Case Document 1 Filed 10/28/19 Page 1 of 22 PagelD: 1 IS 44 (Rev, The I 44 civil cover sheet and the infometion contained herein neither re lace nor ii [in antd (stigma: papersfa?? I'll tales in 6p em IS require 01' 1158 0 provided la! purpose 0 local rules of court. This form, approved by Initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.) CIVIL COVER SHEET the Judicial Cone of the uiredb law, exce tas of {?ourt for 'srithd?deIITt County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Gloucester COMPANY (EXCEPT IN 0.3. PLAINTIFF CASES) Attorneys (Firm Name. Address. and Telephone Number) Katherine Oeltjen Esquire Console Mattlaccl Law. LLC 110 Marter Avenue. Suite 502. Moorestown, NJ 08057 215-545-7676 NOTE: Attorneys (If Known) County of Residence of First Listed Defendant dlb/a STARBUCKS COFFEE King (IN US. PLAINTIFF CASES IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES. USE THE LOCATION OF THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED. II. BASIS OF URISDICTION (Placean In One Box Only) 0 I US. Government Plaintiff 2 U.S. Government Defendant 2? 3 Federal Question Government Not a Party) 0 4 Diversity (Indicate Citizenship in Item CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place on "m One Boxfbr'Plaintt?' (For Diversity Cases 011.51) and One Boxfbr Defendant) DEF PTF DEF Citizen of This State 0 I 0 I Incorporated or Principal Place 0 4 4 of Business In This State Citizen of Another State 0 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 0 5 CI 5 of Business In Another State Citizen or Subject of a CI 3 3 Foreign Nation 0 6 6 Foreign County I IV. to Insurance 0 I20 Marine 0 I30 Miller Act 0 I40 Negotiable Instrument 0 ISO Recovery of Overpayment Enforcement ofludgment? 0 ISI Medicare Act 0 152 Recovery of Defaulted Student Loans (Excludes Veterans) [53 Recovery of Overpayment of Veteran's Bene?ts 0 I60 Stockltoiders? Suits 0 I90 Other Contract Cl I95 Contract Product Liability CI 196 Franchise CI 2l0 Land Condenmation 220 Foreclosure CI 230 Rent Lease Ejectment 240 Torts to Land Cl 245 Tort Product Liability 290 All Other Real Property OF SU IThPlacean In? One Box I PERSONAL INJURY 0 SW Airplane SIS Airplane Product PERSONAL INJURY 365 Personal Injury .- Product Liability 0 625 Drug Related Seizure ofPropetty 2! USC 88] CI 690 Other Liability 0 367 Health Care! 0 320 Assault. Libel 8: Pharmaceutical Slander Personal Injury CI 330 Federal Employers? Product Liability Liability El 368 Asbestos Persoml 340 Marine Injury Product 0 345 Marine Product Liability Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY 350 Motor Vehicle 0 355 Motor Vehicle 0 310 Other Fraud CI Truth in Lending Product Liability CI 380 Other Personal 0 360 Other Personal Property Damage Injury CI 385 Property Damage 0 362 Personal Injury - Product Liability Medical Ma 1.. 440 Other CivthIghIs Habeas Corpus: 44! Voting 463 Alien Detainee 442. Employment CI 510 Motions to Vacate 443 Housing! Sentence Accommodations 530 General 0 445 Amer. vii/Disabilities - 535 Death Penalty to Other: Etnp yment CI 446 Amer. w/Disabilitics - Other 448 Education 0 540 Mandamus Other 0 550 Civil Rights 0 555 Prison Condition El 560 Civil Detainee- Conditions of Con?nement CI "0 Fair Labor Standards Act 0 720 Labor/Management Relations 0 740 Railway Labor Act 75! Family and Medical Leave Act 0 790 Other Labor Litigation 0 79] Employee Retirement Income Security Act CI 462 Naturalization Application 0 465 Other Immigration Actions a 422 Appeal 28 use 158 Click here I?or: 423 Withdrawal 28 USC 820 Copyrights CI 830 Patent 0 835 Patent - Abbreviated New Drug Application Cl 840 Trademark 861 HIA (1395f!) 862 Black Lung (923) 863 DIWCIDIWW (405(3)) 0 864 SSID Title XVI 865 RSI (405(3)) 0 870 Taxes (U. S. Plaintiff or Defendant) 0 8'7! IRS?Third Party 26 USC 7609 375?i False Claims Act 0 376 Qui Tam USC 3129(all L1 400 State Reapportionment 410 Antitrust CI 430 Banks and Banking 0 450 Commerce 0 460 Deportation CI 470 Raclceteer In?uenced and Corrupt Organizations 0 480 ConsumerCredit 0 490 Cable/Sat TV 0 850 SccuritieaICohunoditics/ Exchange Cl 890 Other Statutory Actions 891 Agricultural Acts 0 893 Environmental Matters CI 895 Freedom oflnt?omtalion ACI CI 896 Arbitration 899 Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision 0 950 Constitutionality of State Statutes V. ORIGIN (Place an In One Box Only) XI OriginaI 2 Removed from 0 3 Remanded from 4 Reinstated or 5 Transferred from 6 Multidistrict CI 8 Multidistrict State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District Litigation - Litigation - (Mfg Transfer Direct File VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description Of cause: Cite the U. S. Civil Statute under which you are: ?ling (Do not citejurisdtatonal statutes unless diversity): 42 .S 20 "ieTll 1981? 18 Plaintiff bring this action against her former employer for wrongtul termination. VII. REQUESTED IN CI CHECK IF THIS Is A CLASS ACTION DEMAND 3 CHECK YES only ifdcmandcdin complaint: COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23. in excess JURY DEMAND: Yes 0 No RELATED IF ANY DOCKET NUMBER DATE 8 .. 