COMPLAINT

Maijoy Wooten

[Insert Address]

[Insert State & ZIP Code]

[Insert Phone Number]

[Insert Email]

 

Plaintiff in pro per

 

 

 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

IN AND FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

 

MAIJOY WOOTEN, Plaintiff, vs. ADRIAN PAYNE; KASEY SMITH; STUART BOOKER DUPREE; ANDY COCKE; KEITH NEAL; LAUREN MALIK; MARISSA ARITE; DENWIDDIE ROZELLE; DEON WHITE; and DANA LIGHT AXLE PRODUCTS, LLC, Defendant(s)

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No.:     PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

 

NOW COMES Maijoy Wooten, Plaintiff, and files this Complaint against Adrian Payne, Kasey Smith, Stuart Booker Dupree, Andy Cocke, Keith Neal, Lauren Malik, Marissa Arite, Denwiddie Rozelle, and Dana Light Axle Products, LLC, Defendants, and for cause would show this Honorable Court as follows:

 

1. PARTIES

1. Plaintiff Maijoy Wooten is a law-abiding female adult of sound mind and a resident of [Insert Address].
2. Defendant Adrian Payne is a male adult of sound mind whose address known to Plaintiff is [Insert Address].
3. Defendant Kasey Smith is a female adult of sound mind whose address known to Plaintiff is [Insert Address].
4. Defendant Stuart Booker Dupree is a male adult of sound mind whose address known to Plaintiff is [Insert Address].
5. Defendant Andy Cocke is a male adult of sound mind whose address known to Plaintiff is [Insert Address].
6. Defendant Keith Neal is a male adult of sound mind whose address known to Plaintiff is [Insert Address].
7. Defendant Lauren Malik is a female adult of sound mind whose address known to Plaintiff is [Insert Address].
8. Defendant Marissa Arite is a female adult of sound mind whose address known to Plaintiff is [Insert Address].
9. Defendant Denwiddie Rozelle is a male adult of sound mind whose address known to Plaintiff is [Insert Address].
10. Defendant Deon White is a male adult of sound mind whose address known to Plaintiff is [Insert Address].
11. Defendant Dana Light Axle Products, LLC is a company registered under the laws of the State of Ohio that manufactures axles for light vehicles.

 

1. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Jurisdiction exists in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 since this is a lawsuit of violation of Plaintiff’s rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
2. Jurisdiction exists in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 since the amount of controversy is more than $75,000.
3. Venue is proper in this Court since the events and causes of action described herein took place in Toledo, which is within the Northern District of Ohio.

 

