workforce from which hiring at personnel and similar companies are made. 34. Plaintiffs Brown and Ferrell, while also the Victims of race and age discrimination, reincorporate and allege the allegations listed supra, speci?cally paragraphs 28, 29, 31, 32 and 33 but instead allege gender discrimination. 13 CLAIMS OF NAMED PLAINTIFF CARA BROWN 35. Plaintiff, Cara Brown, is an African American female over the age of forty (40) years. 36. Ms. Brown applied at Stand By Personnel in January 2008 and updated her information with Stand By Personnel in December 2010 and has a current application on ?le with Stand By Personnel at the time she ?led with the EEOC. 37. Ms. Brown applied for any position available in general, non-skilled labor. 38. Ms. Brown was never contacted for placement in a position despite her availability and despite there being positions available. 39. Ms. Brown learned that Defendant utilized a coding system, in which it identi?ed the race of applicants by different symbols. These were used to denote the race of an individual on their applications with Stand By Personnel. 40. Ms. Brown also learned that client companies of Stand By Personnel, including but not limited to Brown Hartman Engraving, Inc., BLM Equipment and Manufacturing, Inc., Auto Battery and Electric, and Halcyon Marble and Granite, Inc., submitted job orders to Stand By Personnel containing discriminatory requests indicating it only wanted temporary employees under thirty-?ve (35) years of age and Caucasian or ?Good ole Boy? placements and no women. Stand By personnel acquiesced in these discriminatory requests, thereby discriminating against all of its African American female employees and employees over the age of forty (40) years. CLAIMS OF NAMED PLAINTIFF CURTIS COUNCE 41. Plaintiff, Curtis Counce, is an African American male over the age of forty (40) years. 14 42. Mr. Counce applied at Stand By Personnel in January 2007 and continued to be eligible for job placement with Stand By Personnel until the time he ?led with the EEOC in March 2012. 43. Mr. Counce applied for any position available in general, non?skilled labor. 44. After 2009, Mr. Counce was never contacted for placement in a position despite his availability and despite there being positions available. 45. Mr. Counce learned that Defendant utilized a coding system, in which it identi?ed the race of applicants by different symbols. These were used to denote the race of an individual on their applications with Stand By Personnel. 46. Mr. Counce also learned that client companies of Stand By Personnel, including but not limited to Brown Hartman Engraving, Inc., BLM Equipment and Manufacturing, Inc., Auto Battery and Electric, and Halcyon Marble and Granite, Inc., submitted job orders to Stand By Personnel containing discriminatory requests indicating it only wanted temporary employees under thirty-?ve (35) years of age and Caucasian or ?Good ole Boy? placements. Stand By personnel acquiesced in these discriminatory requests, thereby discriminating against all of its African American employees and employees over the age of forty (40) years. CLAIMS OF NAMED PLAINTIFF GLORIA FERRELL 47. Plaintiff, Gloria Ferrell, is an African American female over the age of forty (40) years. 48. Ms. Ferrell applied at Stand By Personnel in December 2007 and remained available to work through the time she ?led with the EEOC up to March 31, 2012. 49. Ms. Ferrell applied for any position available in general, non-skilled labor. 15 50. Ms. Ferrell was never contacted for placement in a position despite her availability and despite there being positions available. 51. Ms. Ferrell learned that Defendant utilized a coding system, in which it identi?ed the race of applicants by different symbols. These were used to denote the race of an individual on their applications with Stand By Personnel. 52. Ms. Ferrell also learned that client companies of Stand By Personnel, including but not limited to Brown Hartman Engraving, Inc., BLM Equipment and Manufacturing, Inc., Auto Battery and Electric, and Halcyon Marble and Granite, Inc., submitted job orders to Stand By Personnel containing discriminatory requests indicating it only wanted temporary employees under thirty-?ve (35) years of age and Caucasian or ?Good ole Boy? placements, and no women. Stand By Personnel acquiesced in these discriminatory requests, thereby discriminating against all of its African American female employees and employees over the age of forty (40) years. CLAIMS OF NAMED PLAINTIFF WILLIE VAUGHN 53. Plaintiff, Willie Vaughn, is an African American male over the age of forty (40) years. 54. Mr. Vaughn applied at Stand By Personnel in February 2007 and continued to be eligible for job placement with Stand By Personnel until and through the time he ?led with the EEOC in March 2012. 55. Mr. Vaughn applied for any position available in general, non-skilled labor. 56. Mr. Vaughn was never contacted for placement in a position despite his availability and despite there being positions available. 