1 0/28/201 9 75m m'c' e?usa ONLY RECEIPT It AMOUNT APPLYING IFP Katherine C. Esquire JUDGE MAG. JUDGE Case Document 1 Filed 10/28/19 Page 2 of 22 PageID: 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY SHANNON PHILLIPS CIVIL ACTION NO. Woolwieh Township, NJ 08085 Plaintiff, v. A JURY TRIAL DEMANDED STARBUCKS CORPORATION d/b/a/ STARBUCKS COFFEE COMPANY 2401 Utah Avenue Suite 800 Seattle, WA 98134 Defendant. COMPLAINT I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff, Shannon Phillips, (?Plaintiff?), an approximately thirteen year employee, was a loyal, dedicated and high performing Regional Director for Defendant Starbucks Corporation d/b/a Starbucks Coffee Company (?Defendant?) tasked with overseeing operations of Defendant?s retail operations in Southern New Jersey, the Philadelphia region, Delaware and parts of Maryland. Following an arrest of two black men in a store within her region in April, 2018, Plaintiff worked tirelessly on behalf of Defendant to repair community relations while ensuring employee and customer safety. Weeks after the arrests and surrounding media coverage, Defendant took steps to punish white employees who had not been involved in the arrests, but who worked in and around the city of Philadelphia, in an effort to convince the community that it had properly responded to the incident. As part of Defendant?s efforts, Plaintiff was ordered to place a white employee (who had not had any involvement in the arrests) on administrative leave because of an allegation of Case Document 1 Filed 10/28/19 Page 3 of 22 PageID: 3 discriminatory conduct that Plaintiff knew to be false. Plaintiff provided information to Defendant that proved that the details of the allegation were factually impossible amid Defendant?s practices. Defendant ignored the information provided by Plaintiff. At the same time, Defendant did not take any steps to punish a black district manager who had been responsible for the management of the location where the arrests took place. Plaintiff was noti?ed of her termination less than one month after the arrests on May 9, 2018. Plaintiff now brings claims pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42. U.S.C. ?2000e, et. seq. (?Title the Civil Rights Act of 1866, as amended, 42 U.S.C. ?1981 (?Section 1981?), and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, as amended, N.J.S.A. 10:501, et seq. II. PARTIES 1. Plaintiff, Shannon Phillips, is an individual and citizen of New Jersey. 2. Plaintiff is Caucasian/white. 3. Defendant Starbucks Corporation d/b/a Starbucks Coffee Company is organized under the laws of Washington with its headquarters located at 2401 Utah Avenue, South, Seattle, Washington, 98134. 4. At all material times, Defendant maintained locations throughout the State of New Jersey, including without limitation, in Haddon?eld and other locations in Camden, County, New Jersey. 5. Defendant is engaged in an industry affecting interstate commerce and regularly does business in the Commonwealth of 6. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff worked for Defendant from her home in Woolwich, New Jersey and throughout the region assigned to her. 7. At all times material hereto, Defendant employed more than ?fteen (15) employees. Case Document 1 Filed 10/28/19 Page 4 of 22 PageID: 4 8. At all times material hereto, Defendant acted by and thrOugh its authorized agents, servants, workmen, and/or employees acting within the course and scope of their employment with Defendant and in furtherance of Defendant?s business. 9. At all times material hereto, Defendant acted as an employer within the meaning of the statutes which form the basis of this matter. 10. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant within the meaning of the statutes that form the basis of this matter. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. The causes of action which form the basis of this matter arise under Title VII, Section 1981, and the NJLAD. 12. The District Court has jurisdiction over Count I (Title VII) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ?2000e- 5 and 28 U.S.C. ?1331. 13. The District Court has jurisdiction over Count II (Section 1981) pursuant to U.S.C. ?133 1. 14. The District Court has jurisdiction over Counts (NJLAD) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ?1332 since the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of seventy-?ve thousand dollars exclusive of costs and interest and as there is complete diversity of citizenship as Plaintiff is a citizen of New Jersey and Defendant is a citizen of Washington. 15. Venue is proper in this District Court under 28 U.S.C. ?1391 and 42 U.S.C. ?2000e- 16. On or about May 22, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination (?Charge?) with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaining of acts of discrimination alleged herein. Attached hereto, incorporated herein and marked as Exhibit ?1 is a true and correct copy of the EEOC Charge of discrimination (with personal identifying information redacted). Case Document 1 Filed 10/28/19 Page 5 of 22 PageID: 5 17. On or about July 30, 2019, the EEOC issued the Plaintiff a Notice of Right to Sue for her Charge of Discrimination. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit is a true and correct copy of the Notice (with personal identifying information redacted). 18. Plaintiff has fully complied with all administrative prerequisites for the commencement of this action. IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 19. Plaintiff was hired by Defendant in or about December, 2005 as a District Manager based out of Youngstown, Ohio. 20. Amid her exemplary performance, Plaintiff was promoted in or about 2011 to Regional Director of Operations for a region encompassing Philadelphia, Southern New Jersey, Delaware and parts of Maryland. This region was known to Defendant as ?Area 71.? In total, Plaintiff oversaw operations for approximately one hundred (100) retail stores. 21. Plaintiff relocated to New Jersey for the Regional Director of Operations position and worked out of a home of?ce while also traveling throughout her region. 22. As RD, Plaintiff managed District Managers reporting to her and their portfolio stores. In addition, and without limitation, she was tasked with touring with real estate partners and brokers to ?nd new locations for stores; developing new stores, partnering with other departments to coordinate resources such as vendors, assessing/determining ?nancial impact of new stores on existing stores, managing special events (such as the Pope?s visit to Philadelphia) and coordinating community engagement efforts on behalf of Defendant. 23. Plaintiff initially reported to Joe Hallinan, Regional Vice President. Upon Hallinan?s retirement, Plaintiff reported to Victor Huetz (?Huetz?), Regional Vice President. Case Document 1 Filed 10/28/19 Page 6 of 22 PageID: 6 24. Beginning in or about 2015, Plaintiff reported to Camille Hymes (?Hymes?) (black), Vice President, Operations. 25. At all material times, Plaintiff received positive performance evaluations and related merit driven bonuses and salary increases. 26. Approximately nine (9) District Managers reported to Plaintiff. Each DM had responsibility for between ten and fourteen stores each and managed the Store Managers assigned to each retail location. 27. Two DMs were assigned stores in Philadelphia and reported to Plaintiff: Ben Trinsey (?Trinsey?) (white) and Paul Sykes (?Sykes?) (black). 28. Sykes?s stores included a retail location at 18th and Spruce Street in Philadelphia, PA. 29. On or about April 12, 2018, two Black men were arrested at the 18th and Spruce Street location. 30. Plaintiff was not involved in the arrests in any way. 31. Upon learning of the arrest from Sykes, Plaintiff notified Hymes. 32. Plaintiff immediately took steps to learn additional information about the events leading up to the events and to address strong community reaction following the events. 33. At the same time, amid substantial public sentiment against Defendant, Plaintiff actively sought to ensure the safety of Defendant?s employees and customers. 34. On or about April 14, 2018, Plaintiff went to the 18th and Spruce Street store with Hymes. Plaintiff worked with Sykes and the other Philadelphia area DM, Trinsey, to formulate a plan of support for Defendant, its stores and customers across the city of Philadelphia and to address the community?s concerns about the arrests. For example, and without limitation: Case Document 1 Filed 10/28/19 Page 7 of 22 PageID: 7 a. Plaintiff brought all of her DMs into the city with some of their SMs to offer additional support to Defendant?s stores and customers; b. Plaintiff organized teams of management-level employees to work at the approximately twenty Center City Philadelphia locations as hourly workers were afraid to come to work amid community protests at Defendant?s retail locations; c. Plaintiff worked closely with her supervisors to understand what had happened at the 18th and Spruce Location in an effort to determine appropriate next steps; and, d. Plaintiff organized multiple round-table events for Defendant?s company-founder and Chairman Emeritus, Howard Schultz, in Philadelphia so that Defendant could properly understand the issues surrounding the arrests and adequately address the public?s reaction. 35. By April 14, 2018, amid the arrests making local and national news, protests from the public took place outside and inside of the 18th and Spruce Street store. 36. At all material times, Plaintiff actively worked with her subordinates and her superiors to coordinate Defendant?s efforts at ?crisis management? and ensure the safety of Defendant?s employees and customers at all of Defendant?s stores within the City of Philadelphia. 37. Plaintiff also took steps to ensure that the retail locations within her area were a safe and welcoming environment for all customers, regardless of race. 38. On April 23, 2018, Hymes encouraged Plaintiff to apply for a Temporary Limited Assignment position that was being created in Philadelphia to support Defendant?s Government and Community Affairs unit. 39. Plaintiff was well quali?ed for the position and she was interviewed. Case Document 1 Filed 10/28/19 Page 8 of 22 PageID: 8 40. Following her interview, she was told on or about April 26, 2018 that the position was being put ?on hold.? 41. On or about May 2, 2018, Defendant reached a settlement with the two men who had been arrested. According to Defendant?s website, ?