UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARCUS WILLIS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
WESTERN POWER SPORTS,
Defendant
CASE NO.:
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
SUMMONS
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the
complaint of the Plaintiff herein and to serve a copy of your answer on the Plaintiff at the
address indicated below within _______days after service is complete. Should you fail to
answer, a judgment will be entered against you by default for the relief demanded in the
complaint.
Dated: _________, 2022
PLAINTIFF: Marcus Willis
348 Cascade Dr., Red Oak, TX 75154.
DEFENDANT: Western Power Sports,
HQ: 601 E. Gowen Road, Boise, ID 83716
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARCUS WILLIS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
WESTERN POWER SPORTS,
Defendant
CASE NO.:
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
COMPLAINT
1. Plaintiff MARCUS WILLIS, (“the Plaintiff”), files this Complaint, against
WESTERN POWER SPORTS (“defendant”), and alleges the following:
NATURE OF ACTION
2. This is a 42 U.S.C. §1981 claim. Plaintiff claims intentional racial
discrimination, retaliation, hostile work environment, whistleblowing and for future medical
expenses, against the Defendants. Plaintiff was subjected to the aforesaid by the Defendants
and was eventually unlawfully terminated.
THE PARTIES
3. The Plaintiff is an individual, a resident of the State of Texas and resides at
348 Cascade Dr., Red Oak, TX 75154.
4. The Defendant WESTERN POWER SPORTS, INC. is a limited liability
company in the business of distribution of aftermarket power sports products. The company
is headquartered at 601 E. Gowen Road, Boise, ID 83716.
JURISDICTION
5. Jurisdiction is proper, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question), 28
U.S.C. § 1343 (civil rights), and U.S. Code § 1332 (diversity of citizenship).
6. The acts or omissions made the basis of this suit occurred in the State of
Texas and in this judicial district, so venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
7. No administrative exhaustion or other conditions precedent are required prior
to the filing of claims under 42 U.S.C. §1981.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
8. Plaintiff, who is black American, was hired by Diversified Solutions Temp
Agency (hereinafter “Agency”). On or around July 5, 2020, Plaintiff was sent on an
assignment at Defendant’s center in Texas. Plaintiff’s manager was Scott Barron
(hereinafter referred to as “Scott”). He assigned Lynette, his assistant, as the person
of contact in regard to attendance.
9. Plaintiff would report to Lynette in the event he would be late or would not be
able to make it to work. However, when Plaintiff called Lynette to inform her that he would
be late for work, the Agency informed him that Scott Scott had reported Plaintiff as a no call,
no show. This was confirmed by Lynette who stated that she herself reported to Scott in the
event she was late for work or would not make it to work.
10. Plaintiff kept a 10-hours shift. In the course of his work, co-workers would
come and tell Plaintiff that Scott talked to them about him. For instance, Plaintiff was
approached by Sharon Jefferson (hereinafter referred to as “Sharon”), one of his female
colleagues who told him that Scott had warned them against talking to him. Scott had never
approached Plaintiff regarding the issue. At the same time, Plaintiff had never had any issues
or strained relations with Scott.
11. Plaintiff recalls one incidence where Scott made a fool out of him in the
presence of around four co-workers when Plaintiff stated he could not find a machine part.
Plaintiff had not been trained on how to retrieve the parts. The ridicule that followed the
incidence therefore left Plaintiff embarrassed.
12. Another incidence happened on or about August 18, 2020, when Scott accused
Plaintiff of mislabeling a part. Plaintiff stated that the error might be caused by another
department but Scott raised his voice and kept insisting that Plaintiff was responsible.
Besides, there was no proof that Plaintiff was responsible for the mislabeling. Scott went
further to warn Plaintiff that in the event it happens again, his employment would be
terminated. He then told Plaintiff to go home. (Exhibit 1- Time Sheet).
13. After the incidence, Plaintiff went to inform the supervisor, Kentrell Pless
(hereinafter referred to as “Kenny”), who was also Scott’s Boss, of the goings-on. He told
Plaintiff to wait in the break room. While waiting, Kenny’s assistant, Maria Martinez
(hereinafter referred to as “Maria”), met Plaintiff at the break room and insisted that
Plaintiff must leave even after Plaintiff explaining to her that he was waiting for Kenny.
Eventually, Plaintiff had to leave when Kenny never appeared. (Exhibit 2- Text exchanges
between Plaintiff and Kenny).
14. As Plaintiff went to clock out, he noticed that Maria had entered Plaintiff’s
time out at 3pm, which was the time when the aforesaid incident happened. This shows that
Kenny had already informed Maria that Plaintiff should leave the workplace.
15. When Plaintiff returned the next day on August 19, 2020, Plaintiff sought an
explanation from Kenny why Plaintiff was sent home the previous day. Interestingly, Kenny
stated that he did not know and that he would have a talk with Plaintiff to have everything
squared. Kenny further intimated to Plaintiff that nobody at the work place liked Scott,
including himself as his boss. At this point, Plaintiff told Kenny that it was time Kenny was
reported to corporate for his conduct.