16 57. Mr. Vaughn learned that Defendant utilized a coding system, in which it identi?ed the race of applicants by different symbols. These were used to denote the race of an individual on their applications with Stand By Personnel. 58. Mr. Vaughn also learned that client companies of Stand By Personnel, including but not limited to Brown Hartman Engraving, Inc., BLM Equipment and Manufacturing, Inc., Auto Battery and Electric, and Halcyon Marble and Granite, Inc., submitted job orders to Stand By Personnel containing discriminatory requests indicating it only wanted temporary employees under thirty-?ve (35) years of age and Caucasian or ?Good ole Boy? placements. Stand By Personnel acquiesced in these discriminatory requests, thereby discriminating against all of its African American employees and employees over the age of forty (40) years. CLAIMS OF NAMED PLAINTIFF ALEXIS GREEN 59. Plaintiff, Alexis Green, is an African American male. 60. Mr. Green applied at Stand By Personnel in June 2010 and continued to be eligible for job placement with Stand By Personnel through March 2012. 61. Mr. Green applied for any position available in skilled labor. 62. Mr. Green was never contacted for placement in a position despite his availability and despite there being positions available. 63. Mr. Green learned that Defendant utilized a coding system, in which it identi?ed the race of applicants by different symbols. These were used to denote the race of an individual on their applications with Stand By Personnel. 64. Mr. Green also learned that client companies of Stand By Personnel, including but not limited to Brown Hartman Engraving, Inc., BLM Equipment and Manufacturing, 17 Inc., Auto Battery and Electric, and Halcyon Marble and Granite, Inc., submitted job orders to Stand By Personnel containing discriminatory requests indicating it only wanted temporary employees who were Caucasian or ?Good ole Boy? placements. Stand By personnel acquiesced in these discriminatory requests, thereby discriminating against all of its African American employees. FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS 65. Each Plaintiff applied with and listed themselves as available for work with Stand By Personnel. 66. Each Plaintiff is African American. 67. Plaintiffs Counce, Brown, Ferrell and Vaughn are over the age of forty (40) years. 68. Each Plaintiff was not placed in open positions with Stand By Personnel?s client companies, including but not limited to Brown Hartman Engraving, Inc., BLM Equipment and Manufacturing, Inc., Auto Battery and Electric, and Halcyon Marble and Granite, Inc., because of their race, African American and age, over forty (40) years despite having the quali?cations to be placed in such positions with aforementioned client companies. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF DISCRIMINATION BASED ON RACE OKLAHOMA ANTI- DISCRIMINATION ACT (OADA) 25 0.8. 1301 et sec. on behalf of _tlle Plaintiffs individually and the OADA class for race discriminatioggainst all Defendants 69. Plaintiff incorporates as if realleged Paragraphs 1-68. 70. This claim is brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and the OADA class for race discrimination. 71. The foregoing conduct violates the OADA, 25 0.8. 1301 et sec. 18 72. Plaintiffs have received Right to Sue letters from the EEOC and have commenced this action in a timely manner. Plaintiffs have therefore exhausted their administrative remedies and ful?lled all conditions precedent to suit. 73. Stand By Personnel has maintained a system for making hiring and job placement decisions which is based upon race, arbitrary, subjective, lacks any meaningful posting and application process and which has a disparate impact on African American employees. Stand By Personnel?s subjective and race?based system is not justi?ed by a business necessity or, if it could be justi?ed, a less discriminatory alternative exists. 74. Defendants Brown Hartman Engraving, Inc., BLM Equipment and Manufacturing, Inc., Auto Battery and Electric, and Halcyon Marble and Granite, Inc., maintained a system for making hiring and job placement decisions which is based upon race, arbitrary, subjective, lacks any meaningful posting and application process and which has a disparate impact on African American employees. These Defendants? subjective and race-based system is not justi?ed by a business necessity or, if it could be justi?ed, a less discriminatory alternative exists 75. Defendants? discriminatory practices described above have resulted in a loss of past and future wages and other job bene?ts. 76. Plaintiffs request relief as provided for below in the Prayer. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF DISCRIMINATION BASED ON AGE, OKLAHOMA ANTI- DISCRIMINATION ACT (OADA) 25 0.8. 8 1301 et sec. on behalf of the Plaintiffs individually and the OADA class for Age discrimination against all Defendants 77. Plaintiffs, Ms. Brown, Mr. Counce, Ms. Ferrell and Mr. Vaughn incorporate as if realleged Paragraphs 1-76. 19 78. This claim is brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and the OADA class for age discrimination. 