1. STATEMENT OF FACTS

15. Wooten filed a complaint of discrimination and harassment.
16. Adrian Payne is falsely identified as Ms Wooten’s coworker in Dana Lights’s position statement.
17. Adrian Payne was actually Plaintiff’s production supervisor for finals line 1000 and approached her station early in the morning of Jan 7th, insisting she get up without explanation.
18. Payne then attempted to reach for the chair in which Ms Wooten was seated, leading to a verbal dispute between the two.
19. Contrary to the company statement, Ms Wooten was escorted from the production line with her belongings and threatened with being “walked out” and having her badge confiscated.
20. Kasey Smith, the colleague of Adrian Payne, acted as a stand-in superintendent with authority in the matter, but no disciplinary action was taken by the company.
21. Wooten was not informed of any investigation or outcome after a grievance meeting with management.
22. Another witness, a fellow assembly technician, also spoke out against Payne’s behavior during the dispute.
23. Wooten confirmed Mr. Payne’s actions and ongoing workplace discrimination between him and the younger female technicians.
24. Wooten did not make any sexual harassment claims regarding the incident, but did report hostility and threatening behavior by Mr. Payne to her supervisors.
25. Both Ms. Wooten and a witness reported that Mr. Payne showed partiality towards younger female technicians and the company failed to investigate these allegations.
26. Dana Light attempted to suppress evidence of a hostile dispute between Ms. Wooten and Mr. Payne, and falsely suggested that her allegations were against a coworker.
27. Arite reviewed text messages but the company failed to address evidence of sexual harassment by Mr. Dinwiddie towards Ms. Wooten.
28. Despite the company’s no-tolerance policy for sexual harassment and threats, Marissa Arite did not have enough “information” to confirm that harassment was taking place.
29. Sexual harassment is defined as unwanted sexual conduct, physical contact, or threats of undesired contact among other behaviors (Dana Toledo Driveline Plant Rules).
30. Due to union membership, the employee who was reported for sexual harassment went through steps of progressive discipline and information was kept on file instead of immediate termination (Human Resources Rep Lauren Malik).
31. Physical threats of violence were made by a team lead, but no disciplinary action was taken despite the collective agreement between the UAW Local 12 and Dana Incorporated (Superintendent Andy Cocke, Supervisor Keith Neal, Union Stuart Makeisha, Alternate Lead Kareesha Jude).
32. The statement from Superintendent Andy that rules and policies are not always of equal application brought attention to the lack of concern towards harassment and abuse (Superintendent Andy Cocke).
33. Offensive comments, unwanted physical contact, or any threats of undesired contact are considered forms of harassment as per the Dana Toledo Driveline Plant rulebook (Dana Toledo Driveline Plant rulebook).
34. Supervisor Keith Neal made statements demanding to keep “your girl” off his line before “getting in her ass” on October 6th, 2022 (Supervisor Keith Neal).
35. On January 3rd, 2023, a male operator made unpleasant remarks to Ms. Wooten about her sexuality, work position, wages, and place of origin while she was unmarrying parts on 800 tubepress.
36. Wooten confronted him and her team leader, Benjamin Hand, was present at the station witnessing the altercation.
37. Wooten’s team leader encouraged me not to let the incident affect my job and reminded me of past statements I’ve written to the Union.
38. Wooten confirmed Mr. Payne’s actions and ongoing workplace discrimination between him and the younger female technicians.
39. Wooten did not make any sexual harassment claims regarding the incident, but did report hostility and threatening behavior by Mr. Payne to her supervisors.
40. Both Ms. Wooten and a witness reported that Mr. Payne showed partiality towards younger female technicians and the company failed to investigate these allegations.
41. Dana Light attempted to suppress evidence of a hostile dispute between Ms. Wooten and Mr. Payne, and falsely suggested that her allegations were against a coworker.
42. Arite reviewed text messages but the company failed to address evidence of sexual harassment by Mr. Dinwiddie towards Ms. Wooten.
43. Despite the company’s no-tolerance policy for sexual harassment and threats, Marissa Arite did not have enough “information” to confirm that harassment was taking place.
44. Sexual harassment is defined as unwanted sexual conduct, physical contact, or threats of undesired contact among other behaviors (Dana Toledo Driveline Plant Rules).
45. Due to union membership, the employee who was reported for sexual harassment went through steps of progressive discipline and information was kept on file instead of immediate termination (Human Resources Rep Lauren Malik).
46. Physical threats of violence were made by a team lead, but no disciplinary action was taken despite the collective agreement between the UAW Local 12 and Dana Incorporated (Superintendent Andy Cocke, Supervisor Keith Neal, Union Stuart Makeisha, Alternate Lead Kareesha Jude).
47. The statement from Superintendent Andy that rules and policies are not always of equal application brought attention to the lack of concern towards harassment and abuse (Superintendent Andy Cocke).
48. Offensive comments, unwanted physical contact, or any threats of undesired contact are considered forms of harassment as per the Dana Toledo Driveline Plant rulebook (Dana Toledo Driveline Plant rulebook).
49. Supervisor Keith Neal made statements demanding to keep “your girl” off his line before “getting in her ass” on October 6th, 2022 (Supervisor Keith Neal).
50. On January 3rd, 2023, a male operator made unpleasant remarks to Ms. Wooten about her sexuality, work position, wages, and place of origin while she was unmarrying parts on 800 tubepress.
51. Wooten confronted him and her team leader, Benjamin Hand, was present at the station witnessing the altercation.
52. Wooten’s team leader encouraged me not to let the incident affect my job and reminded me of past statements I’ve written to the Union.
53. On January 5th, Dana White approached Ms. Wooten aggressively, threatened her with gun play, and mentioned he had a sister of Ms. Wooten’s age who he could ask to wait outside for Ms. Wooten until her shift completed.
54. Wooten confided in her brother Jebari Wooten, but without speaking to him, he walked down to 800 tubepress to confront the threats made.
55. Wooten was harassed and threatened by Deon White, a man who was bigger and older than her.
56. The use of Ms. Wooten’s brother as an intimidation tactic is inconsistent with the investigation’s findings.
57. Wooten and her brother did not communicate initially about what happened when she first approached his line crying.
58. Wooten did not encourage Jebari Wooten, her brother, to approach Deon when walking towards the 800 line.
59. Wooten walked off the 800 tubepress towards pyxes, and Deon followed.