[t]he agreement between the parties stemming from the events in Philadelphia on April 12 will include a ?nancial settlement as well as continued listening and dialogue between the parties and the speci?c action and opportunity.? 42. Defendant further stated, ?And Starbucks will continue to take actions that stem from this incident to repair and reaf?rm our values and vision for the kind of company that we want to be.? 43. On or about May 4, 2018, Hymes told Plaintiff to take the weekend off. Hymes further told Plaintiff that she wanted to speak to employees without Plaintiff being present. 44. On or about May 7, 2018, Plaintiff was called to a meeting with Hymes, Nathalie Ciof? (white), Partner Resources Director and Paul Pinto (?Pinto?) (white),Vice President, Partner Resources. 45. Plaintiff was ordered to set up a meeting with Trinsey the following morning and place him on suspension. 46. Trinsey was not involved in the April 12th arrests nor did he have any responsibility for the 18th and Spruce Street store. 47. Trinsey did not have any performance issues. 48. Defendant told Plaintiff there would be an investigation into Trinsey?s conduct, including allegations of race discrimination that had been made against him. 49. Plaintiff objected and stated that Trinsey is not racist and that she had never observed any race discriminatory comments or conduct by Trinsey. Case Document 1 Filed 10/28/19 Page 9 of 22 PageID: 9 50. Plaintiff further explained that Trinsey was a ?fteen (15) year employee of Defendant and that he volunteered every week with YouthBuild Philadelphia, an organization primarily servicing young, African American/black individuals. 51. In response, Hymes stated that non-white, salaried managers at Trinsey?s stores had made claims that they were paid less than white employees. 52. Plaintiff continued to object and explained to Hymes that Trinsey could not, by Defendant?s policies and procedures, determine salaried employee compensation. In fact, Plaintiff told Hymes, Trinsey could not have any input on employee salaries. 53. Plaintiff further stated that Defendant?s required process is to send employee resumes upon hire to Partner Resources. Upon receipt of the resume, Partner Resources, and not any DM, sets employee salaries. 54. Despite the information that Plaintiff provided to Hymes and Pinto indicating that the allegations against him were factually impossible, Plaintiff was ordered to put Trinsey on suspension. 55. In contrast, Defendants did not take any action against Sykes, who is African American/black and was the DM responsible for the store where the men had been arrested. Sykes? subordinate, who he had promoted to the SM position, was responsible for making the call to police that lead to the arrests and the subsequent community reaction. 56. On May 8, 2019, Plaintiff was told by Hymes that she should come to a meeting the following day ready to negotiate her separation package as she was being terminated. 57. The only reason given for her pending termination was ?the situation is not recoverable.? 58. When Plaintiff told Hymes, upon learning of her pending termination, that her performance had been exceptional and that she had last received a bonus only the month prior, Hymes agreed. Case Document 1 Filed 10/28/19 Page 10 of 22 PageID: 10 59. On May 9, 2019, Hymes and Pinto formally noti?ed Plaintiff of her termination, effective immediately. 60. Defendant did not articulate any stated reason other than ?the situation is not recoverable.? 61. Defendant?s stated reason is pre-text for race discrimination. 62. Plaintiff was replaced by substantially less quali?ed employees who had not complained of race discrimination by Defendant and had not been working in the region at the time of the arrests. 63. Plaintiffs race was a motivating and/or determinative factor in Defendant?s discriminatory treatment of Plaintiff, including without limitation, in connection with her termination. 64. Plaintiff?s complaints of race discrimination were a motivating and/or determinative factor in Defendant?s discriminatory and retaliatory treatment of Plaintiff, including without limitation, in terminating her. 65. As a direct and proximate result of the discriminatory and retaliatory conduct of Defendant, Plaintiff has in the past incurred, and may in the future incur, a loss of earnings and/or earning capacity, loss of bene?ts, pain and suffering, embarrassment, humiliation, loss of self-esteem, mental anguish, and loss of life?s pleasures. 66. Plaintiff is now suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable injury and monetary damages as a result of Defendant?s discriminatory acts unless and until this Court grants the relief requested herein. 67. Defendant acted with malice and/or reckless indifference to Plaintiff?s protected rights. 68. The conduct of Defendant, as set forth above, was outrageous and warrants the imposition of punitive damages against Defendant. Case Document 1 Filed 10/28/19 Page 11 of 22 PageID: 11 COUNT I - TITLE VII 69. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 68 above, as if set forth herein in their entirety. 