Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
v.
Defendants.
NOW COMES the Plaintiff, Miriah Walker, by and through her attorneys, MARKO
LAW, PLC, and for her Complaint against the above-named Defendants, states as follows:
Page 1 of 8
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2. At all times relevant, Plaintiff worked for Defendant Henry Ford Health System at
business in the State of Michigan and does in fact regularly and systematically conduct business
Caucasian female residing in the County of Wayne, State of Michigan, and works for HFHS as a
5. The transactions and occurrences giving rise to this action took place in the
requirement.
FACTS
8. Plaintiff was hired to work for Defendant HFHS in its Contact Center and began
9. On December 19, 2017, Plaintiff began classroom training, which was taught by
Defendant Leonowicz.
Page 2 of 8
10. Defendant Leonowicz explained her purpose as a trainer and informed the other
ten trainees, all African-American females, that she would be conducting their performance
evaluations.
classroom instruction, Defendant Leonowicz presented a picture depicting the Henry Ford
Commerce Building, and, while laughing, stated, “Doesn’t this look like an old southern slave
plantation?”
12. During the week of December 26, 2017, Plaintiff reported the December 20,
2017, slave plantation comment to her supervisor, explaining how uncomfortable Defendant
14. After Plaintiff made this complaint to her supervisor, Defendant Leonowicz began
15. On January 18, 2018, Plaintiff met with Defendant Leonowicz for her
performance evaluation and received a poor evaluation without any true or reasonable
explanation as to why.
16. Defendant Leonowicz stated that Plaintiff’s poor evaluation was due to her
“nonverbal body language” – despite the fact that Plaintiff worked in a call center sitting behind
a desk.
17. That same day, after receiving her evaluation, Plaintiff met with her supervisor
Page 3 of 8
18. Plaintiff’s supervisor told Plaintiff that she had to work with Defendant
Leonowicz “no matter what” and failed to address any of Plaintiff’s concerns.
19. The next day, January 19, 2018, Plaintiff was called in to meet with her
supervisor and her supervisor’s manager and was told Plaintiff could either resign or be
21. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was an “employee” and Defendant was an
“employer” within the meaning of Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (“ELCRA”), MCL
37.2101, et seq.
22. At all relevant times, under the ELCRA, Plaintiff had a right to employment free
23. Plaintiff’s act of filing a complaint with her supervisor regarding Defendant
24. Defendants had knowledge that Plaintiff filed a complaint regarding Defendant
Leonowicz’ conduct.
25. Defendants terminated Plaintiff as a result of her filing said complaint, which was
Page 4 of 8
27. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff has suffered and
continues to suffer damages and injuries, including but not limited to:
a. Stress;
b. Humiliation;
c. Non-economic damages;
d. Economic damages;
e. Emotional damages;
29. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was an “employee” and Defendant was an
“employer” within the meaning of Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (“ELCRA”), MCL
37.2101, et seq.
30. At all relevant times, under the ELCRA, Plaintiff had a right to employment free
31. Defendant, through its agents, representatives, and employees, was predisposed to
discrimination on the basis of race and acted in accordance with that predisposition.
32. Defendant, through its agents, representatives, and employees, treated Plaintiff
differently from similarly situated Caucasian employees in the terms and conditions of
Page 5 of 8
33. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful actions, Plaintiff has
35. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was an “employee” and Defendant was an
“employer” within the meaning of Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (“ELCRA”), MCL
37.2101, et seq.
36. Plaintiff was subjected to unwelcome verbal conduct and treatment due to her
race.
37. Plaintiff complained about the unwelcome verbal conduct, stating that it was
38. The Defendant violated Plaintiff’s rights under the ELCRA by allowing the
interfering with Plaintiff’s work performance, and thus creating an intimidating and hostile work
environment.
39. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant’s unlawful actions, Plaintiff has
Respectfully submitted,
Page 6 of 8
Detroit, Michigan 48226
Phone: (313) 965-5555
Fax: (313) 965-5556
jon@ernstmarkolaw.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on August 17, 2018, I presented the foregoing paper to this
Court’s ECF System which will send notification of such filing to the above
listed attorneys of record.
Page 7 of 8
JURY REQUEST
Plaintiff, by and through counsel, hereby request a trial by jury in the above-captioned
matter.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated:
Page 8 of 8