4/27/2018 3:17 PM Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 24220539 2018-28546 Court: 190 By: ZuhalFatany Filed: 4/27/2018 3:17 PM CAUSE NO. CARNEGIE HARVARD MIMS, IN THE DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff, v. JUDICIAL DISTRICT GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY and NEIL LEVIN Defendants. OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS ORIGINAL PETITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURES TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COMES NOW, Carnegie Harvard Mims, (?Plaintiff?) and ?les this, Plaintiff?s Original Petition, complaining of Defendants Government Employees Insurance Company and Neil Levin (?Defendants?), and for cause of action, Plaintiff would respectfully show this Honorable Court the following: DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN 1. Plaintiff af?rmatively pleads that he seeks monetary relief of over $1,000,000.00, including damages of any kind, penalties, costs, expenses, pre-judgment interest and attorney fees. Plaintiff intends for discovery to be conducted under Level 3 of Rule 190 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Therefore, Plaintiff will ask the Court to order that discovery be conducted in accordance with a discovery control plan tailored to the particular circumstances of this suit. PARTIES 2. Plaintiff, CARNEGIE HARVARD MIMS, is an individual residing in Harris County, Texas. 3. Defendant, GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY a Nonresident Corporation, may be served pursuant to article 2.ll(A) of the TEXAS BUSINESS CORPORATIONS ACT, or its successor statutes, sections 5.201 and 5.255 of the TEXAS BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS CODE, by serving its registered agent, CORPORATION SYSTEM, at 350 N. St. Paul Street, Suite 2900, Dallas, Texas, Dallas County, Texas 75201. Service of said Defendant as described herein may be effected by personal delivery. Defendant, NEIL LEVIN, is an individual residing in Harris County, Texas who may be served with process at 2003 Valley Dale Ct, Houston, Texas, 77062. Service of said Defendant as described above can be affected by personal delivery. JURISDICTION AND VENUE The Court has jurisdiction over this cause of action because the amount in controversy is within the jurisdictional limits of the Court. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend their petition during and/or after the discovery process. Defendant GEICO was doing business in Harris County, Texas at all times relevant to this lawsuit and did business in Harris County, Texas at such time as the "incident" that is the subject of this lawsuit. Therefore, jurisdiction and venue are proper in Harris County, Texas. As a proximate result of said ?incident," damages in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Court were incurred by Plaintiff. The damages suffered include, but are not limited to, mental anguish, punitive damages and attorneys' fees. Plaintiff has met all conditions precedent to the filing of this lawsuit. The Court has jurisdiction over Defendant NEIL LEVIN because this defendant resides in Harris County, Texas. FACTS Plaintiff began working for the Law Of?ce of Neil Levin, the Houston staff counsel of?ce for Defendant GEICO, as a staff attorney on or about June 22, 2009. At the time Plaintiff was hired until the ?ling of this Petition, Defendant Levin was the managing attorney of the Houston staff counsel of?ce. Plaintiff fully performed his duties and esponsibilities as a trial attorney for Defendant GEICO. He handled more than 7l3 cases. He tried SD jury trials, 48 as ?rst?chair attorney, the majority of which yielded zero/take nothing verdicts and the vast majority of which were favorahle verdicts for Defendant He saved Defendant millions of dollars through trial results and dispositive motions He received hundreds of favorable client comments and reviews, His case closure ratio was above the staff e-ounsel department goal for each year he was employed by Defendant During his employment at Mr. Mims, who was the only African?American employee for the last five of his seven years at the Houston staff counsel of?ce, experienced racial discrimination and retaliation from Defendants on multiple occasions, including in the following instances: a. Mr. Minis was not provided a personal secretary when he was hired in 2009 (the other three attorneys had personal secretaries at the time he was hired), and although he was promised that the neat secretary hired would he his personal secretary, Defendant Levin reneged on that promise and, assigned, the next secretary hired by Defendants to another attorney that was hired two years after Mr. Mims was hired h. At the time Mr. Minis was hired, Defendant Levin communicated the office policy was attorneys are exempt from clocking in and out via email notifications, hut in 20%, Defendant Levin hegan requiring Mr. Mims to clock in and out via email. No other attorney was required to do so. hen Mr. Minis sent an email to the HR Department of Defendant complaining that Defendant Levin was discriminating against him, Defendant Levin ceased requiring Mr. Mims to clock in and not C. When Staff Counsel moved offices in March 20in, Defendant Levin gave Mr. Mims? office furniture to one of the new attorneys hired and relayed to Mr. Mirns? secretary, Sandy, that he would be put in a small, temporary office while he waited for Mr. Mims? new furniture to arrive. The furniture never arrived, and Mr. Minis was never moved from the temporary office. d. Mr. Mims was never given a merit increase, and was denied merit reviews by Defendant Levin four out of the seven years he was employed by Defendant in the 3 years he was actually given a merit review, the results were either a denial of a merit increase or being put on a performance plan. e. Mr. Minis complained to Defendant HR Department ahout these