70. By committing the foregoing acts of discrimination and retaliation against Plaintiff, Defendant has violated Title VII. 71. Said violations were done with malice and/or reckless indifference to Plaintiff?s protected rights, and warrant the imposition of punitive damages. 72. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant?s violation of Title VII, Plaintiff has suffered the damages and losses set forth herein and has incurred attorneys? fees and costs. 73. Plaintiff suffered irreparable injury and monetary damages as a result of Defendant?s discriminatory acts unless and until this Court grants the relief requested herein. 74. No previous application has been made for the relief requested herein. COUNT II SECTION 1981 75. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 74 above, as if set forth herein in their entirety. 76. By committing the foregoing acts of discrimination against Plaintiff, Defendant has violated Section 1981. 77. Said violations were done with malice and/or reckless indifference to Plaintiff?s protected rights, and warrant the imposition of punitive damages. 78. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant?s violation of Section 1981, Plaintiff has suffered the damages and losses set forth herein and has incurred attorneys? fees and costs. 79. Plaintiff suffered irreparable injury and monetary damages as a result of Defendant?s discriminatory acts unless and until this Court grants the relief requested herein. 80. No previous application has been made for the relief requested herein. 10 Case Document 1 Filed 10/28/19 Page 12 of 22 PageID: 12 COUNT - NJLAD 81. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 1 to 80 above, as if set forth herein in their entirety. 82. Defendant, by the above?described discriminatory and retaliatory acts, has violated the NJLAD. 83. Defendant?s conduct as set forth herein was especially egregious. 84. Members of Defendant?s upper management had actual participation in, or willful indifference to, Defendant?s wrongful conduct described herein, and their conduct warrants the imposition of punitive damages against Defendant. 85. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant?s discriminatory and retaliatory conduct, Plaintiff has sustained the injuries, damages, and losses set forth herein, and has incurred attorney?s fees and costs. 86. Plaintiff is now suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable injury and monetary damages as a result of Defendant? discriminatory, retaliatory, and unlawful acts unless and until this Court grants the relief requested herein. 87. No previous application has been made for the relief requested herein. RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks damages and legal and equitable relief in connection with Defendant?s improper conduct, and speci?cally prays that the Court grant the following relief to Plaintiff by: a. Declaring the acts and practices complained of herein to be in violation of Title 11 Case Document 1 Filed 10/28/19 Page 13 of 22 PageID: 13 b. Declaring the acts and practices complained of herein to be in violation of Section 1981; c. Declaring the acts and practices complained of herein to be in violation of the d. Enjoining and permanently restraining the violations alleged herein; e. Entering judgment against the Defendant and in favor of the Plaintiff in an amount to be determined; f. Awarding compensatory damages to make the Plaintiff whole for all lost earnings, earning capacity, and bene?ts, which Plaintiff has suffered as a result of Defendant?s improper conduct g. Awarding compensatory damages to Plaintiff for past pain and suffering, emotional upset, mental anguish, humiliation, and loss of life?s pleasures, which Plaintiff has suffered as a result of Defendant?s improper conduct; h. Awarding punitive damages to Plaintiff under Title i. Awarding punitive damages to Plaintiff under Section 1981; j. Awarding punitive damages to Plaintiff under the k. Awarding Plaintiff other such damages as are appropriate under Title VII, Section 1981, and the l. Awarding Plaintiff the costs of suit, expert fees and other disbursements, and reasonable attorneys? fees; and m. Granting such other and further relief as this Court may deem just, proper, or equitable including other equitable and injunctive relief providing restitution for past violations and preventing future violations. CONSOLE ETIACI OFFICES LLC Dated: October 28, 2019 BY: Stephen G. Console, Esquire (36656) 12 Case Document 1 Filed 10/28/19 Page 14 of 22 PageID: 14 13 Katherine C. Oeltjen, Esquire (318037) 1525 Locust Street, 9th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 545-7676 Attorneys for Plainti? Shannon Phillips Case Document 1 Filed 10/28/19 Page 15 of 22 PageID: 15 EXHIBIT 1 Case Document 1 Filed 10/28/19 Page 16 of 22 PageID: 16 - A I CHARGE NUMBER IMINATION AGENCY AMENDED CHARGE OF DISCR This form is affected by the Privacy Act of 1974; See privacy statement before EEOC 530-2018432412 consolidating this form. .. STATE 0R LOCAL AGENCY: Pen 5 iv nla H. nR'lationc ommission; t? 'ladl i' omtm slon OMB TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include Area Code) NAME (hidicate Mn. Ms?, REDA ?hmmou . CED ADDRESS CITY, STATE AND ZIP Wooiwich Township, NJ 08085 BOR ORGANIZATION. EMPLOYMENT AGENCY, . WHO DISCRIMINATED AGAINST MB (If more than one than list below) IAMED- IS THE LA STATE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT NAME NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES, MEMBERS TELEPHONE (Include Area Code) Starbucks Corporation; 20 (800) 782-7282 Starbucks Coffee Company STREET ADDRESS CITY, STATE AND ZIP COUNTY 2401 Utah Avenue S. #800 Seattle, WA 98134 King CAUSE OF DISCRIMTNAT ION (Check appropriate DATE DISCRIMINATION TOOK PLACE . i 'on Nations ri in idgfetagatgilor 3:6? Stinging; gther (Specify) Earliest Latest 05/09/2018 The Particulars Are: A. 1. Relevant Work History was hired by Respondents in or about December 2005. held the position of Regional Director. I reported to Camille Hymes (black). Regional Vice President. since 2015. Hymes reports to Zeta Smith (black), Divisional Senior Vice President. who reports to Roseann Williams (White), Executive Vice President. President, US. Retail. Williams reports to Rosalind Brewer (black), Chief Operating Officer and Group President, who reports to Kevin Johnson (while), President and Chief Executive Officer. i worked out of my home of?ce in New Jersey. Respondents terminated my employment because of my race and because i had complained of race discrimination. i consistently demonstrated excellent performance and dedication to Respondents. ?l performed my job duties and responsibilities in a highly competent manner. I received positive feedback throughout my employment at Respondents. I want this charge ?led with both the EEOC and the State or local Agency, NOTARY (when necessary for State and Local Requirements} if any. i will advise the agencies it! change my address or telephone number and cooperate fully with them in the processing of my charge in accordance I swear of af?rm that I have read the above charge and that it is true With their procedures to the best of my knowledge information and belief. declare under penalty or perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dale: Charging Party (Signature): SIGNATURE OF COMPLAINANT f? .. . SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN T0 BEFORE MB THIS one 0 awn (Dav Month. and Year303 if" Case Document 1 Filed 10/28/19 Page 17 of 22 PageID: 17 EEOC Charge of Discrimination Page 2 of 4 initials of Charging Party - 2. Harm Summary Respondents discriminated against me because of my race (white) and retaliated against me because of my complaints of race discrimination. Evidence of the discriminatory and retaliatory conduct to which i have been subjected includes. but is not limited to. the foiiowing: The following employees. among others, directly reported to me: Paul Sykes (black). District Manager for 18th and Spruce. Philadelphia; and Benjamin (white), District Manager for East Center City. Philadelphia. On April 12, 2018, two (2) black men were arrested at Respondents? 18th and Spruce. Philadelphia location. (0) The April 12, 2018 incident occurred at one (1) ot the stores over which I was Regional Director. was not involved in the April 12, 2018 incident. On April 12. 2018. Sykes alerted me of the incident and i alerted Hymes. On April 14. 2018, protests began outside of Respondents' 18th and Spruce, Philadelphia location, as people protested the arrest of the biack individuals. On April 16, 2018. Respondents terminated Holly Hyiton (white). Store Manager for 18th and Spruce, Philadelphia. Hyiton had followed Respondents' Safe and Welcoming policies in handling the April 12,2018 incident. On April 18. 2018. Respondents announced that it will close 8,000 of its stores on May 29, 2018 for racial bias training. On April 23. 2018, Hymes encouraged me to apply for a Temporary Limited Assignment position that was being created in Philadelphia to support Government and Community Affairs. On April 26, 2018, interviewed with Shannon (white). Government and Community Affairs, Senior Manager, for the Temporary Limited Assignment position. Following the interview, I was told that Respondents had put the position on hold. On May 2. 2018. Respondents reached a settlement with the two (2) black men who were arrested at Respondents' 18th and Spruce, Philadelphia location. According to Respondents? website, ?The agreement between the parties stemming from the events in Philadelphia on April 12 will include a ?nancial settlement as well as continued listening and dialogue between the parties and speci?c action and opportunity.? Respondents' website also stated the following: want to thank Donte and Rashon [the two (2) black men] for their willingness to reconcile,? said Kevin Johnson, ceo Starbucks. welcome the opportunity to begin a relationship with them to share learnings and experiences. And Starbucks will continue to take actions that stem from this incident to repair and reaffirm our values and vision for the kind of company we want to ?t On May 4. 2018. Hymes called me and told me to take the weekend off, and that shear?? Smith. Williams, and Michael Scott (white), Regional Operations Coach. were visiting?: It} the stores over which i was Regional Director. The stated reason was to speak witykj f: employees at the stores, without me. ?o Case Document 1 Filed 10/28/19 Page 18 of 22 PageID: 18 (ll EEOC Charge Page 3 of 4 Initials of Charging Party - On May 7. 