1. As per Article 18 of the collective agreement, all notices of discharge and disciplinary layoffs will be given to the union 24 hours before the action is taken.
2. Ms. Wooten was placed on a suspension pending investigation on Thursday, January 5th, 2023.
3. The notice of the speaker’s discharge was issued to the bargaining committee the following morning, Friday, January 6th, 2023. No proper investigation was conducted.

 

 

1. CAUSES OF ACTION

Count I: Hostile Working Environment

1. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint by reference as though set out in full herein.
2. Hostility in the workplace was reported by Ms. Wooten and a witness, who both confirmed that Mr. Payne showed partiality towards younger female technicians.
3. Offensive comments, unwanted physical contact, or any threats of undesired contact are considered forms of harassment as per the Dana Toledo Driveline Plant rulebook.
4. Ms. Wooten was harassed and threatened by Deon White, a man who was bigger and older than her.
5. Supervisors Keith Neal and Andy Cocke made statements and threats of violence, but no disciplinary action was taken by Dana Light.
6. Dana Light also failed to investigate allegations of sexual harassment by Mr. Dinwiddie towards Ms. Wooten, and attempted to suppress evidence of the hostile dispute between Ms. Wooten and Mr. Payne.
7. In the case of J.C. Penney Co., Inc. v. Johnson, 883 F.3d 813 (6th Cir. 2018), the court held that a plaintiff’s claim of a hostile work environment based on gender is viable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, even if the conduct complained of was not explicitly sexual in nature.
8. Defendants are liable for creating a hostile working environment for Ms. Wooten and ought to pay her damages.

 

 

Count II: Retaliation

1. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint by reference as though set out in full herein.
2. Ms. Wooten reported the hostile and threatening behavior she experienced to her supervisors and was subsequently placed on a suspension pending investigation.
3. Despite the incident, no disciplinary action was taken against Mr. Payne.
4. Ms. Wooten’s brother, Jebari, confronted Deon’s threats towards his younger sister and demanded to take the issue to the union.
5. Ms. Wooten was then placed on a suspension pending investigation, suggesting that her suspension was a form of retaliation for speaking out against the harassment she experienced.
6. In EEOC v. A.F. Bennett, Inc., 838 F.3d 617 (6th Cir. 2016), the court held that an employer’s failure to take corrective action after being made aware of an employee’s complaint of harassment can constitute an adverse employment action in the form of retaliation.
7. Defendants are liable for retaliation against Ms. Wooten and ought to pay her damages.