79. The foregoing conduct violates the OADA, 25 0.8. 1301 et sec. 80. Plaintiffs have received Right to Sue letters from the EEOC and have commenced this action in a timely manner. Plaintiffs have therefore exhausted their administrative remedies and ful?lled all conditions precedent to suit. 81. Stand By Personnel has maintained a system for making hiring and job placement decisions which is based upon age, arbitrary, subjective, lacks any meaningful posting and application process and which has a disparate impact on employees over the age of forty (40) years. Stand By Personnel?s subjective and age-based system is not justi?ed by a business necessity or, if it could be justi?ed, a less discriminatory alternative exists. 82. Defendants Brown Hartman Engraving, Inc., BLM Equipment and Manufacturing. Inc., Auto Battery and Electric, and Halcyon Marble and Granite, lnc., maintained a system for making hiring and job placement decisions which is based upon age, arbitrary, subjective, lacks any meaningful posting and application process and which has a disparate impact on employees over the age of forty (40) years. These Defendants? subjective and age-based system is not justi?ed by a business necessity or, if it could be justi?ed, a less discriminatory alternative exists 83. Defendants? discriminatory practices described above have resulted in a loss of past and future wages and other job bene?ts. 84. Plaintiffs request relief as provided for below in the Prayer. 20 THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF (OKLAHOMA ANTI-DISCRIMINATION ACT O.S. 8 1301 et sec. on behalf of the Plaintiffs individually and the OADA class for RACE discrimination against all Defendants 85. Plaintiffs incorporate as if realleged Paragraphs 1-84. 86. This claim is brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and the class. 87. The foregoing conduct violates OADA, 25 O.S. 1301 et sec. 88. Stand By Personnel has engaged in a pattern and practice of intentional discrimination against the class and has denied African Americans the same opportunities for hire, consideration and/or job placement afforded to similarly situated Caucasian employees. 89. Defendants Brown Hartman Engraving, Inc., BLM Equipment and Manufacturing, Inc., Auto Battery and Electric, and Halcyon Marble and Granite, Inc., have engaged in a pattern and practice of intentional discrimination against the class and has denied African Americans the same opportunities for hire, consideration and/or job placement afforded to similarly situated Caucasian employees. 90. Defendants? discriminatory practices described above have resulted in a loss of past and future wages and other job bene?ts, and have caused the Plaintiffs to suffer humiliation, embarrassment and emotional distress. 91. Plaintiffs request relief as provided for below in the Prayer. FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF DISCRIMINATION BASED ON RACE AND AGE OKLAHOMA ANTI- DISCRIMINATION ACT (OADA) 25 O.S. 8 1301 et see. by Curtis Counts against all Defendants 92. Plaintiff, CURTIS COUNCE, incorporates as if realleged Paragraphs 1-91. 93. Plaintiff, Curtis Counce, is an African American over the age of forty (40) years. 21 94. Mr. Counce applied at Stand By Personnel in January 2007 and continued to be eligible for job placement with Stand By Personnel until the time he ?led with the EEOC in March 2012. 95. Mr. Counce applied for any position available in general, non-skilled labor. 96. After 2009, Mr. Counce was never contacted for placement in a position despite his availability and despite there being positions available. 97. Mr. Counce learned that Defendant utilized a coding system, in which it identi?ed the race of applicants by different symbols. These were used to denote the race of an individual on their applications with Stand By Personnel. 98. Mr. Counce also learned that client companies of Stand By Personnel, speci?cally Brown Hartman Engraving, Inc., BLM Equipment and Manufacturing, Inc., Auto Battery and Electric, Halcyon Marble and Granite, Inc. submitted job orders to Stand By Personnel containing discriminatory requests indicating various discriminatory demands such as they only wanted temporary employees that were under thirty-?ve (35) years of age and Caucasian or ?Good ole Boy? placements. Stand By personnel acquiesced in these discriminatory requests, thereby discriminating against the Plaintiff due to his race and age. 99. The foregoing conduct violates the OADA, 25 OS. 1301 et sec. 100. Plaintiff has received a Right to Sue letter from the EEOC and has commenced this action in a timely manner. Plaintiff has therefore exhausted his administrative remedies and ful?lled all conditions precedent to suit. 101. Defendants discriminated against the Plaintiff by failing to consider, hire or place him in a position with a client company on the basis of his race and age. 22 102. Stand By Personnel discriminated against the Plaintiff by acquiescing to its client company?s, including but not limited to Brown Hartman Engraving, Inc., BLM Equipment and Manufacturing, Inc., Auto Battery and Electric, and Halcyon Marble and Granite, Inc?s, discriminatory requests. 