16. Shortly thereafter, Kenny, and Plaintiff met Scott to talk about the said
concerns. Scott stated that he had no issue with Plaintiff and that he sent Plaintiff home
because Plaintiff refused to accept responsibility for the mislabeling. Scott then informed
Plaintiff that his pay would be decreased as a result of the incident. Plaintiff’s pay was $16 so
it would be reduced to $14. Earlier on, Plaintiff knew that his pay was confidential, and he
was instructed to keep it that way. Therefore, Plaintiff sought to address the Agency
regarding the matter since an agreement had been entered to that effect.
17. The following day, Paola Orozco (hereinafter referred to as “Paola”), the
recruiting manager at the agency, informed Plaintiff that Scott had terminated his
employment on the grounds of failure to follow instructions. Allegedly, Scott had terminated
the employment of seven employees and Plaintiff was one of them. Paola informed Plaintiff
that the agency would find him a new job albeit a lower paying one.
18. Kenny informed Plaintiff that Scott intimated to him that he sacked Plaintiff
because Plaintiff allegedly failed to work in the dock or truck he labeled, which allegation
was utterly false.
19. On or about August 20, 2020, having no other avenue to seek redress, Plaintiff
called Defendant’s corporate office and spoke with Darnell Martin (hereinafter
“Darnell), the human resources specialist. Plaintiff explained how Scott was
discriminatory towards blacks and favored Spanish employees. Darnell noted that previously,
a call was made with the same allegations against Scott, where Scott publicly ridiculed a
black temporary employee because she was unable to push the pallet jack. The temporary
employee and her husband, who was an employee, quit.
20. After that, Plaintiff called the Texas Work Commission to file for
unemployment since it was in the middle of a pandemic and he needed income to provide for
his family. Kenny then called Plaintiff and informed him to come back to work and see him.
Accordingly, Plaintiff met Kenny on or about August 24, 2020. Kenny expressed his concern
why Scott sacked Plaintiff yet he had said that there was no issue against Plaintiff. Kenny
noted that Scott’s action was retaliatory. Plaintiff was employed again but on a different area
than before.
21. Initially, everything went well in Plaintiff’s new area of employment. Plaintiff
was getting over time and was getting more skills and experience. However, it did not take
long before Plaintiff began facing issues again. The Spanish co-workers in the new area of
employment were Scott’s friends and Scott kept going there severally.
22. On the second incidence, Kenny wanted Plaintiff to work the nightshift with
the supervisor named Kentrell Joyner (hereinafter referred to as “Kentrell”). That day’s entry
in the time sheet was 12:00 am. However, on the following day, when Plaintiff checked the
time sheet, he noticed that his entry for the previous day was changed.
23. Plaintiff noticed Kenneth and Kentrell looking in his direction while engaging
in a conversation. Shortly after, Kentrell approached Plaintiff and said that he was fired on
the allegation that Plaintiff messed a box up. However, Plaintiff did not pack any boxes on
his shift. He only scanned because Kenny had trained him how to scan. Kentrell then came
back and told Plaintiff to walk to the front because Plaintiff allegedly said something to him
about the overtime. At this point, Plaintiff threatened to call corporate just like Plaintiff did
on the Scott’s case. Plaintiff only did the overtime because he thought Kentrell needed help.
24. After that, Plaintiff and Kentrell met Kenny at the break room where Plaintiff
explained that he just got fired. Kentrell alleged that Plaintiff had used a curse word on him.
However, this time round, Kenny sided with Kentrell. When Plaintiff reminded Kenny of his
promise that nothing would go wrong at the new work location, Kenny threw his hands up.
25. Plaintiff then told them he would leave but before that, he must inform Danell
from corporate, of the goings-on. Kentrell and Kenny looked at each other worried, but
nobody answered the phone. Plaintiff had resolved to raise his fresh complaints and/or
concerns to corporate.
26. Plaintiff had already reached out to Brenda Cartwright (hereinafter referred
to as “Brenda”), the VP of Texas operations about his time sheets. When the Plaintiff
finally got the time sheets, he realized the paper was being altered. Plaintiff pointed out the
area on the time sheets where someone had used white out. She made Plaintiff give a
statement and told him that she would get a statement from Kenny, Kentrell , Scott and give
Plaintiff copies in text . When Plaintiff asked for them she said she did not have them. So
Plaintiff called Billing and asked to get another copy of time sheets to see if it would be the
same. Plaintiff was told they would send but he never got them. When Plaintiff was in her
office she told him not to go to the Law labor cause it would affect her, and if he wanted to
go after the company go to the EEOC. Plaintiff told her that he would go to both because his
rights were violated and he was entitled to the payment of his money.
27. Plaintiff was awarded partial amounts of the money by department of
labor, but was told no charges could be brought against the company they would just
be fined and Plaintiff got back the money from the pay difference.
28. After his employment was terminated, Plaintiff applied for
unemployment benefits which he received for some time. When he exhausted his
benefits, he tried to find a job to no avail. Plaintiff fell into depression. He reached out
to a mental health provider who racially profiled and violated HIPPA.
