0:16-cv-03029-TLW-KDW

Date Filed 09/06/16

Entry Number 1

Page 1 of 15

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
v.
T-N-T OF YORK COUNTY, INC.,
and TM TRUCKING OF THE
CAROLINAS, LLC,
Defendants.
___________________________________

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

CIVIL ACTION NO.

COMPLAINT

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

NATURE OF THE ACTION
This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil
Rights Act of 1991, to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of race, black, and to
provide appropriate relief to Rodney Dunlap (“Dunlap”), Warren Chisolm (“Chisolm”), and
other similarly situated current and former black employees who were adversely affected by such
practices. Plaintiff, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“the Commission”),
alleges Defendants T-N-T of York County, Inc. and TM Trucking of the Carolinas, LLC
(collectively “Defendants”) subjected Dunlap, Chisolm, and other similarly situated current and
former black employees to a racially hostile work environment based on their race, black. The
Commission further alleges that Dunlap, Chisolm, and some of the other similarly situated
current and former black employees resigned their employment as a result of the racially hostile
work environment.

1

 0:16-cv-03029-TLW-KDW

Date Filed 09/06/16

Entry Number 1

Page 2 of 15

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1.

Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451, 1331, 1337,

1343 and 1345. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Section 706(f)(1) and (3) of
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–5(f)(1) and (3) (“Title
VII”), and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a.
2.

The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the

jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. This lawsuit is
being filed in the Rock Hill Division because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving
rise to the claims alleged in this suit occurred within the Rock Hill Division.
PARTIES
3.

Plaintiff, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the

“Commission”), is the agency of the United States of America charged with the administration,
interpretation, and enforcement of Title VII, and is expressly authorized to bring this action by
Sections 706(f)(1) and (3) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(f)(1) and (3).
4.

At all relevant times, Defendant T-N-T of York County, Inc. (“Defendant T-N-

T”) has been a South Carolina corporation, doing business in the state of South Carolina, and the
city of Rock Hill.
5.

At all relevant times, Defendant TM Trucking of the Carolinas, LLC (“Defendant

TM Trucking”) has been a South Carolina corporation, doing business in the state of South
Carolina, and the city of Rock Hill.
6.

On information and belief, at all relevant times Defendant T-N-T has had at least

15 employees on a continual basis.

2

 0:16-cv-03029-TLW-KDW

7.

Date Filed 09/06/16

Entry Number 1

Page 3 of 15

On information and belief, at all relevant times the two Defendants named in this

action have operated as an integrated business enterprise, and have collectively had at least 15
employees on a continual basis.
8.

Facts establishing the existence of an integrated enterprise include, but are not

limited to, the following:
a. Defendants are wholly owned by the same individual;
b. Defendants share a common physical address, 605 Albright Road, Rock Hill,
South Carolina 29730;
c. Defendants share a common mailing address, P.O. Box 1986, Fort Mill, South
Carolina 29730;
d. Defendants’ operations are interrelated as Defendants operate out of the same
facility and on information and belief share employees;
e. On information and belief Defendants have common financial control;
f. At all relevant times, Defendants shared common management;
g. Defendant TM Trucking performs all payroll services for Defendant T-N-T; and
h. Centralized control of labor for Defendants rests with the Defendants’ owner.
9.

At all relevant times, both Defendants named in this action have continuously

been employers engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Sections
701(b), (g), and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e (b), (g), and (h).
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS – RODNEY DUNLAP
10.

More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Rodney Dunlap

(“Dunlap”) filed a charge with the Commission alleging Defendants 1 violated Title VII.

1

Dunlap’s charge identified Defendants by the generic name “TNT Trucking” as the respondent in the charge.

3

 0:16-cv-03029-TLW-KDW

11.

Date Filed 09/06/16

Entry Number 1

Page 4 of 15

On September 30, 2015, the Commission issued to Defendants a Letter of

Determination finding reasonable cause to believe that Defendants violated Title VII, and
inviting Defendants to join with the Commission in informal methods of conciliation to endeavor
to eliminate the discriminatory practices and provide appropriate relief.
12.

