X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 98cv6149 EDMONDSON vs. OLD DOMINION FREIGHT LINE, INC. Complaint Plaintiff sues Defendant and alleges: JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This is an action for damages and injunctive relief for Federal civil rights violations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as amended)(42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.); the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, (Section 760 01 et. seq., Florida Statutes)(1995); and pendent claims arising under state law. Therefore, jurisdiction in this court is proper under 28 U.S.C. � 1331 and 28 U.S.C. � 1367. 2. Venue is proper in the Southern District of Florida under Title 28 U.S.C. � 1391(b) since each cause of action arises in the Southern District of Florida. 3. Plaintiff has performed all conditions precedent to the filing of this action, including the timely filing of a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Charge No. 15A-96-0282 and the filing of this action within 90 days of the issuance and receipt of the Notice of Right to Sue. THE PARTIES 4. The Plaintiff, Jimmy Lee Edmondson, a male, was at all material times hereto an employee of defendant from June 1987 until February 1996 when he was discharged from his position as City Sales Manager at the Hollywood terminal a/k/a the Miami terminal (hereinafter referred to as the “terminal”) in Hollywood, Florida. 5. The Defendant, Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as Old Dominion) is a North Carolina corporation authorized and licensed to do business in Florida. BACKGROUND SUMMARY 6. Jimmy Edmondson is the victim of continuing discriminatory and retaliatory employment practices by Old Dominion because of his opposition to unlawful discrimination and harassment by Old Dominion employees and/or agents. 7. Edmondson was a long-term at will employee of the defendant, beginning his employment in June 1987. Edmondson was a career employee, who had recently been promoted to the position of City Sales Manager prior to his termination. 8. In late November or early December 1995 Jerry Roellig was hired as the terminal manager. At all times material herein, Roellig was an employee of the defendant with the authority to hire, promote, command, and terminate individuals employed at that terminal. 9. At all material times hereto, Roellig was the top managerial person at the terminal and at all times material hereto, acted within the scope of his employment with the defendant in perpetrating the discrimination and retaliation and/or was aided in accomplishing the discrimination and retaliation by the existence of the agency relationship with the defendant. 10. On or about late December 1995 or early January 1996 a female clerical employee came to Edmondson and informed him that the terminal manager, Jerry Roellig was sexually harassing another female clerical employee, Dianne Maturah. 11. Acting upon this confidential information, Edmondson started an investigation, which included, but was not limited to talking to Maturah, listening and watching Roellig around Maturah and confirming the allegations by other clerical employees. 12. During his investigation, Plaintiff observed that Maturah was subjected to constant and repeated verbal sexual harassment from management. The verbal harassment included, but was not limited to, the following comments: spend a weekend in the Keys with me; you would look good in nothing but leather; and I’d like to see you in a bubble bath. 13. During his investigation, Plaintiff observed that Maturah was also subjected to constant and repeated physical sexual harassment from management. The physical harassment included, but was not limited to, the following: being blocked in a doorway so Maturah could not pass through, and, having hands placed upon Maturah’s upper arms. 14. During his investigation. Plaintiff learned and observed Roellig make derogatory comments concerning minority employees at the terminal. 15. Two to three weeks after first being informed about Roellig’s behavior towards Maturah, plaintiff was in a sales meeting with other sales personnel and the terminal manager when the terminal manager referred to women he had worked with in the past as “cunts”. 16. In the beginning of February 1996, Plaintiff reported the sexual harassment complaints and his findings to his regional manager. 17. After reporting the sexual harassment complaints and the investigation to the regional manager, Plaintiff immediately began experiencing retaliation from the terminal manager, which included, but was not limited to his termination. COUNT I VIOLATIONS OF TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 (AS AMENDED) Plaintiff Jimmy Edmondson re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 17. 18. This count seeks relief against defendant Old Dominion under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq. and 42 U.S.C. � 1981 a, for intentional violations of 42 U.S.C. � 2000e-2(a)(discrimination) and � 2000e-3(a)(retaliation). 