Case: 1:18-cv-03111 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/01/18 Page 1 of 14 PageID #:1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

DIONTE LAWRENCE, )
)
Plaintiff, ) No. 18-cv-3111
v. )
) Jury Demanded
)
LITTLE CAESAR ENTERPRISES, INC., )
)
Defendant. )

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, DIONATE LAWRENCE, by counsel, Edward R. Moor of Moor Law Office,

P.C., complaining of LITTLE CAESAR ENTERPRISES, INC., (“Little Caesar”), states as follows

for his Complaint at Law:

1. This is an action for employment discrimination brought to secure relief, legal and

equitable, for discrimination based on race and retaliation, first under 42 U.S.C. §1981, as amended

(“Section 1981”), and secondly, in the alternative, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,

as amended, 42 U.C.S. § 2000e et seq. (“Title VII”), and 42 U.S.C. §1981. The jurisdiction of

this Court is invoked to secure protection of, and to redress deprivation of, rights guaranteed by

federal law, which rights provide for injunctive and compensatory relief for illegal discrimination

in employment.

Jurisdiction and Venue

2. Jurisdiction over this case is conferred on the Court by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f), 28

U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343, and 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

 Case: 1:18-cv-03111 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/01/18 Page 2 of 14 PageID #:2

3. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because Plaintiff

resides in the District and the unlawful employment practices alleged herein were committed in

the District.

4. On or about January 14, 2017, Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination with the

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission under charge number 440-2017-01444 alleging

racial discrimination and retaliation against Little Caesar. The charge sought compensatory and

injunctive relief.

5. The EEOC closed its investigation on February 15, 2018 and gave Plaintiff his right

to sue letter as to Little Caesar. (Ex. A, Right to Sue letter).

6. Plaintiff filed this civil suit within 90 days of his receipt of the notice from the

EEOC of his right to sue.

Parties

7. Plaintiff Dionte Lawrence (“Plaintiff”) currently resides, and at all relevant times

alleged herein resided, in the City of Chicago. Plaintiff is an adult African-American male.

Plaintiff at all relevant times was an “employee” within the meaning of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §

2000(e)(f), having been employed by Defendant between June 27, 2015 and January 11, 2017.

8. Defendant Little Caesar is a foreign corporation authorized to do business in

Illinois, and which does business in this District. It is an “employer” within the meaning of Title

VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b) because at all relevant times it engaged in

activities affecting commerce and employed over 15 people.

General Allegations

9. Plaintiff was first employed at Little Caesar as a crew member in store # 1648

located at 2601 W. Cermak Road in Chicago, Illinois.

2
 
 Case: 1:18-cv-03111 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/01/18 Page 3 of 14 PageID #:3

10. All relevant events occurred at or concerned Defendant’s store # 1648.

11. In summary, Plaintiff was racially harassed on an escalating basis, even after

repeatedly complaining to managers and to Defendant’s Human Resources Department (“H.R.”).

The racial harassment by co-workers, which culminated in a co-worker twice attacking Plaintiff

in view of managers while calling the Plaintiff a “nigger” and threatening to kill him, last resulted

in a broken nose on December 18, 2016. Managers called the Plaintiff a “nigger” and turned a

blind eye to other’s verbal and physical harassment of Plaintiff. Further, in the months between

September 2015 his termination in January 2017 Plaintiff was also subjected to discrimination on

the basis of race and to retaliation when he complained about either the harassment or

discrimination. The harassment, discrimination and retaliation described herein was intentional,

outrageous, put Plaintiff at risk for actual physical harm, and was based solely on his race and/or

his complaints about the harassment and discrimination.

12. The store is located in a predominantly Hispanic neighborhood.

13. Little Caesar sells pizza products to the public for consumption, including at store

# 1648.

14. Plaintiff, at all relevant times, performed his job in a manner that met or exceeded

the expectations of his employer.

15. Within months of being hired, on or about September 27, 2015, Plaintiff asked co-

manager Omar Bautista why he and all the black crew member employees were placed in the back

of the store while the Hispanic employees were placed in the front of the store to interact with

customers and operate the cash registers. Bautista stated that he would talk to store manager Daniel

Castellanos about the concern.