103. Defendants? discriminatory practices described above have reSulted in a loss of past and future wages and other job bene?ts. 104. Plaintiff requests relief as provided for below in the Prayer. FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF DISCRIMINATION BASED ON GENDER RACE AND AGE OKLAHOMA ACT (OADA) 25 0.5. 1301 et see. by Cara Brown against all Defendants 105. Plaintiff, Cara Brown, incorporates as if realleged Paragraphs 1-104. 106. Plaintiff, Cara Brown, is an African American over the age of forty (40) years. 107. Ms. Brown applied at Stand By Personnel in January 2008 and updated her information with Stand By Personnel in December 2010 and has a current application on ?le with Stand By Personnel at the time she ?led with the EEOC. 108. Ms. Brown applied for any position available in general, non-skilled labor. 109. Ms. Brown was never contacted nor hired for placement in a position despite her availability and despite there being positions available. 110. Ms. Brown learned that Defendant utilized a coding system, in which it identi?ed the race of applicants by different symbols. These were used to denote the race of an individual on their applications with Stand By Personnel. 23 111. Ms. Brown also learned that client companies of Stand By Personnel, speci?cally Brown Hartman Engraving, Inc., BLM Equipment and Manufacturing, Inc., Auto Battery and Electric, Halcyon Marble and Granite, Inc. submitted job orders to Stand By Personnel containing discriminatory requests indicating various discriminatory demands such as they only wanted temporary employees that were male, under thirty-?ve (35) years of age and Caucasian or ?Good ole Boy? placements. Stand By personnel acquiesced in these discriminatory requests, thereby discriminating against the Plaintiff due to her gender, race and age. 112. The foregoing conduct violates the OADA, 25 0.8. 1301 et sec. 113. Plaintiff has received a Right to Sue letter from the EEOC and has commenced this action in a timely manner. Plaintiff has therefore exhausted her administrative remedies and ful?lled all conditions precedent to suit. 114. Defendants discriminated against the Plaintiff by failing to consider, hire or place her in a position with a client company on the basis of her gender, race and age. 115. Stand By Personnel discriminated against the Plaintiff by acquiescing to its client company?s discriminatory requests. 116. Defendants? discriminatory practices described above have resulted in a loss of past and future wages and other job bene?ts. 117. Plaintiff requests relief as provided for below in the Prayer. SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF DISCRIMINATION BASED ON GENDER, RACE AND AGE OKLAHOMA ANTI-DISCRIMINATION ACT (OADA) 25 0.8. 1301 et sec. 1 18. Plaintiff incorporates as if realleged Paragraphs 1-1 17. 24 119. Plaintiff, Gloria Ferrell, is an African American female over the age of forty (40) years. 120. Ms. Ferrell applied at Stand By Personnel in December 2007 and remained available to work through the time she ?led with the EEOC up to March 31, 2012. 121. Ms. Ferrell applied for any position available in general, non-skilled labor. 122. Ms. Ferrell was never contacted for placement in a position despite her availability and despite there being positions available. 123. Ms. Ferrell learned that Defendant utilized a coding system, in which it identi?ed the race of applicants by different symbols. These were used to denote the race of an individual on their applications with Stand By Personnel. 124. Ms. Ferrell also learned that client companies of Stand By Personnel, specifically Brown Hartman Engraving, Inc., BLM Equipment and Manufacturing, Inc., Auto Battery and Electric, Halcyon Marble and Granite, Inc. submitted job orders to Stand By Personnel containing discriminatory requests indicating various discriminatory demands such as they only wanted temporary employees that were male, under thirty-?ve (35) years of age and Caucasian or ?Good ole Boy? placements. Stand By personnel acquiesced in these discriminatory requests, thereby discriminating against the Plaintiff due to her gender, race and age. 125. The foregoing conduct violates the OADA, 25 OS. 1301 et sec. 126. Plaintiff has received a Right to Sue letter from the EEOC and has commenced this action in a timely manner. Plaintiff has therefore exhausted her administrative remedies and ?ll?lled all conditions precedent to suit. 25 127. Defendants discriminated against the Plaintiff by failing to consider, hire or place her in a position with a client company on the basis of her gender, race and age. 128. Stand By Personnel discriminated against the Plaintiff by acquiescing to its client company?s discriminatory requests. 