instances of ongoing discrimination in 20%, on August l5, 2016, and on August 24, 20%, and it is Plaintiff? belief that he was terminated on August 26, 20l6 in. retaliation for his opposition to discrimination in the workplace and his complaints to HR about the same. d. All of Defendants? above actions created a hostile work environment and had a negative effect on the physical and well-being of Mr: Minis and his 10. productivity while he was employed by Defendant GEICO. e. Additionally, after Mr. Mims was terminated by Defendant GEICO, he was hired as an attorney at the Plath Law Firm. Mr. Levin and continued their discrimination and retaliation by filing motions to disqualify Mr. Minis from any case that his new firm was handling against GEICO and/or its policyholders at the time Mr. Minis was fired, despite there being clear ethical rules and case law that says unless he personally represented a client and later began representing another client against his former client in the same matter, Mr. Minis and his current law firm do not have a conflict of interest and should not be disqualified from handling such cases. Mr. Minis was not. offered and did not sign a non?compete agreement, and Plaintiff believes that by attempting to disqualify Mr. Minis in these cases, Defendants were trying to get Mr. Minis fired from his carrentjob and preclude him from finding any viable employment. Thus, Plaintiff contends these actions were a continuation of the discrimination and retaliation Mr. Mime was snbjected to while he was employed by Defendants. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: RACE DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF THE TEXAS COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS ACT Plaintiff pleads a cause of action against Defendants for race discrimination and racial harassment in Violation of the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act. Tex. Labor Code 21.051 The allegations contained in all of the paragraphs of this Petition are hereby reaverred and realleged for all purposes, and incorporated herein with the same force and effect as if set forth verbatim herein. Plaintiff further shows as follows: 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. The conduct of Defendants toward Plaintiff, through their agents, employees, managers, and supervisors, as set forth above, among other activities, constitutes discrimination on the basis of Plaintiffs race and/or national origin, Black, in direct violation of the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act, ?21.001, et. Seq, Labor Code, Vernon's Texas Codes Annotated, which states, in pertinent part, that: An employer commits an unlawful employment practice if the employer discriminates against an individual or classifies an employee in a manner that would deprive or tend to deprive an individual of any employment opportunity or adversely affect in any manner the status of an employee. Plaintiff is a member of a protected class and was subjected by Defendants to unfavorable treatment in the terms, conditions, and privileges of his employment, including his termination, because of his national origin. There is no legitimate non-discriminatory reason for Defendants? actions, and if such a reason is propounded, it is a pretext. Plaintiffs race and/or national origin, Black, was a determining or motivating factor in Defendants? decision to terminate Plaintiffs employment and otherwise discriminate against him. Unlawful discrimination moved Defendants toward their decision or was a factor that played a part in Defendants? employment decisions as to Plaintiff. Defendants? conduct therefore violated the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act. Defendants have bullied, intimidated, harassed and continually placed Plaintiff in a hostile work environment because of his race, in violation of the TCHRA. Plaintiff is within all applicable statutes of limitations for bringing this civil action. Defendants? actions proximately caused Plaintiff damage in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limit of this Court. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: RETALIATION VIOLATION OF THE TEXAS COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS ACT Plaintiff pleads a cause of action against Defendants for retaliation in violation of TCHRA. The allegations contained in all of the paragraphs of this Petition are hereby reaverred and realleged, for all purposes, and incorporated herein with the same force and effect as if set forth verbatim herein. After Plaintiff complained of being racially harassed, Defendants did not resolve or stop the racial harassment. Instead, Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff and wrongfully ?red him. The basis for the firing was a pretext. Defendants claimed that Plaintiff was fired for failing to comply with company performance standards. However, other similarly situated employees employed by Defendants had performance problems, and those individuals were not fired or subjected to the same harassment Plaintiff was subjected to while he was employed. Plaintiff is within all applicable statutes of limitations for bringing this civil action. Defendants? actions proximately caused Plaintiff damage in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limit of this Court. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: RACE DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VII Plaintiff pleads a cause of action against Defendants for race discrimination and racial harassment in violation of Title VII. The allegations contained in all of the paragraphs of this Petition are hereby reaverred and realleged for all purposes, and incorporated herein with the same force and effect as if set forth verbatim herein. Plaintiff further shows as follows: 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. The conduct of Defendants toward Plaintiff, through their agents, employees, managers, and supervisors, as set forth above, among other activities, constitutes discrimination on the basis of Plaintiffs race and/or national origin, Black, in direct violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (?Title Plaintiff is a member of a protected class and was subjected by Defendants to unfavorable treatment in the terms, conditions, and privileges of his employment, including his termination, because of his race and/or national origin. There is no legitimate non- discriminatory reason for Defendants? actions, and if such a reason is propounded, it is a pretext. Plaintiff?s race and/or national origin, Black, was a determining or motivating factor in Defendants? decision to terminate Plaintiffs employment and otherwise discriminate against him. Unlawful discrimination moved Defendants toward their decision or was a factor that played a part in Defendants? employment decisions as to Plaintiff. Defendants? conduct therefore violated Title VII. Defendants bullied, intimidated, harassed and continually placed Plaintiff in a hostile work environment because of his race, in violation of Title VII. Plaintiff has met all procedural prerequisites of bringing this Title VII claim. Plaintiff has received a Right to Sue letter relating to these charges. Further, Plaintiff is within all applicable statutes of limitations for bringing this civil action. Defendants? actions proximately caused Plaintiff damage in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limit of this Court. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION: RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VII Plaintiff pleads a cause of action against Defendants for retaliation in violation of Title VII. The allegations contained in all of the paragraphs of this Petition are hereby 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. reaverred and realleged, for all purposes, and incorporated herein with the same force and effect as if set forth verbatim herein. After Plaintiff complained of being racially harassed, Defendants did not resolve or stop the racial harassment. Instead, Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff and wrongfully fired him. The basis for the firing was a pretext. Defendants claimed that Plaintiff was ?red for failing to comply with company performance standards. However, other similarly situated employees employed by Defendants had performance problems, and those individuals were not ?red or subjected to the same harassment Plaintiff was subjected to while he was employed. Plaintiff has met all procedural prerequisites of bringing this Title VII claim. The EEOC issued a Right to Sue letter relating to these charges. Plaintiff has received said letter. Further, Plaintiff is within all applicable statutes of limitations for bringing this civil action. Defendants? actions proximately caused Plaintiff damage in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limit of this Court. ATTORNEYS FEES Plaintiff requests attorney's fees, costs, disbursements and pre- and post-judgment interest in the highest amount allowable by law. DAMAGES FOR MENTAL ANGUISH As a consequence of the foregoing facts and the willful and malicious nature of the wrongs committed against Plaintiff, Plaintiff has suffered and will suffer past, present and future severe mental anguish, for which Plaintiff pleads to recover at trial. The damages for said mental anguish exceed the minimum jurisdictional limits of this court. In the 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. alternative, if same is necessary, Plaintiff pleads for compensatory and punitive damages permitted by statute. PUNITIVE DAMAGES As a consequence of the foregoing clear and convincing facts and the willful and malicious nature of the wrongs committed against Plaintiff, Plaintiff is entitled to exemplary damages in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits of this court. Plaintiff has suffered emotional distress and mental anguish as a result of Defendants? discriminatory behavior. Plaintiff is entitled to receive compensatory damages for such mental anguish. Plaintiff further pleads that Defendants are liable for exemplary damages. Defendants? discriminatory behavior and disregard for their implied contract and covenant with Plaintiff evidences oppressive and fraudulent conduct. As such, Defendant is liable for compensatory and exemplary damages under the applicable law. REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE Pursuant to Rule 194 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff requests that each and every Defendant disclose, within ?fty (50) days of service of this request, the information and material described in Rule 194.2(a) through (1). JURY DEMAND Plaintiff hereby requests that all causes of action alleged herein be tried before a jury consisting of citizens residing in Harris County, Texas. Plaintiff hereby tenders the appropriate jury fee. 10 Nain?it?prays that up?n? Imaging. :11: cam timer judgment in fawn: Plaintiff against: Be?mdants. in an amount in. massa- qf the Twain-imam jurisdicti?nz?. limit: eff 111113. Court? ?fin-- mmpensam'ry damagm punitiwu iiamag?sg mammhli? his ?ammable-'2? Pm?al?gal' fees; mists-(31f Ci-?U?mi?mi pm? and ?p??irjudgmm? interest at?ze rate aliewed by 1333:?, and; aisn enter-an was; revoking my enabling ti? aperata. in Texas and making any cam-?wm Dfifemignm do buSilms 311' Twas rammed in this; case- has. mt haw Satis?ed wi?jin- th'EE? MIKE ?aw. that data. -m_f?1inggsai?ii ?nal and f0: 513,313. ?that and Mike:- gamma} Tamar Magnify; in Whi?h Pi?aiifi?ff?may shww-himsalf to; be Submi?gd} TH-E Law Pam: 33 Hamill Ha?i Tam-s Jamil Th?mm; T?an-B-?ar 24.066914 ?Kayvnn. Aiilmssini ?1?5:an Em 24-10543? R?gcn?y SigiiamEmulwarel, Suit-6.140 Emulsion, 3mg 336' T61: (3323.4333-397? Fax: {855,334234529 1i?ga?m@ih?had?aw?rm?mn Atmrnays for Piai?aii?" En?ewice- Email: m5 11-7-3.