Case 4:20-cv-00108-HLM-WEJ Document 1 Filed 05/13/20 Page 1 of 12

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ROME DIVISION

ERIC LEWIS, )
)
Plaintiff, ) CIVIL ACTION NO. _______
) 4:20-cv-108-HLM-WEJ
v. )
)
LAKE WINNEPESAUKAH )
AMUSEMENTS, INC., LAKE )
WINNEPESAUKAH, INC., ADRIENNE )
RHODES, TENNYSON DICKINSON, )
AND MYERS DICKINSON ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
)
Defendants. )

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Eric Lewis (“Mr. Lewis” or “Plaintiff”) sets forth this Complaint for

Damages against Corporate Defendants (1) Lake Winnepesaukah Amusements, Inc.

(“Lake Winne Amusements”), and (2) Lake Winnepesaukah, Inc. (“Lake Winne”

collectively “Corporate Employers”), as well as individual defendants (3) Adrienne

Rhodes (“Individual Defendant Adrienne”), (4) Tennyson Dickinson (“Individual

Defendant Tennyson”), and (5) Myers Dickinson (“Individual Defendant Myers”)

(collectively “Individual Defendants or “Defendants” when inclusive of the

Corporate Defendants) Plaintiff respectfully shows the Court as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. This action is for illegal race-based discrimination and retaliation

1
 Case 4:20-cv-00108-HLM-WEJ Document 1 Filed 05/13/20 Page 2 of 12

arising under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.

§2000e, et seq. (“Title VII”) and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (“Section 1981”). Plaintiff seeks

declaratory and injunctive relief, back pay, front pay, liquidated damages, a

permanent injunction against future violations, reinstatement or front pay in lieu of

reinstatement, compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees and

costs.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. Plaintiff’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 present federal questions over

which the Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff’s Title VII

claims present federal questions over which the Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1343.

3. Venue is proper pursuant to, inter alia, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) and 42

U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3) because the unlawful employment practices alleged below

were committed within the geographic boundaries of the Northern District of the

United States District Court, Atlanta Division, and within the state of Georgia.

4. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants as they are located

within the geographic boundaries of this Court, and/or conduct business within the

geographic boundaries of this Court.

PARTIES

5. Plaintiff is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of

2
 Case 4:20-cv-00108-HLM-WEJ Document 1 Filed 05/13/20 Page 3 of 12

Georgia. Plaintiff was an employee of Defendants at all times material to this

Complaint, concluding with his unlawful termination. Plaintiff submits himself to

the jurisdiction of this Court.

6. Plaintiff is an African American and a member of a protected class

under Title VII and Section 1981.

7. Defendant Lake Winnie Amusement is a domestic for-profit

corporation registered to conduct business and transacting business in the state of

Georgia.

8. Defendant Lake Winnie Amusement may be served with process

through its registered agent for service of process, Talley R. Green, 1405 Cinderella

Road, Lookout Mountain, GA, 30750, USA, if formal service of process is not

waived.

9. Defendant Lake Winnie is a domestic for-profit corporation registered

to conduct business and transacting business in the state of Georgia.

10. Defendant Lake Winnie may be served with process through its

registered agent for service of process, Talley R. Green, 1405 Cinderella Road,

Lookout Mountain, GA, 30750, USA, if formal service of process is not waived.

11. Each Corporate Defendant employed fifteen or more employees for

each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks throughout 2018 and

2019.

3
 Case 4:20-cv-00108-HLM-WEJ Document 1 Filed 05/13/20 Page 4 of 12

12. Corporate Defendants are subject to the anti-discrimination provisions

of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and Section 1981.

13. Each Corporate Defendant shared control of Plaintiff’s employment.

Specifically, both Corporate Defendant had the power to fire, direct Plaintiff, etc.

making them joint employers of Plaintiff.

14. Individual Defendant Adrienne may be served with process at

Corporate Defendants location or at her home, if formal service of process is not

waived.

15. Individual Defendant Tennyson may be served with process at

Corporate Defendants location or at her home, if formal service of process is not

waived.

16. Individual Defendant Myers may be served with process at Corporate

Defendants location or at his home, if formal service of process is not waived.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS

17. Plaintiff timely filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), attached hereto and incorporated

herein as Exhibit A.