The Commission engaged in communications with Defendants to provide

Defendants the opportunity to remedy the discriminatory practices described in the Letter of
Determination.
13.

The Commission was unable to secure from Defendants a conciliation agreement

acceptable to the Commission.
14.

On December 29, 2015, the Commission issued to Defendants a Notice of Failure

of Conciliation.
15.

All conditions precedent to the initiation of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.

16.

Throughout Dunlap’s employment with Defendants from approximately June

2013 through January 25, 2014, Defendants engaged in unlawful employment practices at their
joint facility in Rock Hill, South Carolina (the “Facility”), in violation of Section 703(a)(1) of
Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(a)(1) as set forth below. Specifically, Defendants discriminated
against Dunlap by subjecting him to severe or pervasive conduct that created a hostile work
environment based on his race, black.
17.

During Dunlap’s employment, Defendants’ owner (the “Owner”) referred to

blacks as “nigger” in statements made at the Facility.
18.

During Dunlap’s employment, the Owner referred to Dunlap as “nigger.”

19.

During Dunlap’s employment, the Owner referred to other blacks as “nigger” in

Dunlap’s presence.

4

 0:16-cv-03029-TLW-KDW

20.

Date Filed 09/06/16

Entry Number 1

Page 5 of 15

During Dunlap’s employment, the Owner used the term “nigger” in reference to

blacks in the presence of employees other than Dunlap.
21.

During Dunlap’s employment, the Owner referred to blacks by the term “nigger”

frequently, a minimum of one or two times per week.
22.

During Dunlap’s employment, the Owner openly used the term “nigger” in

speaking about blacks at the Facility.
23.

During Dunlap’s employment, the Owner frequently made other derogatory

remarks about black people while at the Facility, a minimum of one or two times per week.
24.

For example, the Owner used the term “nigger” in Defendants’ break room in or

around early July 2013 while Dunlap, the Owner, and a group of black employees were sitting in
the break room having a conversation.
25.

Dunlap excused himself from the break room conversation because he was

offended by the Owner’s use of the term “nigger.”
26.

In or around August 2013, the Owner referred to a Native American employee as

“Indian nigger.”
27.

Dunlap was sitting in Defendants’ break room and heard the Owner make the

comment identified in paragraph 26 (above).
28.

In or around September 2013, the Owner referred to Warren Chisolm as a

“country ass nigger” while talking to Dunlap.
29.

In response to the Owner’s statement noted in paragraph 28 (above), Dunlap

asked the Owner why it was necessary for him to refer to blacks as “niggers.” The Owner
responded to Dunlap that the term “nigger” refers to an ignorant person.
30.

In addition to referring to blacks as “nigger,” the Owner told Dunlap that

5

 0:16-cv-03029-TLW-KDW

Date Filed 09/06/16

Entry Number 1

Page 6 of 15

monkeys could drive better than the black drivers who worked for Defendants.
31.

The Owner never made similar remarks about the driving abilities of white

employees.
32.

Dunlap heard the Owner’s racially derogatory comments about blacks at least one

or two times per week throughout his employment. The Owner’s racially offensive comments
about blacks were unwelcome to Dunlap. Dunlap was offended by the Owner’s continuous use
of the term “nigger” and his derogatory remarks about black people.
33.

Defendants are strictly liable for the racially hostile work environment that

Dunlap was subjected to because it was created and perpetrated by Defendants’ Owner.
34.

Defendants constructively discharged Dunlap. Specifically, on or about January

25, 2014, Dunlap resigned his employment with Defendants because he could no longer tolerate
the racially hostile work environment created by Defendants’ Owner.
35.

The effect of the practices complained of above has been to deprive Dunlap of

equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee
because of his race, black.
36.

The unlawful employment practices complained of above were intentional.

37.

The unlawful employment practices complained of above were done with malice

or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Dunlap.
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS – WARREN CHISOLM
38.

More than thirty days prior to the institution of this lawsuit, Warren Chisolm

(“Chisolm”) filed a charge with the Commission alleging Defendants 2 violated Title VII.
39.