16. Castellanos never discussed the complaint with the Plaintiff.

3
 
 Case: 1:18-cv-03111 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/01/18 Page 4 of 14 PageID #:4

17. A few weeks later, in October 2015, supervisor Kevin Matthews approached the

Plaintiff about work assignments, took a few notes, and as the Plaintiff was explaining his concern

to Matthews that Little Caesar’s was discriminating by relegating all black crew members to the

back of the store, Matthews interrupted Plaintiff and told him “you seem like a good worker but

you are complaining too much about job assignments, just do your job.” Matthews’ statement to

the Plaintiff was witnessed by the store manager Daniel Castellanos.

18. Plaintiff then contacted Defendant’s human resources representative, Erica Bailey.

In November 2015 Erica Bailey met the Plaintiff at the store and took notes on his complaints.

She told him “we don’t mean to be racist, but this is a predominately Hispanic neighborhood.”

19. At the end November 2015 Plaintiff was placed in the front of the store to work the

cash registers.

20. Immediately upon being reassigned, co-workers, including Roberto Gonzales,

started gratuitously harassing Plaintiff by calling him a “negro” and a “slave.”

21. In December 2015 Plaintiff complained to Assistant Managers Stephen Smith and

Rodolfo Novoa about the fact that the dress code was only enforced against black employees. In

relevant part, Hispanic employees were allowed to have their shirts untucked behind their apron,

were given various color company T-shirts as uniforms, including collared shirts, were allowed to

wear watches and jewelry, and were allowed to have facial hair. Black employees, including the

Plaintiff, were required to tuck their shirts in, were only given one orange company T-shirt to wear

as a uniform, were not allowed to wear watches or jewelry and were required to shave or wear

beard guards.

22. The racial harassment by co-workers then escalated. Roberto Gonzales, Jose

Gomez, and Marco Camacho harassed Plaintiff regularly. They told Plaintiff things like “Nigger

4
 
 Case: 1:18-cv-03111 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/01/18 Page 5 of 14 PageID #:5

lives matter”; “you don’t worship Santa Claus, you worship Colonel Sanders”; “Don’t you miss

Africa”; “I hate the texture of your hair – can I touch it?”

23. On January 14, 2016, Plaintiff received his six-month review from store manager

Daniel Castellanos which was favorable.

24. In early February 2016 Plaintiff called Erica Bailey in H.R. to report that the

continued racial harassment and slurs by Roberto Gonzalez, Marco Camacho, Jose Gomez and

that racial discrimination by Assistant Managers Rodolpho Novoa and Stephen Smith on the basis

of the dress code rules was continuing. After H.R. did not answer the phone after two consecutive

days, Plaintiff left a voicemail message describing his complaints. H.R. never called back.

25. On May 22, 2016, Plaintiff’s supervisor, Assistant Manager Stephen Smith, began

harassing Plaintiff when he arrived at work following Plaintiff around the store and telling him

that he was a “different kind of black person” because he “wasn't raised in the "hood,” and that he

didn't care how other employees wore their uniforms but that Plaintiff should tuck in his shirt.

Plaintiff stated that the Hispanic employees were wearing their uniforms the exact same way.

Plaintiff took photographic evidence of dress code discrimination, clocked out, texted Daniel

Castellanos complaining of discrimination and told him that he was going to the E.E.O.C. Plaintiff

also contacted H.R. by phone to put them on notice of the incident and of his intent to go to the

E.E.O.C.

26. On May 23, 2016, H.R.’s Erica Bailey called the Plaintiff back. Plaintiff expressed

his concern about the racial slurs by co-workers, the dress code discrimination by managers, and

the retaliation he was being administered by management for complaining about the racial

harassment and discrimination.

27. On May 26, 2016, Plaintiff contacted the E.E.O.C. to schedule an appointment.

5
 
 Case: 1:18-cv-03111 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/01/18 Page 6 of 14 PageID #:6

28. On May 28, 2016 Stephen Smith harassed the Plaintiff by barring him from buying

store products during the shift while allowing Hispanic co-workers to buy food and drinks the

entire evening.

29. On June 1, 2016, Assistant Managers Stephen Smith and Rodolfo Novoa followed

the Plaintiff around the store and harassed him for reporting them to H.R. and then sent him home.