18. On February 14, 2020 the EEOC issued Plaintiff his notice of right to

sue, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B.

19. Plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies prerequisite to filing

4
 Case 4:20-cv-00108-HLM-WEJ Document 1 Filed 05/13/20 Page 5 of 12

suit pursuant to Title VII.

20. This action has been filed with 90 days of the EEOC’s right to sue letter

being received by Plaintiff.

FACTS

21. Mr. Lewis began employment with Corporate Defendants as a Human

Resources Manager on or around January 9, 2019.

22. Plaintiff immediately began to have near daily issues regarding race

discrimination including but not limited to employee use of the N-word, employees

being treated less favorably when they are African American, employees being paid

less when they are African American, employees being stereotyped and assigned

roles based on race.

23. For example, Plaintiff shows the following: Plaintiff agreed upon an

initial salary of $45,000 a year.

24. Plaintiff was told that his salary would be increased to $50,000 a year

within 90 days of employment.

25. As an HR manager Plaintiff had access to salaries of other Corporate

Defendant employees. Plaintiff soon discovered that other similar level Caucasian

employees were paid substantially more than Plaintiff.

26. Dale, a Caucasian food services manager refused to take direction from

Plaintiff due to Plaintiff’s race.

5
 Case 4:20-cv-00108-HLM-WEJ Document 1 Filed 05/13/20 Page 6 of 12

27. Dale told Plaintiff, “…[Y]ou can’t tell me what to do. I will get your

black ass gone.” Plaintiff responded, “[W]hat did it matter that he was black? Dale

scoffed at Plaintiff making it clear that race was the issue.

28. Plaintiff reported this incident to the board of directors of the Corporate

Defendants, but no action was taken.

29. A Caucasian ride operator named Jade “Jay” Muir kept using the word

“Nigger” to describe African American employees.

30. Upon hearing this, Plaintiff confronted Jay and told him that the use of

the N-word was offensive. Plaintiff reported Jay’s use of the N-word to the

Corporate Defendants and recommended that Jay be terminated.

31. Despite Plaintiff’s recommendation Jay was not terminated.

32. Plaintiff met with individual Defendant Adrienne, CEO of both

Corporate Defendants.

33. Individual Defendant Adrienne directed Plaintiff to hire three night

security guards to protect the park after it closed until it opened in the morning.

Adrienne directed that two of the three night security guards needed to be “black

security guards” so they could deal with “their people” (African American thieves

in the night).

34. Plaintiff asked Defendant Adrienne to clarify what she meant, and she

bluntly said, we need two black security guards to deal with unruly black guest and

6
 Case 4:20-cv-00108-HLM-WEJ Document 1 Filed 05/13/20 Page 7 of 12

one white guard to watch the two blacks.

35. Plaintiff asked, “[W]hat if I hire more than two African American night

security guards? Defendant Adrienne responded, “No, we just want two”. Adrienne

added, “We don’t want stuff walking out of her park. (Implying that African

American security guards would be more likely to steal).

36. Plaintiff hired two African American security guards for night security.

Adrienne was upset until Plaintiff made sure that the third night security guard hired

for Corporate Defendants was Caucasian. This made Adrienne happy.

37. Individual Defendant Myers Dickinson’s mother Individual Defendant

Tennyson was on the board of the Corporate Defendants. Myers was a ride operator.

He kept telling employees that, Plaintiff was his “Nigger”.

38. When Plaintiff heard this comment he tried to fire Myers’ son.

39. However, Individual Defendant Tennison overruled the termination

and instead gave Individual Defendant Myers a final warning.

40. Lastly, on May 18, 2019 an African American employee stole $100

from a guest.

41. Plaintiff conducted the investigation and substantiated the allegations

of theft.

42. Plaintiff reviewed past practices of the Corporate Defendants and he

saw that in the past when white employees had been caught stealing, they were fired

7
 Case 4:20-cv-00108-HLM-WEJ Document 1 Filed 05/13/20 Page 8 of 12

but the police were not contacted.

43. Therefore, Plaintiff recommended that the African American Employee

be treated like past cases.

44. However, Individual Defendant Adrienne demanded that in addition to

termination that the police be called, and that the police bring criminal charges

against the African American employee.

