Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
5Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Yellow Cab lawsuit

Yellow Cab lawsuit

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,793|Likes:
Published by Michael Roberts

More info:

Categories:Types, Legal forms
Published by: Michael Roberts on Dec 07, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

02/10/2013

pdf

text

original

 
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADOCivil Action No.NASIR ABAGIBE, ABDUL ADAM, ABUKAR ADEN, ALI ALI, NUUR ALI, KETEMAALIGAZIE, TARIQ AYUUB, MUKTAR BUNI, ABDI DHUUBOW, NASIR FARAH, ABDIHUSSEIN, TOLA ISMAEL, MUUSE JAAMAC, RIZGALLA KHAMIS, ADEN NOOR,ABDUL NUR, AHMED ODAWAAY, SAID OMAR, MOHAMED A. OSMAN, MOHAMEDM. OSMAN, AND MOKTAR SAID,Plaintiffs,v.YELLOW CAB CO., D/B/A COLORADO CAB COMPANY,Defendant.______________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
______________________________________________________________________________Plaintiffs, Nasir Abagibe, Abdul Adam, Abukar Aden, Ali Ali, Nuur Ali, KetemaAligaze, Tariq Ayuub, Muktar Buni, Abdi Dhuubow, Nasir Farah, Abdi Hussein, Tola Ismael,Muuse Jaamac, Rizgalla Khamis, Aden Noor, Abdul Nur, Ahmed Odawaay, Said Omar,Mohamed A. Osman, Mohamed M. Osman, and Mocktar Said, (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), byand through their attorneys, the law firm of KING & GREISEN, LLP, hereby submit theirComplaint against Yellow Cab Co., d/b/a Colorado Cab Co. (“Defendant” or “Yellow Cab”), andin support thereof state as follows:
INTRODUCTION
 1.
 
Plaintiffs are twenty-one (21) current and former cab drivers for Defendant, andthey are all black and of African descent.
 
22.
 
Defendant has its drivers execute a master contract called a Driver Agreement.Defendant continually breached the Driver Agreement. Defendant has multiple legal duties andcontractual obligations to Plaintiffs that it has deliberately failed to fulfill.3.
 
Defendant has discriminated against, harassed, and created a hostile work environment for Plaintiffs on the basis of their race/color and/or national origin in violation of federal law. The discrimination, harassment and hostile work environment Plaintiffs haveendured has included, among other things: physical assault, name calling, taunts, jeers, laughing,gestures, yelling, bribery, and extortion; discriminatory and disparate treatment with regard tofines, fees, and other charges; discriminatory and disparate treatment with policies, rules, anddiscipline; theft and property damage; ostracism and failure to redress grievances; outrightthreats and intimidation; and unfair termination.4.
 
Defendant has refused to give Plaintiffs an explanation for its discriminatorytreatment against them and has retaliated against Plaintiffs with continued harassment anddiscrimination when they have complained about the discriminatory conduct.5.
 
In addition to its discriminatory conduct in violation of federal law, Defendant’sconduct also sounds in: civil theft and conversion; breach of contract, including breach of contract for a sum certain and bad faith breach of insurance contract; willful and wanton breachof the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; promissory estoppel; outrageous conduct andintentional infliction of emotional distress; interference with prospective contract or businessadvantage; and violations of the Motor Vehicle Repair Act.
 
3
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
6.
 
Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 and 1343. Thisaction is authorized and instituted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1981 et seq., as amended. The Courtalso has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims, as they are so related to thefederal law claims that they form part of the same case and controversy pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367(a).7.
 
Venue is proper with this Court as all employment practices alleged to beunlawful were committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for theDistrict of Colorado and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391.8.
 
On February 18, 2009, Plaintiffs’ filed “Claimants’ Notice of Intention toArbitrate and Demand for Arbitration” with the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”)pursuant to a forced arbitration provision in a Driver Agreement. Defendant mandated thatPlaintiffs sign a Driver Agreement before they began working for Defendant. The DriverAgreement was not explained to Plaintiffs and, at the time the Driver Agreements were signed,many Plaintiffs had minimal proficiency in the English language. Nonetheless, Plaintiffs’attempted to have the controversy with Yellow Cab adjudicated with the AAA. On November30, 2009, Plaintiffs received notice that their portion of arbitration costs would be $64,200.Despite their best efforts, Plaintiffs are unable to afford the costs associated with AAA. As such,the prohibitive cost of AAA precludes the use of the arbitral forum.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->