On September 30, 2015, the Commission issued to Defendants a Letter of

Determination finding reasonable cause to believe that Defendants violated Title VII, and
2

Chisolm’s charge identified Defendants by the generic name “TNT Trucking” as the respondent in the charge.

6

 0:16-cv-03029-TLW-KDW

Date Filed 09/06/16

Entry Number 1

Page 7 of 15

inviting Defendants to join with the Commission in informal methods of conciliation to endeavor
to eliminate the discriminatory practices and provide appropriate relief.
40.

The Commission engaged in communications with Defendants to provide

Defendants the opportunity to remedy the discriminatory practices described in the Letter of
Determination.
41.

The Commission was unable to secure from Defendants a conciliation agreement

acceptable to the Commission.
42.

On December 29, 2015, the Commission issued to Defendants a Notice of Failure

of Conciliation.
43.

All conditions precedent to the initiation of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.

44.

Starting approximately two months after Chisolm began his employment with

Defendants in or around April 2013, through sometime in June 2014 when Chisolm resigned his
employment, Defendants engaged in unlawful employment practices at the Facility in violation
of Section 703(a)(1) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(a)(1) as set forth below. Specifically,
Defendants discriminated against Chisolm by subjecting him to severe or pervasive conduct that
created a hostile work environment based on his race, black.
45.

During Chisolm’s employment, the Owner referred to blacks as “nigger” in

statements made at the Facility.
46.

During Chisolm’s employment, the Owner referred to Chisolm as a “country ass

nigger.”
47.

During Chisolm’s employment, the Owner referred to other blacks as “nigger” in

Chisolm’s presence.
48.

During Chisolm’s employment, the Owner used the term “nigger” in reference to

7

 0:16-cv-03029-TLW-KDW

Date Filed 09/06/16

Entry Number 1

Page 8 of 15

blacks in the presence of employees other than Chisolm.
49.

During Chisolm’s employment, the Owner openly used the term “nigger” in

speaking about blacks at the Facility.
50.

For example, in or around June 2013, the Owner asked Chisolm and other black

employees why “niggers” think they are so smart.
51.

During Chisolm’s employment, the Owner referred to blacks by the term “nigger”

at least five or six times.
52.

During Chisolm’s employment, the Owner made other derogatory remarks about

black people at least once or twice per week.
53.

The derogatory comments that the Owner made about black people included such

things as saying that black people can’t read or write or saying that black people always want
things for free.
54.

Chisolm heard the Owner refer to blacks by the term “nigger” at least five or six

times and make derogatory remarks about black people at least once or twice per week
throughout his employment. The Owner’s racially offensive comments about blacks were
unwelcome to Chisolm. Chisolm was offended by the Owner’s use of the term “nigger” and by
the Owner’s derogatory remarks about black people.
55.

Defendants are strictly liable for the racially hostile work environment that

Chisolm was subjected to because it was created and perpetrated by Defendants’ Owner.
56.

Defendants constructively discharged Chisolm. Specifically, in or around June

2014, Chisolm resigned his employment with Defendants because he could no longer tolerate the
racially hostile work environment created by Defendants’ Owner.

8

 0:16-cv-03029-TLW-KDW

57.

Date Filed 09/06/16

Entry Number 1

Page 9 of 15

The effect of the practices complained of above has been to deprive Chisolm of

equal employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee
because of his race, black.
58.

The unlawful employment practices complained of above were intentional.

59.

The unlawful employment practices complained of above were done with malice

or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Chisolm.
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS – CLASS ALLEGATIONS
60.

In addition to the allegations above, Defendants have subjected other similarly

situated current and former black employees to unwelcome, severe or pervasive conduct that
created a racially hostile work environment at the facility based on their race, black.
61.

The Owner openly used the term “nigger” to and in the presence of black

employees.
62.

From at least September 2010 through at least July 2014, the Owner sometimes

referred to black people using the term “nigger” when talking to or about black people at the
facility.
63.

Some of the black employees who were subjected to the Owner’s use of the term

“nigger” and other racial slurs resigned because of the racially hostile work environment.
64.