2018. was called into a meeting with Hymes, Nathalie Ciofii (white), Partner Resources Director, and Paul Pinto (white), Vice President, Partner Resources. i was instructed to set up a meeting for the next morning with Trinsey and place him on suspension. was told that there would be an investigation into Trinsey?s conduct, including allegations of race discrimination that had been made against him. i objected. stating that Trinsey was not racist. and that i never heard or observed any race discriminatory comments or conduct by Trinsey. explained that rinsey had been an employee of Respondents for approximately ?fteen (15) years. and that Trinsey volunteers every week at YouthBuiId Philly, where he works primarily with black individuals. Hymes stated that non-white salaried managers at Trinsey?s store had made claims that they were paid less than white employees. objected, stating that Trinsey had no input in salary or compensation decisions. ?l explained that Respondents? process is to send empioyees' resumes to Partner Resources. and that PartnerResources determines the salary for each employee. Pinto then stated that. in my conversation with Trinsey. lxwas not to make any reference to pay and equity?that was only to reference the volume and seriousness of the allegations against him. i was instructed to tell Trinsey that the investigation would be expedited as quickly as possible, that i would be his contact person during the investigation, that he should not be in his stores or have contact with his employees. and that i would tell-other employees that he was. taking personal time off. i was told that Brian Dragons (white), DistrictManager. would cover Trinsey?s. stores going fonward. On May 8, 2018', Ciofii and i met with Trinsey, and informed him that Respondents (0) (P) were placing him on suspension, effective immediately. Trinsey was blindsided. Respondents suspended Trinsey while taking no action against Sykes, who was the District Manager for 18th and Spruce. Philadelphia location. on May 8, 20.18, i was called into a meeting with Hymes. She informed me that i would receive a meeting request to meet with her and Pinto the next day, and that i should come prepared to negotiate what i would want in a separation package. i was blindsided. Hymes stated that ?the situation is not recoverable i understood that the "situation.? to which Hyme?s was referring was the race-based situation stemming from the April 12, 2018? incident at Respondents' 18th and Spruce, Philadelphia location. ltoid Hymes that my performance has been exceptional, and that i received bonuses in January and April 2018. Hymes agreed. .On May 9, 20118. i was called into a meeting with Hymes and, Pinto. My employment was terminated, effective-immediately. i was presented with a separation agreement and release of all claims. l. refused to- sign the agreement. The stated reason forterminating my employment?that "the situation is not recoverable?-?-?is code for the efforts by Respondentsto discipline-white, but- not black. employees. in an effort to project to Respondent?s' employees and the public that Respondents do not discriminate against blacks on the basis of race, as well as- code for Respondents not tolerating complaints of race discrimination from managers when the stated victim is? white. it is further an admission by Respondents that my termination was a- result of the racially charged and much publicized arrest of two (2) black individuals at Respondents' 18th and Spruce. Philadelphia location. Respondents provided no explanation, including the selection criteria, as. to why i was terminated and the black employees were retained. Case Document 1 Filed 10/28/19 Page 19 of 22 PageID: 19 EEOC Charge of Discrimination Page 2 07-4 initials of Charging Party - was terminated because i am white. if I was black. [would not have been terminated. was terminated because! complained of and objected: to race discrimination. Respondents did not provide me. with anyoptlon to remain employed with Respondents. Respondents did not suspend or terminate Sykes. Linda Johnson (white). Regional Director, has taken over my job duties and responsibilities. i am more quali?ed and experienced to perform my iob duties and responsibilities than Johnson. The-race discrimination and retaliation. because of my complaints of race discrimination to which i have been subjected at. Respondents has caused me emotional distress. B. 1. Respondents' Stated Reasons- Respondents' stated reason for" terminating my-emptoyment, that the situation was not recoverable. is an admission of race discrimination andlor retaliation because of my complaints of race discrimination and/or a statement made because of' my race. 0. Statutes and Bases for Allegations i believe that Respondents have discriminated against me based on my race (white), and have. retaliated againstme because of my complaints of' race discrimination in. violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 19.64. as amended, 42 U.S.C. 20.009 et seq. (?Title