45. When the police were called Adrienne told the police that she wanted

to make an example out of him so that “others” don’t steal.

46. As a result, the police were called and the African American Employee

was paraded out of the park in handcuffs.

47. After this incident, Plaintiff told Adrienne that he found her racist

behavior to be despicable and that he could not work for the Corporate Defendants

anymore unless race neutral employment practices were put in place immediately.

48. Corporate Defendants refused to meet with Defendants about his

complaints of race discrimination and told Plaintiff that his resignation was accepted

effective immediately.

COUNTS I AND II
DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF
TITLE VII AND SECTION 1981

49. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth

in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

8
 Case 4:20-cv-00108-HLM-WEJ Document 1 Filed 05/13/20 Page 9 of 12

50. Plaintiff is a member of a protected class (African American).

51. Plaintiff was employed by Corporate Defendants at all times material

to this Complaint, Plaintiff and Defendants were parties to an employment

agreement under which Plaintiff provided services to Defendants and Defendants

were required, among other things, compensate him for his services.

52. Plaintiff was qualified for the position he held and he performed his

obligations.

53. Plaintiff was subjected to race discrimination based on the color of his

skin and was subjected to disparate treatment by Defendants in the terms and

conditions of his employment as described above.

54. This disparate treatment was because of Plaintiff’s race and in violation

of Title VII and Section 1981.

55. Defendants willfully and wantonly disregarded Plaintiff’s rights and

Defendants’ discrimination against Plaintiff was undertaken in bad faith.

56. Defendants failed to take prompt and appropriate remedial measures to

stop or cure the aforementioned discrimination.

57. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful

discriminatory actions, Plaintiff has suffered lost wages and other benefits of

employment, significantly diminished employment opportunities, inconvenience,

loss of income, and emotional distress, including but not limited to outrage, shock,

9
 Case 4:20-cv-00108-HLM-WEJ Document 1 Filed 05/13/20 Page 10 of 12

and humiliation.

COUNTS III AND IV

RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF
TITLE VII AND SECTION 1981

58. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every allegation set forth

in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

59. Plaintiff engaged in activities protected under Title VII and Section

1981 by making multiple complaints of race-based discrimination.

60. After Plaintiff’s complaints of Defendants’ conduct prohibited by Title

VII and Section 1981, Plaintiff suffered adverse employment actions including, but

not limited to, termination.

61. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful

discriminatory and retaliatory actions, Plaintiff has suffered lost wages and other

benefits of employment, significantly diminished employment opportunities,

inconvenience, loss of income, and emotional distress, including but not limited to

outrage, shock, and humiliation.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands a trial by jury and for the following relief:

(a) That Summons issue;

(b) That Defendants be served with the Summons and Complaint;

(c) Full back pay from the date of Plaintiff’s termination, taking into account all

raises to which Plaintiff would have been entitled but for his unlawful

10
 Case 4:20-cv-00108-HLM-WEJ Document 1 Filed 05/13/20 Page 11 of 12

termination, and all fringe and pension benefits of employment, with

prejudgment interest thereon;

(d) Reinstatement to Plaintiff’s former position with Defendants, or in the

alternative, front pay to compensate Plaintiff for lost future wages, benefits,

and/or pensions;

(e) Compensatory damages, in an amount to be determined by the enlightened

conscience of the jury, for Plaintiff’s emotional distress, suffering,

inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life and special damages;

(f) Punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the enlightened conscious

of the jury to be sufficient to punish Defendants for their conduct toward

Plaintiff and deter Defendants from similar conduct in the future;

(g) Reasonable attorney’s fees and costs;

(h) Judgment against Defendants for damages incurred by Plaintiff;

(i) Judgment against Defendants in such an amount as will fully and adequately

compensate Plaintiff; and

(j) Other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Respectfully submitted, this 13th day of May, 2020.

/s/ J. Stephen Mixon

J. Stephen Mixon
Georgia Bar No. 514050
steve@mixon-law.com

11
 Case 4:20-cv-00108-HLM-WEJ Document 1 Filed 05/13/20 Page 12 of 12

Attorneys for Plaintiff

THE MIXON LAW FIRM

1691 Phoenix Boulevard, Suite 150
Atlanta, Georgia 30349
Telephone: (770) 955-0100
Facsimile: (678) 999-5039

12