The paragraphs below contain the general allegations related to similarly situated

current and former black employees known to the Commission at the time of the filing of this
Complaint. The Commission specifically reserves the right to identify additional current and
former black employees as claimants in this litigation. The similarly situated current and former
black employees are collectively referred to as “Class Claimants.”

9

 0:16-cv-03029-TLW-KDW

Date Filed 09/06/16

Entry Number 1

Page 10 of 15

BURSHA DUMAS
65.

Bursha Dumas (“Dumas”) was employed by Defendants from on or about May

23, 2014 through on or about July 5, 2014.
66.

During Dumas’ employment, the Owner used the term “nigger” on a daily basis,

several times per day at Defendants’ Facility.
67.

Dumas heard the Owner use the term “nigger” on a daily basis, several times per

day, throughout his employment. The Owner’s use of the term “nigger” was unwelcome to
Dumas. Dumas was offended by the Owner’s use of the term “nigger.”
68.

Defendants constructively discharged Dumas. Specifically, on or about July 5,

2014, Dumas resigned his employment with Defendants because he could no longer tolerate the
racially hostile work environment created by Defendants’ Owner.
BERNARD ELAM
69.

Bernard Elam (“Elam”) was employed by Defendants from approximately

September 2010 through December 7, 2013.
70.

During Elam’s employment, the Owner used the term “nigger” on a daily or

almost daily basis.
71.

During Elam’s employment, Elam heard the Owner use the term “nigger” in his

presence on a daily or almost daily basis. The Owner’s use of the term “nigger” was unwelcome
to Elam. Elam was offended by the Owner’s use of the term “nigger.”
72.

Defendants constructively discharged Elam. Specifically, on or about December

7, 2013, Elam resigned his employment with Defendants because he could no longer tolerate the
racially hostile work environment created by Defendants’ Owner.

10

 0:16-cv-03029-TLW-KDW

Date Filed 09/06/16

Entry Number 1

Page 11 of 15

KEVIN GOOD
73.

Kevin Good (“Good”) was employed by Defendants for approximately three

months in late 2012, and from approximately November 2013 through on or about June 21,
2014.
74.

During Good’s employment, the Owner used the term “nigger” on an almost daily

75.

During Good’s employment, the Owner directly referred to Good as “nigger” at

basis.

least one occasion.
76.

Good heard the Owner use the word “nigger” on an almost daily basis. The

Owner’s use of the term “nigger” was unwelcome to Good. Good was offended when the Owner
called Good “nigger,” and by the Owner’s use of the term “nigger” in reference to black people.
77.

During Good’s employment, Good told the Owner on more than one occasion that

he did not appreciate the Owner’s use of the term “nigger.”
78.

Defendants constructively discharged Good. Specifically, on or about June 21,

2014, Good resigned his employment with Defendants because he could no longer tolerate the
racially hostile work environment created by Defendants’ Owner.
ROBERT LITTLEJOHN
79.

Robert Littlejohn (“Littlejohn”) was employed by Defendants from on or about

June 27, 2012 through in or around April 2014.
80.

During Littlejohn’s employment, the Owner used the term “nigger” at least eight

to 10 times.

11

 0:16-cv-03029-TLW-KDW

81.

Date Filed 09/06/16

Entry Number 1

Page 12 of 15

Littlejohn heard the Owner use the term “nigger” at least eight to ten times. The

Owner’s use of the term “nigger” was unwelcome to Littlejohn. Littlejohn was offended by the
Owner’s use of the term “nigger.”
82.

Defendants constructively discharged Littlejohn. Specifically, in or around April

2014, Littlejohn resigned his employment with Defendants because he could no longer tolerate
the racially hostile work environment created by Defendants’ Owner.
JOE NEAL
83.

Joe Neal (“Neal”) was employed by Defendants from approximately May 29,

2012 through May 11, 2013.
84.

During Neal’s employment, the Owner called an employee “nigger” or referred to

an employee as “nigger” in Neal’s presence on an almost daily basis.
85.

During Neal’s employment, the Owner directly called Neal “nigger” on at least

one occasion.
86.

The Owner referred to Neal as “nigger” over the phone when Neal called to report

an issue with his truck while out on a delivery.
87.

Neal told the Owner to never call him “nigger” again.

