The Legal Case Against Hooters
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
MICHELLE HARRISON, Plaintiff,
Case No. 6: 01-CB-54-ORL-31DAB
V.
HOOTER'S OF AMERICA, INC.,
and
HOOTER'S OF KLSSIMMEE, INC.,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________
Plaintiff, MICHELLE HARRISON (hereinafter "Plaintiff), sues defendants, HOOTER'S OF AMERICA, INC., and HOOTER'S OF KISSIMMEE, INC (hereinafter "Defendants" or "Employers"), for discrimination and retaliation and alleges:
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. This suit is brought and jurisdiction lies pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 2000e, et, seq (hereinafter Title VII)
2. This suit is also brought pursuant to Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 199!, 42 U.S.C. §1981a (hereinafter CRA).
3. This Court has jurisdiction over this federal question claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§133I and 1343.
4. Plaintiff is a female citizen of the United States and the state of Florida who resides [in] Orlando, Florida [zip].
5. Defendant Hooter's of Kissimmee, Inc. is an active foreign corporation with its principal office at 2201 West Vine St, B-511O, Kissimmee, Florida 32741.
6. Defendant Hooter's of America, Inc. is an active foreign corporation with its principal office at 1815 The Exchange, Atlanta, Georgia 30339.
7. Hooter's of America, lnc.., Is the parent company of Hooter's of Kissimrnee, Inc.
8. Hooter's of America, Inc., and Hooter's of Kissimmee, Inc., are the co-employers of plaintiff.
9. Venue is proper within the Middle District of Florida pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391 (b) and (c).
10. Venue is proper within the Middle District of Florida pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §2000e.5(f)(3).
11. Venue is proper within the Orlando Division of the Middle District of Florida pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3) and Local Rule 1.02 (bX3).
12. AU conditions precedent to jurisdiction .under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e- 5(f)(3), have occurred or been complied with.
13. A charge of employment discrimination and retaliation on the basis of sex was tiled with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC") within 300 days of the commission of the unlawful employment practices alleged herein
14. A Notification of Right to Sue was issued by the EEOC on or about December 29
2000. (Attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Exhibit "A" is a copy of the EEOC's Right to Sue letter).
15. This complaint has been filed within 90 days of receipt of the EEOC's Notification of Right to Sue.
16. All the discriminatory employment practices alleged herein were committed within the state of Florida, and within the Middle District of Florida.
17. Defendants are "employees" within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.C. § 2000e (b)
18. Defendants had more than I4 employees in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the year 2000.
19. Defendants had more than 100 employees in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the year 2000.
20. Defendants had more than 200 employees in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the year 2000.
21. Defendants had more than 5O0 employees in each of 20 or more calendar weeks in the year 2000.
22. At all times relevant to this complaint. plaintiff was an "employee" of defendants within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000e (f).
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
23. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury for all issues so triable.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
24. Plaintiff is a 26—year-old woman.
23 Plaintiff was hired as a waitress by Hooter's of Kissimmee, Inc., and by Hooter's of America, Joe.. ("Employers") on or about July 20. 1997.
26. Plaintiff was promoted to bartender on or about mid-July of 1998.
27. Bartenders generally earn more money in tips per shift than do waitresses.
28. At all times relevant to this charge of discrimination, plaintiff performed her job(s) for the Employers in an exemplary fashion.
29. Plaintiff never received any negative job evaluations from the Employers.
30. Plaintiff was never formally disciplined for any infractions of Employers policies except for one infraction during August of 1999.
31. Plaintiff went on maternity leave from her employment with defendants on or about September 15, 1999.
32. Plaintiff returned to work from maternity leave on or about December 8, 1999.
33. Larry Linen ("Linen") was Plaintiff's General Manager when she returned to work for the Employers.
34. Before returning to work, Plaintiff informally met with Linen and discussed issues related to motherhood, childbirth and pregnancy.
35. Plaintiff chose to breast feed her newborn child.
36. Plaintiff asked Linen for a minimum of two 10 to 15-minute breaks per shift in lieu of her meal break.
37. Plaintiff did not request additional break time.
38. Plaintiff requested a reallocation of break time.
39. Plaintiff requested a break schedule with shorter but more frequent breaks in order to "express" milk to feed her infant.
40. The expressed milk was stored in plaintiff's cooler during her shift(s).
41. At first, Linen complied with plaintiff's request for breaks.
42. But Linen, along with some other plaintiff's other supervisors, began a pattern and practice of harassment and pregnancy discrimination against plaintiff.
43. For Example:
i.. Linen told Plaintiff to let him know if "[plaintiff] ever needed any help" pumping her breasts.
ii. Linen told plaintiff that he or Mike Ferguson, the Kitchen Manager ('Ferguson") "would be available to help" plaintiff pump her breasts.
iii. Linen, Ferguson and Travis Eichensier, Assistant Manager, (" Eichensier") engaged in a consistent and pervasive pattern of making unwanted and unsolicited jokes and comments of a sexual nature concerning breast feeding.
iv. Linen, Ferguson and Eichensier engaged in a consistent and pervasive pattern of making unwanted and unsolicited jokes and comments of a sexual nature concerning breast pumping.
v. Almost all of the harassing and intimidating statements were made in the presence of customers and staff.
vi. Eichensier repeatedly told plaintiff that he "didn't know how much longer [he] or the [defendant] would be able to accommodate plaintiff's breaks."
vii. Similarly- situated women without pregnancy-related characteristics were permitted to take breaks of longer duration and more frequency to go to the bathroom, smoke cigarettes or eat.
viii. Eichensier repeatedly asked plaintiff how much longer she was going to breast feed her child and thereby pressuring plaintiff to stop breast feeding.