129. Defendants? discriminatory practices described above have resulted in a loss of past and future wages and other job bene?ts. 130. Plaintiff requests relief as provided for below in the Prayer. SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF DISCRIMINATION BASED ON RACE AND AGE OKLAHOMA ANTI- DISCRIMINATION ACT (OADA) 25 0.8. 1301 et sec. 131. Plaintiff incorporates as if realleged Paragraphs 1-130. 132. Plaintiff, Willie Vaughn, is an African American over the age of forty (40) years. 133. Mr. Vaughn applied at Stand By Personnel in February 2007 and continued to be eligible for job placement with Stand By Personnel until and through the time he ?led with the EEOC in March 2012. 134. Mr. Vaughn applied for any position available in general, non-skilled labor. 135. Mr. Vaughn learned that Defendant utilized a coding system, in which it identi?ed the race of applicants by different symbols. These were used to denote the race of an individual on their applications with Stand By Personnel. 136. Mr. Vaughn also learned that client companies of Stand By Personnel, speci?cally Brown Hartman Engraving, Inc., BLM Equipment and Manufacturing, Inc., Auto Battery and Electric, Halcyon Marble and Granite, Inc. submitted job orders to 26 Stand By Personnel containing discriminatory requests indicating various discriminatory demands such as they only wanted temporary employees that were under thirty-?ve (35) years of age and Caucasian or ?Good ole Boy? placements. Stand By personnel acquiesced in these discriminatory requests, thereby discriminating against the Plaintiff due to his race and age. 137. The foregoing conduct violates the OADA, 25 0.8. 1301 et sec. 138. Plaintiff has received a Right to Sue letter from the EEOC and has commenced this action in a timely manner. Plaintiff has therefore exhausted his administrative remedies and ful?lled all conditions precedent to suit. 139. Defendants discriminated against the Plaintiff by failing to consider, hire or place him in a position with a client company on the basis of his race and age. 140. Stand By Personnel discriminated against the Plaintiff by acquiescing to its client company?s discriminatory requests. 141. Defendants? discriminatory practices described above have resulted in a loss of past and future wages and other job bene?ts. 142. Plaintiff requests relief as provided for below in the Prayer. EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF DISCRIMINATION BASED ON RACE OKLAHOMA ANTI- DISCRIMINATION ACT (OADAES 0.8. 8 1301 et see. by Aleins Green against all Defendants 143. Plaintiff incorporates as if realleged Paragraphs 1-142. 144. Plaintiff, Alexis Green, is an African American male. 27 145. Mr. Green applied at Stand By Personnel in June 2010 and continued to be eligible for job placement with Stand By Personnel until and through the time he ?led with the EEOC in March 2012. 146. Mr. Green applied for any position available in skilled labor. 147. Mr. Green was never contacted for placement in a position despite his availability and despite there being positions available. 148. Mr. Green learned that Defendant utilized a coding system, in which it identi?ed the race of applicants by different symbols. These were used to denote the race of an individual on their applications with Stand By Personnel. 149. Mr. Green also learned that client companies of Stand By Personnel submitted job orders to Stand By Personnel containing discriminatory requests indicating it only wanted temporary employees who were Caucasian or ?Good ole Boy? placements. Stand By personnel acquiesced in these discriminatory requests, thereby discriminating against all of its African American employees. 150. The foregoing conduct violates the OADA, 25 0.3. 1301 et sec. 151. Defendants discriminated against the Plaintiff by failing to consider, hire or place him in a position with a client company on the basis of his race. 152. Stand By Personnel discriminated against the Plaintiff by acquiescing to its client company?s discriminatory requests. 153. Defendants? discriminatory practices described above have resulted in a loss of past and future wages and other job bene?ts. 154. Plaintiff requests relief as provided for below in the Prayer. 28 NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF DISCRIMINATION BASED ON GENDER. OKLAHOMA ANTI- DISCRIMINATION ACT (OADA) 25 0.8. 8 1301 et sec. on behalf of the Plaintiffs individually and the OADA class for Gender discrimination against all Defendants 155. Plaintiffs, Ms. Brown and Ms. Ferrell incorporate as if realleged 7 Paragraphs 1-154. 156. This claim is brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs Brown and Ferrell and the OADA class for gender discrimination. 157. The foregoing conduct violates the OADA, 25 0.8. 1301 et sec. 158. Plaintiffs have received Right to Sue letters from the EEOC and have commenced this action in a timely manner. Plaintiffs have therefore exhausted their administrative remedies and ?il?lled all conditions precedent to suit. 159. Stand By Personnel has maintained a system for making hiring and job placement decisions which is based upon gender, arbitrary, subjective, lacks any meaningful posting and application process and which has a disparate impact on female employees. Stand By Personnel?s subjective and gender-based system is not justi?ed by a business necessity or, if it could be justi?ed, a less discriminatory alternative exists. 