CAUSES OF ACTION
COUNT 1
Racial Discrimination
29. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all foregoing paragraphs as though set out in full
herein.
30. Plaintiff is an African-American citizen of the United States and a resident of
the state of Texas. Plaintiff therefore belongs to a protected group.
31. African-Americans at the Defendant’s facility were subjected to a stricter level
of scrutiny than similarly situated Spanish and white co-workers. African-Americans were
repeatedly reprimanded and disciplined for relatively minor mistakes. The same behavior
from similarly situated Spanish and white employees was largely ignored even when
discovered.
32. The Defendant’s conduct as alleged at length herein constitutes discrimination
based on race in violation of Title VII. The stated reasons for the Defendant’s conduct were
not the true reasons, but instead were pretext to hide the Defendant’s discriminatory animus.
Further, Defendant is liable under Title VII for such discrimination because it knew, or
should have known, of the racial discrimination but failed to take prompt and effective
remedial action. Instead, it did just the opposite. It condoned, ratified and otherwise allowed
the racially discriminatory behavior to continue.
COUNT 2
Retaliation
33. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all foregoing paragraphs as though set out in full
herein.
34. As a result of the Plaintiff's good faith complaints and opposition to race
discrimination and racial harassment at the Defendant’s facility, the Defendant’s staff
retaliated against the Plaintiff by subjecting him to stricter scrutiny than his co-workers, to
demeaning and hostile treatment, to wholly unwarranted negative performance feedback, to
being subjected to unwarranted discipline, and, ultimately, his termination.
35. The Defendant’s conduct as alleged above constitutes retaliation against the
Plaintiff because she engaged in activities protected by Title VII. The stated reasons for the
Defendant’s conduct were not the true reasons, but instead were pretext to hide the
Defendant’s retaliatory animus.
COUNT 3
Hostile Work Environment
36. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all foregoing paragraphs as though set out in full
herein.
37. Defendants created an environment which encouraged and fostered a hostile
work environment for Plaintiff due to his race. Such conduct was ongoing, open, and
notorious. Simply put, racial discrimination is deeply embedded in the Defendant’s facility. It
is open, active, and unashamed. The harassment, abuse and discrimination are encouraged by
Defendant’s management refusal to stop the misbehavior.
38. The Defendant’s conduct as alleged above constitutes hostile and abusive
working environment in violation of Title VII. The stated reasons for the Defendant’s
conduct were not the true reasons, but instead were pretext to hide the Defendant’s
discriminatory animus. Further, Defendant is liable under Title VII for such harassment and
discrimination because it knew, or should have known, of the racial harassment and
discrimination but failed to take prompt and effective remedial action. Instead, it did just the
opposite. It condoned, ratified and otherwise allowed the racially harassing and
discriminatory behavior to continue.
PARTICULARS OF INJURY/DAMAGE
39. By reason of the facts and circumstances stated above, Plaintiff has suffered
loss of income, loss of benefits, loss of career opportunity, loss of career investment, and loss
of advancement. Notably, after his employment was terminated, Plaintiff applied for
unemployment benefits which he received for some time. When he exhausted his
benefits, he tried to find a job to no avail. Plaintiff fell into depression. He reached out
to a mental health provider who racially profiled and violated HIPPA.
40. Further, as a consequence of the unlawful and outrageous actions of
Defendants, Plaintiff has suffered humiliation, emotional pain and suffering, inconvenience,
loss of enjoyment of life, irritation and mental anguish. Plaintiff therefore seeks
reinstatement, recovery, compensatory, and equitable (i.e., back pay and front pay) damages,
as well as attorney’s fees, and costs and pre and post judgment interest in the maximum
amounts allowed by law.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
41. Plaintiff demands jury trial of all issues.
PRAYER AND RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff [ENTER NAME], respectfully request that this Court enter
judgment in his favor and as against Defendant as follows:
1. Judgment against the Defendant finding them liable for racial discrimination,
retaliation, hostile working environment, and whistle blowing.
2. Award actual damages, including appropriate amounts of back pay and front pay and
the money lost since Plaintiff lost his employment.
3. Award compensatory for race discrimination, retaliatory discharge, wrongful
termination, and hostile work environment.
4. Award special damages for future medical expenses.
5. Award costs and reasonable attorney
6. Grant any and all appropriate relief, which the Court deems necessary and
appropriate.
DATED: ________________________
Respectfully submitted,
________________________
Marcus Willis
348 Cascade Dr.,
Red Oak, TX 75154.
VERIFICATION
Theophilus Duckett, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
I am the Plaintiff in the above-entitled action. I have read the foregoing complaint and know
the contents thereof. The facts are true to my knowledge, except as to matters therein stated to
be alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe to be true.
_____________________ Signature
___________________ Printed Name
Plaintiff
Sworn to before me this
______ day of ___________[month] ___________[year]
______________________
Notary Public
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that, on this ______ day of __________, 2022, a copy of the
foregoing was to:
Western Power Sports,
601 E. Gowen Road,
Boise, ID 83716
Date_____/____2022
________________________
Marcus Willis
348 Cascade Dr.,
Red Oak, TX 75154.
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 )