44. Plaintiff repeatedly asked her managers and co-workers to stop making comments related to her breast feeding.
45. Plaintiffs complaints were ignored.
46. In January 2000, George Isom ("Isom") became Plaintiff's new General Manager.
47, In January 2000-after Isorn's arrival - matters grew worse.
48.In January 2000, "Smokey" (l/n/u) became Plaintiff's new Assistant Manager.
49.Immediately upon assuming his position as assistant manager for defendants, Smokey began a pattern and practice of harassment and discrimination against plaintiff.
50. Smokey's first comment to Plaintiff was "Hi. I heard you have to take breaks to "do your thing."'
51. Eichensier asked if plaintiff would produce chocolate milk if she ate chocolate.
52. Eichensier asked plaintiff if he "could have some milk with [his] Danish."
53. On one occasion, after Eichensier asked plaintiff if she plaintiff were taking her break soon, Eichensier began making lewd gestures with his hands and loud sucking noises.
54. Eichensier asked plaintiff if he could use her breast milk for his coffee.
55. Invariably, when plaintiff requested a break, Eichensier would ask if plaintiff were going to pump her breasts.
56. On one occasion, when plaintiff answered in the aflirmative, Eichensier. in a loud, obnoxious voice, which could be heard by co-workers, said: "I don't like mine pumped. I like mine straight from the tap."
57. Upon Plaintiff's return from one break, Eichensier removed plaintiff's container of breast milk from its protective, cooler, held the transparent milk container in the air and, in full view of
customers and staff said "Is this all you get?"
58. While Plaintiff was expressing her milk in the ladies room one night during one of her short breaks, Jeff Wojkowski, an Assistant Manager, began banging on the wall and screamed "let's go!"
59. On information and belief, Wojkowski had never behaved in such an unnecessarily aggressive manner toward similarly-situated women without pregnancy-related characteristics who were on a meal or cigarette break.
60. On or about May I5, 2000, having exceeded her level of tolerance, plaintiff asked for a witnessed meeting with Isom to demand that the defendants take remedial action to end the discrimination to which plaintiff had been subjected.
61. Plaintiff bad asked Stephanie Laskowski, a co-worker, to attend the meeting with Isom
62. During the meeting with Isom, plaintiff once again complained of all of the discrimination to which she had been subjected while paying specific attention to Eichensier' s more egregious behavior.
63. Plaintiff asked Isom to take steps to discipline Eichensier and others and to end the dIscriminatory treatrnent to which plaintiff had been subjected by Eichensier and others.
64. On information and belief, the defendants did not discipline Eichensier.
65. The defendants promoted Eichensier to General Manager of its Altamonte Springs restaurant.
66. Defendants retaliated against plaintiff for having demanded remedial action.
67. Approximately two weeks after demanding remedial action, plaintiff began losing her bar shifts.
68. Plaintiff was assigned to waitress shifts rather than bar shifts.
69. Plaintiff was assigned less lucrative sections for her Waitress shifts than were similarly-situated employees who had not complained of illegal discrimination.
70. Plaintiff's opportunities to take breaks to express her milk were curtailed by defendants.
71. Plaintiff has retained the undersigned attorney to represent her in this matter and is obligated to pay reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in prosecuting this action.
COUNT I
DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF SEX IN VIOLATION
OF TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964
72. Plaintiff realleges and reavers allegations numbered 1 through 71 above as if specifically set forth herein.
73. Defendants subjected plaintiff to a pattern and practice of discrimination based on sex.
74. Defendants were aware of the discrimination to which plaintiff was subjected by her supervisors and co-workers.
75. Defendants failed to take steps to end the discriminatory treatment to which plaintiff was subjected.
76. Defendants have discriminated against plaintiff on the basis of sex in the terms and conditions of her employment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.
77. Plaintiff is now suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable injury as a result of defendants' discriminatory practices.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff, Michelle Harrison, prays that this Court
(i) enter judgment for the plaintiff and against the defendants;
(ii) award back pay and front pay for the plaintiff and against the defendants,
(iii) award compensatory damages to plaintiff, Including, but not limited to, damages for mental anguish, loss of dignity and other intangible Injuries;
(iv) award punitive damages;
(v) provide a jury trial on all issues so triable; uid
(vi) award the costs of maintaining this action, including attorney's fees pursuant to statute.
COUNT II
RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF
TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964
78. Plaintiff realleges and reavers allegations numbered I through '71 above as if specifically set forth herein.
79. Plaintiff complained to defendants of unlawful discrimination.
80. Defendants were aware of plaintiff's complaint.
81. Defendants began a pattern and practice of retaliation and intimidation against plaintiff.
82. Defendants' retaliation and intimidation were initiated as a result of plaintiff's complaints of unlawful discrimination.
83. Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, irreparable harm as the result of defendants' retaliatory conduct.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff, Michelle Harrison, prays that this Court
(i) enter judgment for the plaintiff and against the defendants;
(ii) award back pay and front pay for the plaintiff and against the defendants;
(iii) award compensatory damages to plaintiff, including, but not limited to, damages for menial anguish, loss of dignity and other intangible injuries;
(iv) award punitive damages;
(v) provide a jury trial on all issues so triable; and
(vi) award the costs of maintaining this action, including attorney's fees pursuant to statute.
DATED: January 16, 2001
_________________________
Timothy R, Shea, Esq.
800 North Ferncreek Avenue
Orlando, Florida 32803
Fla. Bar No. 0021687
ph: (407) 894-8776
fx: (407)898-9321
Attorney for Plaintiff