Vii"); the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. as amended, N.J.S.A. 10:54.. et seq. the Human Relations Act, as amended, 43 RS. 951. et seq. and the Philadelphia Fair Practices Ordinance, as amended, Phila. Code 59- 1100., et seq. as set forth herein. Respondents' discriminatory conduct: also violated 42 -U.S.C. 1981. ("Section Case Document 1 Filed 10/28/19 Page 20 of 22 PageID: 20 INFORMATION FOR COMPIAINANTS ELECTION OPTION TO DUAL FILE WITH THE HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION Shannon Phillips v. Starbucks Corporation; Starbucks Coffee Company EEOC No. You have the right to ?le this charge of discrimination with the Human Relations Commission (PHRC) under the Human Relations Act Filing your charge with PHRC protects your state rights, especially since there may be circumstances in which state and federal laws and procedures vary in a manner which would affect the outcome of your case. Complaints ?led with the PHRC must be ?led within 180 days of the act(s) which you believe are unlaw?i-l discrimination. If PHRC determines that your PHRC complaint is untimely, it will be dismissed. If you want your charge ?led with the PHRC, including this form as part of your EEOC charge, with your signature under the veri?cation below, will constitute ?ling with the PHRC. You have chosen EEOC to investigate your complaint, so PHRC will not investigate it and, in most cases, will accept ?nding. If you disagree with adoption of ?nding, you will have the chance to ?le a request for preliminary hearing with PHRC. Since you have chosen to ?le your charge ?rst with EEOC, making it the primary investigatory agency, the Respondent will. not be required to ?le an answer with PHRC, and no other action with PHRC .is required by either party, unless/until otherwise noti?ed by PHRC. If your case is still pending with PHRC alter one year from?ling with PHRC, you have the right to ?le your complaint in state court. will inform you of these rights and obligations at that time. [Sign and date appropriate request below] I want my charge ?led with PHRC. hereby incorporato'this form and the veri?cation below into the attached EEOC complaint form and ?le it as my PHRC complaint. I request EEOC to transmit it to PHRC. in this complaint are made subject to the penalties of 512% 3 .V I understand that false statements 18 Pa. 08. 4904, relating to unsworn I do not want my charge dual filed with PHRC Signature and Date Case Document 1 Filed 10/28/19 Page 21 of 22 PageID: 21 EXHIBIT 2 Case Document 1 Filed 10/28/19 Page 22 of 22 PageID: 22 EEOC Form 161 (11/16) U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION DISMISSAL AND NOTICE OF RIGHTS Shannon Is From: Philadelphia District Office REDACTED 801 Market Street Woolwich Township, NJ 08085 Suite 1300 Philadelphia, PA 19107 I: On behalf of person(s) aggrieved whose identity is CONFIDENTIAL (29 CFR EEOC Charge No. EEOC Representative Telephone No. 530-2018-03852 Legal Unit (215) 440-2828 THE EEOC IS CLOSING ITS ON THIS CHARGE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON: The facts alleged in the charge fail to state a claim under any of the statutes enforced by the EEOC. Your allegations did not involve a disability as de?ned by the Americans With Disabilities Act. The Respondent employs less than the required number of employees or is not otherwise covered by the statutes. Your charge was not timely ?led with in other words, you waited too long after the date(s) of the alleged discrimination to ?le your charge The EEOC issues the following determination: Based upon its investigation, the EEOC is unable to conclude that the information obtained establishes violations of the statutes. This does not certify that the respondent is in compliance with the statutes. No finding is made as to any other issues that might be construed as having been raised by this charge. The EEOC has adopted the ?ndings of the state or local fair employment practices agency that investigated this charge. Other (brie?y state) DD - NOTICE OF SUIT RIGHTS - (See the additional information attached to this form.) Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, or the Age Discrimination in Employment Act: This will be the only notice of dismissal and of your right to sue that we will send you. You may file a lawsuit against the respondent(s) under federal law based on this charge in federal or state court. Your lawsuit must be filed WITHIN 90 DAYS of your receipt of this notice; or your right to sue based on this charge will be lost. (The time limit for filing suit based on a claim under state law may be different.) Equal Pay Act (EPA): EPA suits must be filed In federal or state court within 2 years (3 years for willful violations) of the alleged EPA underpayment This means that backpay due for any violations that occurred more than 2 years (3 years) before you file suit may not be collectible. Commission fJ/ 7/30/2019 E??'?S?'eslsl git/tie R. Williamson, (Date Mai/ed) JDistrict Director cc? Danielle Mehallo Emily Derstine Friesen, Esq. Starbucks CONSOLE MATTIACCI clo Littler Mendelson, GSC 1525 Locust Street, 9th Floor 2301 McGee Street, 8th Floor Philadelphia, NJ 19102 Kansas City, MO 64108