Plaintiff complained of the event to store manager Daniel Castellanos by text message and told

him that he had a second meeting with the E.E.O.C. scheduled. Plaintiff was given a write up

when he was sent home but the Assistant Store Managers never sent the write up to H.R. The

write up recited issues with Plaintiff’s refusal to wear a beard guard and similar items that were

only enforced against black employees.

30. On June 2, 2016 Plaintiff contacted Erica Bailey and H.R. and Bailey requested that

Plaintiff send her a list of issues. Plaintiff sent Erica Bailey an email that stated as follows:

DISCRIMINATION
-Dress Code policy only applies to Black employees
-Only Hispanic employees are allowed to buy products from the store
-Hispanic employees get raises and promotions before black employees
-Managers only follow and harass black employees around the store
-Managers and senior staff can break federal and state laws with no consequences
-Employees are punished for bringing issues and complaints to managers and the
corporate office
-Incoming black employees gets placed in the back of the store while incoming
Hispanic employees gets placed in the front
RETALIATION
-Retaliated against for reporting harassment and discrimination
- Harassment is a condition of continued employment
-Denied promotion
-Gets hours deducted when reporting harassment and discrimination
-Attempting to transfer me (which is considered retaliation)
-Sent home early or hours deducted when I'm on the shift with my harassers
-Loss of wages
-Punished for reporting retaliation
-Hostile work environment
31. H.R. never responded to Plaintiff’s June 2, 2016 email.

6
 
 Case: 1:18-cv-03111 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/01/18 Page 7 of 14 PageID #:7

32. On June 11, 2016 when Plaintiff reported to work he asked the store manager if the

store would be discriminating against black employees and was told “yes” and that he need not

clock in. Plaintiff left and immediately emailed Erica Bailey in H.R. reporting that he had been

sent home and informing her that he had a meeting with the E.E.O.C. on June 13th.

33. On June 13, 2016, Human Resources Manager Kim McLaughlin called the Plaintiff

and asked him to not pursue his E.E.O.C. charge because she would attempt to “fix” the racism,

discrimination and retaliation in the company. They then met at a Dunkin Donuts near store #1648

and McLaughlin listened to Plaintiff’s complaints, took notes, and asked him to not pursue his

E.E.O.C. charge again stating that she would try to “fix” the problems Plaintiff was complaining

about.

34. On June 18, 2016 co-workers Roberto Gonzales, Jose Gomez, Andric Zavala called

the Plaintiff a “slave” and Roberto Gonzales picked up and shook metal chain links at the Plaintiff

and asked if the looked familiar. Plaintiff complained to Assistant Manager Stephen Smith, and

when Smith did nothing, Plaintiff left work early because he felt unsafe.

35. On June 29, 2016, Plaintiff received a satisfactory periodic performance review.

36. On July 2, 2016 Plaintiff again complained to Assistant Managers Alejandra Ortega

and Stephen Smith about newly hired black employees being placed in the back of the store and

kept from interaction with customers while newly hired Hispanic workers were placed in the front.

37. On September 2, 2016, Plaintiff complained to Daniel Castellanos and Alejandra

Ortega that black employees had to wait a month to be provided new uniforms after requesting

them while Hispanic employees received access to new uniforms weekly.

38. On September 4, 2016, Plaintiff emailed H.R. employee Erica Bailey stating that:

7
 
 Case: 1:18-cv-03111 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/01/18 Page 8 of 14 PageID #:8

"Hello, Erica Bailey I have decided that I may be refiling and renewing my
retaliation case with the EEOC. After months of repeated harassment,
discrimination, and retaliation by the company and the exact same co-workers.
The store coerces its employees to work in stressful, dangerous, and hazardous
work conditions. They have no proper oven/heat mittens to get the hot pans from
the landing (Oven) area (instead employees are using white wash cloths which are
very dangerous), they intimidate employees with write-ups, create their own rules
while violating federal employment laws, and they frequently run out of required
store supplies. I've been sent home twice in 2 consecutive days (and told not to
come back for 4 more days) and loss travel and employment wages due to the lack
of oversight by the Little Caesars corporation and the unprofessionalism of the store
managers. I have only received 1 (one) hat since I've been working for the company
which was over 1 year ago. I have recently even offered to pay for one since the
one I had was stolen between Wednesday-Saturday (8/31-9/3) on my days off.
Employees have not received any formal guidelines on loss or stolen employment
uniforms. Store managers attempted to retaliate, coerce, and intimidate me into
wearing hats that were visibly infested with unknown residue, dandruff, and skin
particles which are unsanitary and a health risk. Can you or someone from the
Little Caesars Corporation please contact me as soon as possible to inform me of
the employee uniform policies and the companies retaliation policies. Thank You
Dionte Lawrence"

39. On September 6, 2016, Erica Bailey responded to Plaintiff stating that he would be

receiving a new uniform but she stated nothing about the other concerns expressed.