160. Defendants Brown Hartman Engraving, Inc., BLM Equipment and Manufacturing, Inc., Auto Battery and Electric, and Halcyon Marble and Granite, Inc., maintained a system for making hiring and job placement decisions which is based upon gender, arbitrary, subjective, lacks any meaningful posting and application process and which has a disparate impact on female employees. These Defendants? subjective and gender-based system is not justi?ed by a business necessity or, if it could be justi?ed, a less discriminatory alternative exists 29 161. Defendants? discriminatory practices described above have resulted in a loss of past and future wages and other job bene?ts. Plaintiffs request relief as provided for below in the Prayer. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against each Defendant, jointly and severally, and in favor of themselves and the Class, for the following relief: a. Certify this case as a class action pursuant to 12 0.8. Section 2023 and appoint Plaintiffs as Class Representatives and Plaintiffs? counsel as Class Counsel; b. Money damages, the amount of which is presently unknown, but is believed to be in excess of $75,000.00; 0. Punitive damages under 12 OS. Sections 9.1 B. and C., as a result of Defendants? malicious, intentional, and reckless disregard for the rights of the Plaintiffs and the Class a whole, in an amount suf?cient to punish Defendants and to deter such conduct in the ?iture, which amount shall be determined by the jury; d. Equitably and Injunctive relief including back pay front pay and consideration, hire and placement into available positions. e. Costs, including reasonable attorneys? fees, as permitted by law; f. Such other relief in law and equity, including, without limitation, costs incurred by Plaintiffs and the Class, pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, and any other relief to which Plaintiffs and the Class show themselves to be entitled. g. Certi?cation of the class as a class action on behalf of the proposed Plaintiff class and designation of the Plaintiffs as a representative of the class and their counsel of record as Class Counsel; 30 h. All damages which the individual Plaintiffs and the class have sustained as a result of the Defendant?s conduct, including back pay, front pay, general and special damages for lost compensation and job bene?ts that they would have received but for the discriminatory practices of Defendants, and for emotional distress, humiliation, embarrassment, and anguish, according to proof; i. For Plaintiffs? individual, non-class claims, all damages each has sustained as a result of Defendants? conduct, including back pay, front pay, general and speci?c damages for lost compensation and job bene?ts they would have received but for the discriminatory practices of Defendants, and damages for emotional distress according to proof; j. Exemplary and punitive damages in an amount consistent with the law; k. A preliminary and permanent injunction against Defendants and its partners, of?cers, owners, agents, successors, employees, representatives, and any and all persons acting in concert with them that requires the following: i. Desisting from engaging in each of the unlawful practices, policies, customs, and usages set forth in this Petition; ii. Adopting non-discriminatory and objective consideration, hiring and placement standards; Creating transparent and non?discriminatory consideration, hiring and placement practices for applicants; iv. Instituting an af?rmative action policy to insure African Americans and those over the age of forty (40) years receive a 31 share of the positions they would have obtained were it not for Defendants? discriminatory practices; and V. Creating a monitoring and reporting system to insure that injunctive relief is fully implemented. 1. A declaratory judgment that the practices complained of herein are unlawful and Violative of the OADA, 25 0.8. 1301 et sec. m. An order assigning Plaintiffs and the class to those jobs they would have held but for Defendants? discriminatory practices; n. An adjustment of the wage rates, bene?ts, and seniority rights for Plaintiffs and the class to that level which Plaintiffs and the class would be enjoying but for Defendant?s discriminatory practices; 0. For prejudgment interest to the extent permitted by law; p. For costs and expenses of suit incurred herein, including reasonable attorney?s fees to the extent available by law; and q. For such other and further legal and equitable relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Respectfully submitted, SMOLEN, SMOLEN ROYMAN P.L.L.C. Daniel E. Smolen, 19943 Donald E. Smolen, 19944 Lauren G. Lambright, 22300 701 S. Cincinnati Ave. Tulsa, OK 74103 32 i: P: (918) 585?2667 F: (918) 585-2669 E-mail: danielsmoien?gssrok.c0m Attorneys for Plaintiff 33