19. The Defendant is an employer within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. � 2000e. 20. In violation of 42 U.S.C. � 2000e-3(a), Old Dominion discriminated against Edmondson because of his opposition to the discriminatory employment practices under 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq. by the following actions which include, but are not limited to: a. Refusing to investigate the sexual harassment charges against Roellig in a timely manner; b. Retaliating against the Plaintiff by verbal, and emotional harassment; c. Terminating the Plaintiff; and d. Upon information and belief, interfering with Plaintiff’s attempts to secure new employment. 21. Plaintiff filed his charge with the EEOC on or about April 17, 1996. 22. Plaintiff has received his right-to-sue letter from the EEOC. 23. This action has been commenced within 90 days of the receipt of the right to sue letter. 24. The retaliation was a motivating factor for the personnel actions taken against the Plaintiff. 25. As a direct result of the discrimination and retaliation described above, the Plaintiff has suffered past and future damages including: a. Loss of income and loss of earning capacity; b. Loss of reputation; and c. Mental anguish, physical pain, emotional distress, humiliation, embarrassment, and loss of the ability to enjoy life. 26. The Defendant has employed 500 or more employees in each of the 20 or more calendar weeks in the current or proceeding year. 27. Plaintiff has been obligated to retain an attorney, and to become obligated for the payment of reasonable fees and costs in this matter. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Jimmy Edmondson demands judgment against the Defendant Old Dominion, freight Line, Inc. for a. A permanent injunction (1) enjoining the Defendant from engaging in the unlawful employment practices described in this count (2) awarding the Plaintiff full back pay, benefits, and interest; and (3) reinstating the Plaintiff with all accrued benefits; b. Compensatory and punitive damages; c. Reasonable attorneys fees and costs, including, but not limited to expert witness fees; and d. Such additional or alternative relief as the Court may deem just and proper. COUNT II VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1992 Plaintiff Jimmy Edmondson sues Defendant Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc. pursuant to Florida Statutes, Section 768.01 et seq. (known as Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992), and alleges: 28. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 17, 20 through 27. 29. All conditions precedent to the filing of this action have been fulfilled. 30. Defendant is an employer as defined by F.S.A. � 760.02(7). 31. On or around late December until February 1996, Roellig, while supervising employees at the terminal, made unwanted, unsolicited verbal and physical sexual advancements toward female employees while they were working and unwanted discriminatory comments concerning minority employees. 32. Plaintiff, informed of Roellig’s behavior due to his involvement and investigation in a previous sexual harassment matter, began his own investigation and informed upper management from North Carolina about the complaints and his findings. 33. Roellig’s discriminatory sexual advances towards female employees, his discriminatory behavior towards minorities and his retaliatory practices created an abusive and dangerous work environment, negatively affecting the psychological and physical well being of Plaintiff. 34. Defendant knew or should have known of the discriminatory and retaliatory behavior. 35 Defendant, Old Dominion failed to take prompt or adequate remedial action in response to actual or constructive notice of the a. Discriminatory sexual advances upon the female employees; b. Discriminatory behavior towards minority employees; c. Retaliatory practices which include, but were not limited to, the termination of the plaintiff. 36. Old Dominion acted through its employee, Roellig when it permitted the discriminatory sexual advances, the discriminatory behavior towards minorities and retaliation to exist. 37. A motivating factor for the defendant’s discriminatory and retaliatory employment actions taken against the Edmondson was his protected activity of reporting the discrimination and conducting an investigation into Roellig’s actions. 38. The defendant’s actions towards the plaintiff as described above were in violation of F.S.A. � 760.10(7). 39. The actions by the Defendant described above were undertaken with reckless disregard, for the civil rights of the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages. 40. Plaintiff has been obliged to retain an attorney, and to become obligated for the payment of reasonable fees and costs in this matter. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jimmy Edmondson demands judgment against Defendant Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc. for a. A permanent injunction (1) enjoining the Defendant from engaging in the unlawful employment practices described in this count and (2) awarding the Plaintiff full back pay, benefits, and interest; and (3) reinstating the plaintiff with all accrued benefits and seniority rights; b. Compensatory and punitive damages; c. Reasonable attorneys fees and costs, including, but not limited to expert witness fees; and d. Such additional or alternative relief as the Court may deem just and proper. DEMAND FOR TRIAL Plaintiff demands trial by jury on all issues of fact raised in this cause. Respectfully submitted this 10th day of February 1998. � 2001 Juritas.com. All Rights Reserved

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.