40. On September 9, 2016, Daniel Castellanos texted Plaintiff announcing a mandatory

store meeting the next day at 8 a.m. to address complaints about racial harassment and

discrimination because other black employees also began to complain about discrimination.

41. On September 10, 2016, when Plaintiff arrived for the meeting supervisor Kevin

Matthews sent Plaintiff home stating "you can't be here, catch a ride" in front of all other

employees. When Plaintiff arrived back to work his shift that evening, Assistant Manager Rodolfo

Novoa followed Plaintiff around the store harassing him calling him a "ghetto nigger."

42. Plaintiff complained to Assistant Manager Alejandra Ortega about Novoa’s

harassment and then immediately left work and contacted H.R. representative Erica Bailey

8
 
 Case: 1:18-cv-03111 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/01/18 Page 9 of 14 PageID #:9

because he did not feel safe working with Rodolfo Novoa. Plaintiff left a message

describing the conduct. H.R. did not respond to Plaintiff.

43. In the week that followed Plaintiff complained to the store manager Daniel

Castellanos that he did not feel safe working around Rodolfo Novoa and was written up

for alleged discipline infractions by three different managers on September 11, 2016, two

different managers on September 12, 2016, and one on September 13. The write ups were

retaliation for having complained about racial harassment by Novoa.

44. Plaintiff again called H.R. on September 12, 2016 about the harassment and

left a message. H.R. did not respond.

45. On September 20, 2016, Plaintiff called H.R. to complain about racial slurs

by co-workers Abel Acosta and Roberto Gonzalez. H.R. did not respond to Plaintiff.

46. In October 2016, the racial slurs by co-workers Roberto Gonzalez, Jose

Gomez, Andric Zavala and Abel Acosta became even more frequent. Plaintiff complained

to Assistant Manager Alejandra Ortega, who did nothing.

47. In mid-November 2016, Plaintiff was attacked by co-workers Andric

Zavala, Jose Gomez and Christian Brown. They called him a “nigger” and pulled his hat

off, grabbed his hair, and threatened to shoot him. The event was witnessed by Assistant

Manager Alejandra Ortega who intervened and ordered everyone to go home. Before

leaving Christian Brown told Plaintiff in front of Alejandra Ortega that “one of these days

I am going to kill you.” Ortega said that she would report Brown to Castellanos, the Store

Manager, and Plaintiff asked Ortega to not be placed with Brown and the others who had

attacked him because he felt unsafe.

9
 
 Case: 1:18-cv-03111 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/01/18 Page 10 of 14 PageID #:10

48. Defendant did not take any further corrective measures and Brown soon

escalated his physical violence.

49. On December 18, 2016, towards the end of the shift Plaintiff was cleaning

the prep stations and taking utensil contains to the back for washing. Christian Brown

physically assaulted Plaintiff, and when Plaintiff yelled for help the only manager still in

the store, Stephen Smith, saw what Brown was doing and looked away. Then Brown and

co-worker Breanna Murphy beat the Plaintiff, kicked him in the head, and broke his nose.

50. Plaintiff was suspended and then terminated on January 11, 2017.

COUNT I – § 1981

51. Plaintiff adopts paragraphs 1 – 50 above as paragraphs 1 – 50 of Count I, as if fully

set forth herein.

52. Defendant violated § 1981 by permitting workers to use racially derogatory

language towards Plaintiff on a regular basis.

53. Defendant violated § 1981 be allowing supervisors to use racially derogatory

language towards the Plaintiff.

54. Defendant violated § 1981 by failing to take actions to stop co-workers and

supervisors from using racially derogatory language to the Plaintiff.

55. Defendant violated §1981 by creating a hostile work environment.

56. Defendant violated §1981 by failing to prevent racially motivated physical attacks.

57. Defendant violated § 1981 by failing to prevent racial discrimination in working

conditions after being told about it.

58. Defendant violated § 1981 by retaliating against him for reporting racial harassment

and racial discrimination.

10
 
 Case: 1:18-cv-03111 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/01/18 Page 11 of 14 PageID #:11

59. Defendant violated § 1981 by discharging the Plaintiff because he was black and

because he had complained about the racial harassment he had suffered at the hands of his co-

workers and supervisors and the racial discrimination that his supervisors oversaw.

60. Race was a motivating factor in Defendant’s conduct which was unreasonable, or

alternatively, was willful and wanton or intentional.

61. As a proximate result of Defendant’s illegal indifference to his federally protected

rights, Plaintiff has suffered depression, anxiety, emotional distress, physical illness, damage to

his reputation, loss of income, and loss of enjoyment of the ordinary pleasures of life.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, DIONTE LAWRENCE, by counsel, respectfully prays that this

Court provide the following legal remedies:

a. Award Plaintiff reinstatement, lost wages, including back pay, front pay, and lost

fringe benefits, including, without limitation, any lost benefits with applicable

prejudgment and statutory interest;

b. Enjoin Defendant from discriminating against black workers by allowing co-

workers and supervisors to create a hostile work environment;

c. Award Plaintiff the costs of litigation, including reasonable attorney’s fees, expert

fees and expenses;

d. Award compensatory damages;

e. Award punitive damages; and

f. Award any other relief that this Court deems just.

Plaintiff demands trial by jury.

11
 
 Case: 1:18-cv-03111 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/01/18 Page 12 of 14 PageID #:12

COUNT II – Title VII

62. Plaintiff adopts paragraphs 1 – 50 as paragraphs 1 – 50 of Count II, as if fully set

forth herein, and pleads the following in the alternative to, and without prejudice to, the allegations

of Count I.

63. Defendant violated Title VII when co-workers racially harassed the Plaintiff with

knowledge of management, and when supervisors racially harassed Plaintiff, all of which created

a hostile work environment.

64. Defendant violated Title VII by harassing, discriminating and discharging the

Plaintiff because he was black.

65. Defendant violated Title VII because substantial factor in the Plaintiff’s termination

was his race.

66. Defendant is strictly liable for the racial harassment committed by supervisors

whose conduct was unreasonable, or alternatively, was willfull and wanton or intentional.

67. As a proximate result of Defendant’s illegal indifference to his federally protected

rights, Plaintiff has suffered anxiety, emotional distress, physical illness, damage to his reputation,

loss of income, and loss of enjoyment of the ordinary pleasures of life.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, DIONTE LAWRENCE, by counsel, respectfully prays

that this Court provide the following legal remedies:

a. Award Plaintiff reinstatement, lost wages, including back pay, front pay, and lost

fringe benefits, including, without limitation, any lost benefits with applicable

prejudgment and statutory interest;

b. Enjoin Defendant from discriminating against black workers by allowing co-

workers and supervisors to create a hostile work environment;

12
 
 Case: 1:18-cv-03111 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/01/18 Page 13 of 14 PageID #:13

c. Award Plaintiff the costs of litigation, including reasonable attorney’s fees, expert

fees and expenses;

d. Award compensatory damages;

e. Award punitive damages; and

f. Award any other relief that this Court deems just.

Plaintiff demands trial by jury.

COUNT III - Retaliation

68. Plaintiff adopts paragraphs 1 – 50 as paragraphs 1 – 50 of Count III, as if fully set

forth herein.

69. Defendant violated the applicable law by retaliating against Plaintiff for

complaining about what he reasonably believed to be racial harassment by co-workers and

supervisors, and racial discrimination by supervisors, and inflicted materially adverse actions upon

him by disciplining him, harassing him for having made complaints, and in terminating his

employment.

70. Plaintiff’s complaints to his employer of the above described racial harassment was

a protected activity.

71. Plaintiff’s complains to his employer of the above described racial discrimination

was a protected activity.

72. Plaintiff’s representations to his employer that he was going to go to the E.E.O.C.

was a protected activity.

73. Defendant violated the applicable law by harassing and then discharging the

Plaintiff because he was black and because he had complained to management about racial

harassment by co-workers and supervisors, and racial discrimination by supervisors.

13
 
 Case: 1:18-cv-03111 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/01/18 Page 14 of 14 PageID #:14

74. As a proximate result of Defendant’s illegal retaliation, Plaintiff has suffered

depression, anxiety, emotional distress, physical illness, damage to his reputation, loss of income,

and loss of enjoyment of the ordinary pleasures of life.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, DIONTE LAWRENCE, by counsel, respectfully prays that this

Court provide the following equitable and legal remedies:

a. Award Plaintiff reinstatement, lost wages, including back pay, front pay, and lost
fringe benefits, including, without limitation, any lost benefits with applicable
prejudgment and statutory interest;

b. Award Plaintiff the costs of litigation, including reasonable attorney’s fees and
expert fees and expenses;

c. Award compensatory damages;

d. Award punitive damages; and

e. Any other relief that this Court deems just.

Plaintiff demands trial by jury.

/s/ Edward R. Moor

Attorney for Plaintiff

Edward R. Moor, ARDC# 6205169

Moor Law Office, P.C.
One N. LaSalle Street, Suite 600
Chicago, Illinois 60602
312-726-6207
erm@moorlaw.net
Attorney for Plaintiff

14
 
 Case: 1:18-cv-03111 Document #: 1-1 Filed: 05/01/18 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:15
ILND 44 (Rev. 07/10/17) CIVIL COVER SHEET
The ILND 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose
of initiating the civil docket sheet. (See instructions on next page of this form.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS
Dionte Lawrence Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc.

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Cook County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
(Except in U.S. plaintiff cases) (In U.S. plaintiff cases only)
Note: In land condemnation cases, use the location of the tract of land involved.

(c) Attorneys (firm name, address, and telephone number) Attorneys (if known)
Edward R. Moor, Moor Law Office, P.C., One N. LaSalle Street, Suite
600, Chicago, IL 60602 312-726-6207

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Check one box, only.) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (For Diversity Cases Only.)
(Check one box, only for plaintiff and one box for defendant.)
1 U.S. Government ■ 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.S. Government not a party) Citizen of This State 1 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4
of Business in This State

2 U.S. Government 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 5
Defendant (Indicate citizenship of parties in Item III.) of Business in Another State

Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6

IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Check one box, only.)
CONTRACT TORTS
110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY
120 Marine 310 Airplane
130 Miller Act 315 Airplane Product
140 Negotiable Instrument Liability
150 Recovery of Overpayment 320 Assault, Libel & Slander
& Enforcement of Judgment 330 Federal Employers’
151 Medicare Act Liability
152 Recovery of Defaulted Student 340 Marine
Loans (Excludes Veterans) 345 Marine Product Liability
153 Recovery of Veteran’s Benefits 350 Motor Vehicle
160 Stockholders’ Suits 355 Motor Vehicle
190 Other Contract Product Liability
195 Contract Product Liability 360 Other Personal Injury
196 Franchise 362 Personal Injury -
Medical Malpractice
REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS
210 Land Condemnation 440 Other Civil Rights
220 Foreclosure 441 Voting
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment ■ 442 Employment
240 Torts to Land 443 Housing/
245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations
290 All Other Real Property 445 Amer. w/Disabilities -
Employment
446 Amer. w/Disabilities -
Other
448 Education
Foreign Country
PRISONER PETITIONS LABOR OTHER STATUTES
PERSONAL INJURY 510 Motions to Vacate Sentence 710 Fair Labor Standards Act 375 False Claims Act
365 Personal Injury - Habeas Corpus: 720 Labor/Management Relations 376 Qui Tam (31 USC 3729 (a))
Product Liability 530 General 740 Railway Labor Act 400 State Reapportionment
367 Health Care/ 535 Death Penalty 751 Family and Medical 410 Antitrust
Pharmaceutical 540 Mandamus & Other Leave Act 430 Banks and Banking
Personal Injury 550 Civil Rights 790 Other Labor Litigation 450 Commerce
Product Liability 555 Prison Condition 791 Employee Retirement 460 Deportation
368 Asbestos Personal Injury 560 Civil Detainee – Conditions Income Security Act 470 Racketeer Influenced and
Product Liability of Confinement Corrupt Organizations
480 Consumer Credit
PERSONAL PROPERTY PROPERTY RIGHTS 490 Cable/Sat TV
370 Other Fraud 820 Copyrights 850 Securities/Commodities/
371 Truth in Lending 830 Patent Exchange
380 Other Personal 835 Patent – Abbreviated 890 Other Statutory Actions
Property Damage New Drug Application 891 Agricultural Acts
385 Property Damage 840 Trademark 893 Environmental Matters
Product Liability 895 Freedom of Information Act
896 Arbitration
BANKRUPTCY FORFEITURE/PENALTY SOCIAL SECURITY 899 Administrative Procedure
422 Appeal 28 USC 158 625 Drug Related Seizure 861 HIA (1395ff) Act/Review or Appeal of
423 Withdrawal 28 USC 157 of Property 21 USC 881 862 Black Lung (923) Agency Decision
690 Other 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) 950 Constitutionality of
864 SSID Title XVI State Statutes
IMMIGRATION 865 RSI (405(g))
462 Naturalization Application
463 Habeas Corpus -
Alien Detainee
FEDERAL TAXES
(Prisoner Petition )
465 Other Immigrant 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff
Actions or Defendant)
871 IRS—Third Party
26 USC 7609

V. ORIGIN (Check one box, only.)

■ 1 Original 2 Removed from 3 Remanded from 4 Reinstated or 5 Transferred from 6 Multidistrict 8 Multidistrict
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District Litigation Litigation
(specify) Direct File
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION (Enter U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing and VII. Previous Bankruptcy Matters (For nature of suit 422 and 423, enter the case number and
write a brief statement of cause.) judge for any associated bankruptcy matter previously adjudicated by a judge of this Court. Use a separate
attachment if necessary.)
42 USC 1981 Racial Harassment, Discrimination and Retaliation
VIII. REQUESTED IN Check if this is a class action under Rule DEMAND $ 1,000,000 Check Yes only if demanded in complaint.
COMPLAINT: 23, F.R.CV.P. JURY DEMAND: Yes No
IX. RELATED CASE(S) (See instructions)
IF ANY Judge Case Number
X. Is this a previously dismissed or remanded case? Yes No If yes, Case # Name of Judge
Date Signature of attorney of record
5-1-18 /s/ Edward Roy Moor
 Case: 1:18-cv-03111 Document
INSTRUCTIONS FOR #:COMPLETING
ATTORNEYS 1-1 Filed: 05/01/18 Page
CIVIL COVER 2 of
SHEET 2 PageID
FORM JS 44 #:16
Authority for Civil Cover Sheet

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as required by law,
except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of
Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney
filing a case should complete the form as follows:

I. (a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use only the
full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and then the official, giving both
name and title.

(b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the time of
filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land condemnation cases, the
county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.)

(c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting in this
section "(see attachment)".

II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X" in one of
the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.

United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.

United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.

Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment to the Constitution,
an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be
marked.

Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the citizenship of the
different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity cases.)

III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this section
for each principal party.

IV. Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If the nature of suit cannot be determined, be sure the cause of action, in Section VI below, is sufficient
to enable the deputy clerk or the statistical clerk(s) in the Administrative Office to determine the nature of suit. If the cause fits more than one nature of suit, select the
most definitive.

V. Origin. Place an "X" in one of the six boxes.

Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.

Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441. When the petition for
removal is granted, check this box.

Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing date.

Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.

Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or multidistrict litigation
transfers.

Multidistrict Litigation. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1407. When this box is
checked, do not check (5) above.

VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless
diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service

VII. Previous Bankruptcy Matters For nature of suit 422 and 423 enter the case number and judge for any associated bankruptcy matter previously adjudicated by
a judge of this court. Use a separate attachment if necessary.

VIII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P. Demand. In this space enter the actual
dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is
being demanded.

IX. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket numbers and the
corresponding judge names for such cases.
X. Refiling Information. Place an "X" in the Yes box if the case is being refiled or if it is a remanded case, and indicate the case number and name of judge. If this
case is not being refiled or has not been remanded, place an "X" in the No box.
Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.

Rev. 1 – 04/13/16