88.

During Neal’s employment, Neal heard the Owner use the term “nigger” at

Defendants’ Facility over 80 times in reference to black employees and blacks in general. The
Owner’s use of the term “nigger” and was unwelcome to Neal. Neal was offended by the
Owner’s use of the term “nigger” and other racial slurs.
89.

Defendants constructively discharged Neal. Specifically, on or about May 11,

2013, Neal resigned his employment with Defendants because he could no longer tolerate the
racially hostile work environment created by Defendants’ Owner.

12

 0:16-cv-03029-TLW-KDW

Date Filed 09/06/16

Entry Number 1

Page 13 of 15

LIABILITY FOR CLASS CLAIMANTS
90.

Defendants are strictly liable for the racially hostile work environment to which

the Class Claimants and all other similarly situated current and former black employees were
subjected, because it was perpetrated by Defendants’ owner.
91.

The effect of the practices complained of above has been to deprive the Class

Claimants and all similarly situated current and former black employees of equal employment
opportunities and otherwise adversely affect their status as employees because of their race,
black.
92.

The unlawful employment practices complained of above were intentional.

93.

The unlawful employment practices complained of above were done with malice

or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of the above-named Class
Claimants and all similarly situated current and former black employees.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, the Commission respectfully requests that this Court:
A.

Grant a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants, its officers, successors,

assigns, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, from maintaining a racially
hostile work environment, and from retaliating against employees who oppose unlawful
discrimination, make a charge of unlawful discrimination, or participate in an investigation of
unlawful discrimination.
B.

Order Defendants to institute and carry out policies, practices, and programs that

provide equal employment opportunities for black employees, and which eradicate the effects of
its past and present unlawful employment practices.

13

 0:16-cv-03029-TLW-KDW

C.

Date Filed 09/06/16

Entry Number 1

Page 14 of 15

Order Defendants to make whole Dunlap, Chisolm, the above-named Class

Claimants, and all other similarly situated current and former black employees subjected to
Defendants’ racially hostile work environment, by providing compensation for past and future
pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described above, in amounts
to be determined at trial.
D.

Order Defendants to make whole Dunlap, Chisolm, the above-named Class

Claimants, and all other similarly situated current and former black employees subjected to
Defendants’ racially hostile work environment, by providing compensation for past and future
non-pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices described above, including but not
limited to emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, humiliation, loss of
self-esteem and loss of civil rights, in amounts to be determined at trial.
E.

Order Defendants to make whole Dunlap, Chisolm, the above-named Class

Claimants, and all other similarly situated former black employees who Defendants
constructively discharged as a result of the racially hostile work environment, by providing
appropriate back pay with prejudgment interest, in amounts to be determined at trial, and other
affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of the unlawful employment practices,
including but not limited to reinstatement or front pay.
F.

Order Defendants to pay punitive damages to Dunlap, Chisolm, the above-named

Class Claimants, and all other similarly situated current and former black employees subjected to
Defendants’ racially hostile work environment, for its malicious and reckless conduct described
above, in amounts to be determined at trial.
G.

Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the public

interest.

14

 0:16-cv-03029-TLW-KDW

H.

Date Filed 09/06/16

Entry Number 1

Page 15 of 15

Award the Commission its costs of this action.
JURY TRIAL DEMAND

The Commission requests a jury trial on all questions of fact raised by its complaint.
DATED this 6th day of September, 2016.
Respectfully submitted,
US EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION
P. DAVID LOPEZ
General Counsel
JAMES L. LEE
Deputy General Counsel
GWENDOLYN YOUNG REAMS
Associate General Counsel
US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
131 M Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20507
LYNETTE A. BARNES
Regional Attorney
KARA G. HADEN
Supervisory Trial Attorney
s/ Rachael S. Steenbergh_______________
Rachael S. Steenbergh
(Federal Bar No. 10867)
Trial Attorney
UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Charlotte District Office
129 W. Trade Street, Suite 400
Charlotte, NC 28202
Tel: (704) 954-6472
Fax: (704) 954-6412
Email: Rachael.steenbergh@eeoc.gov
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
15