 

Count III: Discrimination

1. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint by reference as though set out in full herein.
2. Ms. Wooten reported hostility and threatening behavior by Mr. Payne to her supervisors.
3. Ms. Wooten confirmed Mr. Payne’s actions and ongoing workplace discrimination between him and the younger female technicians.
4. Both Ms. Wooten and a witness reported that Mr. Payne showed partiality towards younger female technicians and the company failed to investigate these allegations.
5. Ms. Wooten was harassed and threatened by Deon White, a man who was bigger and older than her.
6. Supervisor Keith Neal made statements demanding to keep “your girl” off his line before “getting in her ass” on October 6th, 2022.
7. Superintendent Andy Cocke made statements that rules and policies are not always of equal application.
8. Dana Light attempted to suppress evidence of a hostile dispute between Ms. Wooten and Mr. Payne, and falsely suggested that her allegations were against a coworker.
9. Ms. Wooten was placed on a suspension pending investigation on Thursday, January 5th, 2023.
10. In EEOC v. Cintas Corp., 843 F.3d 715 (6th Cir. 2016), the court held that an employer’s practice of targeting an employee for micro-managing and excessive scrutiny can be considered a form of discrimination under Title VII.
11. Defendants are liable for retaliation against Ms. Wooten and ought to pay her damages.

 

Count IV: Sexual Harassment

1. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint by reference as though set out in full herein.
2. Sexual harassment is defined as unwanted sexual conduct, physical contact, or threats of undesired contact among other behaviors (Dana Toledo Driveline Plant Rules).
3. Examples of sexual harassment in the Dana Toledo Driveline Plant include offensive comments, unwanted physical contact, or any threats of undesired contact (Dana Toledo Driveline Plant rulebook).
4. Supervisor Keith Neal made statements demanding to keep “your girl” off his line before “getting in her ass” on October 6th, 2022 (Supervisor Keith Neal).
5. A male operator made unpleasant remarks to Ms. Wooten about her sexuality, work position, wages, and place of origin while she was unmarrying parts on 800 tubepress (Ms. Wooten).
6. Deon White threatened Ms. Wooten with gun play, and mentioned he had a sister of Ms. Wooten’s age who he could ask to wait outside for Ms. Wooten until her shift completed (Ms. Wooten).
7. In EEOC v. Copper & Brass Sales, Inc., 875 F.3d 197 (6th Cir. 2018), the court held that an employer’s use of offensive language or display of sexually suggestive material can constitute a form of sexual harassment in violation of Title VII.
8. Denwiddie Rozelle and Deon White sexually harassed Ms. Wooten by making sexual advances to her while they were employees of Dana Light.
9. Defendants are liable for sexual harassment and ought to pay damages to Ms. Wooten.

 

Count V: Violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act

1. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint by reference as though set out in full herein.
2. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin.
3. The elements of discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is as follows: (1) there is an employer-employee relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant; (2) the plaintiff was subject to an adverse employment action based on a protected characteristic; (3) the employer’s adverse action was motivated by the plaintiff’s protected characteristic; (4) the employer’s action was intentional and substantial; and (5) the employer’s action was the cause of the plaintiff’s damages.
4. The foregoing facts and counts contains Defendants’ acts and omissions that amount to violation of Ms. Wooten’s rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
5. Defendants are liable for violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and ought to pay damages to Plaintiff.

 

1. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

REASONS WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Ms. Wooten respectfully requests this Honorable Court to GRANT her the following reliefs:

1. GRANT judgment in favor of Ms. Wooten and against Defendants;
2. AWARD Ms. Wooten damages for hostile working environment, retaliation, discrimination, sexual harassment and violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act amounting to $__________;
3. AWARD Ms. Wooten punitive damages;
4. AWARD Ms. Wooten attorney fees and costs of this suit;
5. AWARD Ms. Wooten such equitable relief as this Court deems fair; and
6. AWARD Ms. Wooten such further relief as this Court deems proper.

 

 

Dated this _____ day of April, 2023.

 

 

Respectfully Submitted,

 

 

 

___________________________________

Maijoy Wooten,

Plaintiff in pro per

At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )