11/16/2020 4:46 PM

Velva L. Price
District Clerk
Travis County
D-1-GN-20-006951
D-1-GN-20-006951 Victoria Benavides
CAUSE NO. ______________

BRITTAIN STAFFORD, and § IN THE DISTRICT COURT

EARNEST BANKS, §
Plaintiffs, §
§ 459th
v. § ___________ JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
§
LYFT, INC, §
KNA SOLUTIONS LLC, § OF TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS
CHRIS LAST NAME UNKNOWN (LNU), §
MATTHEW LNU, §
Defendants. §

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL PETITION AND JURY DEMAND

Plaintiffs Mr. Brittain Stafford and Mr. Earnest Banks (“Plaintiffs”) file this Original

Petition and Jury Demand, complaining of Defendants Lyft, Inc, KNA Solutions LLC, Chris LNU,

and Matthew LNU (“Defendants”) and for causes of action shows:

A. DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN

1. Plaintiffs wish to conduct discovery under Level 3, as provided in Rule 190.4 of the Texas

Rules of Civil Procedure.

B. SERVICE OF PROCESS

2. Defendant Lyft, Inc. (hereinafter “Lyft”) is a corporation that conducts business in Austin,

Texas. Lyft can be served via its registered agent: CT Corporation System, 1999 Bryan St, Ste.

900, Dallas, TX 75201-3136.

3. Defendant KNA Solutions LLC (hereinafter “KNA Solutions”) is a limited liability

company that conducts business in Austin, Texas. KNA Solutions can be served via its registered

agent: Registered Agents, Inc, 5900 Balcones Dr, Ste. 100, Austin, TX, 78731.
 C. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. Pursuant to Article V § 8 of the Texas Constitution, this Court has original subject matter

jurisdiction over the claims asserted herein because no other court has exclusive original

jurisdiction over the claims asserted herein and because Plaintiffs seek damages within the

jurisdictional limits of this Court.

5. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the parties to this action because the claims

asserted herein arose directly from Defendants’ acts and omissions in the state of Texas.

6. Venue is proper in Travis County, Texas under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code §

15.002(a)(1) because a substantial part of the events giving rise to this action occurred in this

county. Defendants Lyft and KNA Solutions each maintain regular places of business in Travis

County, Texas. This case involves two men who were employed in Travis County, Texas.

D. FACTS

7. Under Texas law, it is illegal for an employer to fire someone because of their race.

8. Lyft operates a warehouse at 2101 E St Elmo Rd, Austin, TX 78744.

9. KNA Solutions is a temporary staffing agency that partially operates out of Lyft’s

warehouse at an office at 2101 E St Elmo Rd, Austin, TX 78744.

10. Plaintiffs were employed by KNA Solutions to work as drivers for Lyft.

11. Defendant KNA Solutions employed Mr. Stafford to work for Lyft from approximately

March 2019 to November 2019.

12. Mr. Banks previously worked for Lyft through another temporary staffing agency from

December 2018 to August 2019. In August 2019, Defendant KNA Solutions employed Mr. Banks

to work for Lyft until terminating him in January 2020.

 13. Plaintiffs came into work each day at Lyft’s warehouse, where they took care of all

administrative duties, such as clocking in and getting keys to their assigned trucks of the day.

14. Plaintiffs’ supervisors worked in the warehouse and were Lyft employees, including

Defendant Matt LNU and Defendant Chris LNU.

15. The warehouse consisted of a wide-open space, including an area with tables where

supervisors from both Defendant KNA Solutions and Defendant Lyft sat and conferred. In addition

to serving as supervisors’ desks, these tables were also where employees, including Plaintiffs,

stopped by each day to sign out keys for their vehicles, pick up walkie talkies, and perform other

routine administrative tasks. This area was a common space that was routinely and necessarily

accessed by the employees, including Plaintiffs.

16. On or about September 20, 2019, Mr. Stafford took a closer look at a photo that had been

posted to a white board directly behind the supervisors’ table. Upon examining it, Mr. Stafford

saw that this photo was depicting a photo of a white man in edited blackface.

17. On or about September 20, 2019, Mr. Stafford and his son, a fellow employee, informed

their supervisor, Defendant Chris LNU, that there was a photo of a man in blackface posted on the

white board for all to see and requested that it be removed.

18. Defendant Chris LNU denied that the photo was depicting blackface.

19. Defendant Chris LNU refused to take any remedial action.

20. Mr. Banks was disgusted to see this blackface photo on the white board. He does not recall

the exact date on which he noticed it, but saw it posted for several weeks.

21. On or about September 27, 2019, another supervisor, Defendant Matt LNU confronted Mr.

Stafford and asked why Mr. Stafford was offended by the image.

22. Mr. Stafford explained that the image was blackface, and therefore was incredibly hurtful.
 23. Defendant Matt LNU denied that the image was blackface. Defendant Matt LNU insisted

that the image depicted an emoji. Mr. Stafford asked Defendant Matt LNU to show him which

emoji he believed was used in this photo. Defendant Matt LNU took out his iPhone and began

searching, and could not find any similar emoji. Defendant Matt LNU searched on Google for

Android emojis and similarly failed to come up with any similar emoji.

24. Mr. Stafford then showed Defendant Matt LNU an image depicting blackface. Defendant

Matt LNU appeared shocked and conceded that he could see why Mr. Stafford saw it as blackface.

25. Defendant Matt LNU told Mr. Stafford that an employee from Defendant KNA Solutions

named Ty had told him about the events of September 20, 2019, in which Mr. Stafford had

expressed his shock at the photo.

26. Mr. Stafford tried calling Ty after hearing this news and spoke with him over the phone on

or about Tuesday, October 1, 2019. Ty confirmed that he had heard about the blackface photo and

the fact that it had offended Mr. Stafford.

27. Ty claimed to Mr. Stafford in this phone call that he had overheard people in the warehouse

discussing Mr. Stafford voicing his offense over the blackface photo to Defendant Chris LNU.

Despite learning this, Ty did not make any effort of any kind to rectify the situation.

28. When Mr. Stafford returned to work on or about October 1, 2019 the image had been

removed from the board.

29. The following week in early October 2019, a group of men including Mr. Stafford’s son

were having a conversation about beards. Mr. Stafford’s son had a beard at the time, and Defendant

Matt LNU asked Mr. Stafford’s son: “Man, how do you get your beard like that? Do you just eat

watermelon and guava fruit all day?”

 30. In addition to these two particularly charged incidents, there was a culture of casual racism

at the warehouse operated by Defendants. Defendant Matt LNU was known to play rap music with

very frequent use of the n-word at the warehouse almost every weekend.

31. On November 5, 2019, Mr. Banks sent an email to the Human Resources expressing his

frustration and disgust at the blackface photo hanging up.

32. In November 2019, Mr. Stafford noticed racially discriminatory practices throughout the

warehouse. These discriminatory practices spanned from who got in trouble for being late to who

got to drive the newer, nicer vans. At every turn, white and even Hispanic employees were given

priority over black employees.

33. In November 2019, Mr. Stafford tendered his resignation, citing an uncomfortable working

environment, in large part due to the pervasive racism in the warehouse.

34. In the following two months, Mr. Banks was singled out for reprimands that the rest of his

team did not receive for similarly minor infractions.

35. On December 19, 2020, Mr. Banks was written up and was sent an email about coaching

to improve his performance. This was in response to Mr. Banks sharing someone’s contact

information, despite the fact that Mr. Banks had the permission of the person in question.

36. On January 1, 2020, Mr. Banks called in and informed Defendant Matt LNU that he was

running late. Despite three other drivers being late that day, several of which were late several

times per week, only Mr. Banks was given 2 points against him and was sent an email about

coaching to improve his performance.

37. On January 9, 2020, Mr. Banks was terminated. Upon our information and belief, this

termination was the result of retaliation for speaking out against the racism at the warehouse.
 E. CONDITIONS PRECENDENT/ADMINISTRATIVE EXHAUSTION

38. All conditions precedent to the filing of this action and Plaintiff’s right of recovery herein

have been fulfilled.

39. With respect to the administrative prerequisites relevant to Defendants’ Chapter 21 claims,

this petition is filed more than 180 days but less than two years after Plaintiffs timely filed their

charges of discrimination with the Texas Workforce Commission and Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission.

F. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

Tex. Labor Code Chapter 21 – Discrimination

40. Defendants violated Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code.

41. Section 21.051 of the Texas Labor Code provides that an employer commits an unlawful

act if because of race, the employer “discharges an individual, or discriminates in any other manner

against an individual in connection with compensation or the terms, conditions, or privileges of

employment.”

42. Defendants terminated Plaintiffs and discriminated in their treatment of them in connection

with the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of their race.

Tex. Labor Code Chapter 21 – Retaliation

43. Section 21 .055 of the Texas Labor Code provides that an employer commits an unlawful

act if the employer retaliates against an individual who opposes a discriminatory practice.

44. Plaintiffs engaged in protected activity when they complained of Defendants’

discriminatory actions or actions they reasonably believed to constitute discrimination on the basis

of race.
 45. Defendants intentionally retaliated against Plaintiff in Violation of Tex. Lab. Code §

21.055.

G. PUNITIVE DAMAGES

46. Defendants engaged in discriminatory practices, including retaliation, with malice or with

reckless indifference to the state-protected rights of Plaintiffs as contemplated by the Tex. Lab.

Code § 21.2585.

H. RELIEF REQUESTED

47. As required under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 47, Plaintiffs select the range of potential

monetary relief under Rule 47(c)(1). This range may change over time. Plaintiffs are free to suggest

more or less based on the evidence and the jury and judge are free to find more or less at trial based

on the evidence.

48. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ discrimination and retaliation, Defendants

caused Plaintiffs to suffer resulting damages, for which they sue, including, but not limited to:

a. back pay for lost wages and benefits;

b. equitable relief, including reinstatement or front pay;

c. compensatory damages, including emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience,

mental anguish, stress, anxiety, and humiliation;

d. punitive damages;

e. declaratory and injunctive relief;

f. attorney’s fees and costs of court, inclusive of expert witness fees; and

g. pre- and post-judgment interest as allowed by law.

I. DEMAND FOR JURY

49. Plaintiffs demand a jury trial.

 J. PRAYER

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs respectively pray that Defendants

be cited to appear and answer herein, and that upon final hearing hereof, Plaintiffs have judgment

against Defendants for the relief requested above, and any further relief to which Plaintiffs may be

entitled.

DATED: November 16, 2020

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Brian McGiverin

Brian McGiverin
State Bar No.: 24067760
brian@austincommunitylawcenter.org

AUSTIN COMMUNITY LAW CENTER

1411 West Ave
Austin, TX 78701
Telephone: (512) 596-0226
Fax: (512) 597-0805

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS