U.S.

DrSTRICT COURT

Case 4:16-cv-00176-A Document 23 Filed 08/15/16

f) ~ \

UNITE~'S;~

DISTRICT OF TEXAS
PageNORTHER}')
1 of 9 PageID
124

FILED

r-:.

If'!

IN THE
; ES DISTRICT C( URT
AUG I 5 2016
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF T
FORT WORTH DIVISION
CLERK, U.S. DISTRICTC~
By
---1l~
Deputy
ISAIAH SMITH,
§
Complainant
§
CASE NO.4: 16-CV-176-A
§
V.
§
§
MANAGEMENT & TRAINING CORP.
§ JURY TRIAL REQUESTED
Respondents
§

~XAS

L-':

\(.~

PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
COMES Now

ISAIAH SMITH, and files this First Amended Complaint against

Defendant Management & Training Corporation, alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, as amended, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the Civil Rights
Restoration Act of 1991, and in support thereof respectfully shows the Honorable Court as
follows:
I

PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE
The Plaintiff tn this case is Isaiah Smith ("Smith"), who is a citizen of the United States
of America and the

sr1e of Texas.

The Defend4t in this case is Management & Training Corporation ("MT\C"), which is a
corporation authoriz1d to do business in the State of Texas and with its principal place of
business in Utah. T I is Defendant has already entered an appearance through counsel.
This Court h s subject matter jurisdiction over the claims described in this Complaint
pursuant to 28 U.S.C §1331 and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3).
Venue is pro er in the Northern District of Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b), as all
or part of the claims *lleged in this Complaint arose based upon conduct committed by MTC
i
!

within this judicial d~strict.

SMITH v. MANAGE

ENT TRAINING CORP.: FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Pg.l

Case 4:16-cv-00176-A Document 23 Filed 08/15/16

Page 2 of 9 PageID 125

II

ADMINISTRATIVE PREREQUSITE

Smith timely filed a charge of sex discrimination against MTC with the Dallas District of
the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
On March 9,2016 the EEOC issued a Dismissal and Notice of Rights to Smith, a true and
correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A," giving him ninety (90) days from the
date of receipt of the Dismissal and Notice of Rights to commence legal action. Smith's lawsuit
is timely filed.

III
FACTS

Plaintiff Smith is a 21 year-old homosexual male who was employed by Defendant MTC,
which is a private entity that operates for-profit jails and prisons. Smith was hired to be a
correctional officer at MTC's correctional center in Bridgeport, Texas on or about June 2, 2014.
P1aintiffSmith's employment commenced with "On the Job Training" (OJT) during
which he was repeatedly subjected to a hostile work environment in that fellow male employee
officers including Blake Wortman, with whom Plaintiff Smith was paired for training purposes,
routinely and habitually inquired about Plaintiff Smith's homosexual lifestyle, inquired and
speculated about his sexual activities aloud, and compared / contrasted their own sexual activities
with those which they imagined Plaintiff Smith might engage in as a homosexual male.
Plaintiff complained of officer Wortman's sexually harassing behavior to his direct
supervisor, Pamela Galloway, who responded by advising Plaintiff to "man up" and "act like a
man." (Plaintiff was frequently told such things by his supervisors whenever he made

SMITH v. MANAGEMENT TRAINING CORP.: FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Pg.2

Case 4:16-cv-00176-A Document 23 Filed 08/15/16

Page 3 of 9 PageID 126

complaints of working in a sexually hostile environment). Plaintiff continued to be paired with
Wortman and he continued to be subjected to a sexually hostile work environment as a result.
This harassing behavior was witnessed by a nurse at Defendant's Bridgeport facility-a
female--who reported it to Defendant's employee and Plaintiffs superior, Major Rocky Hidrogo
as an incident in which she was being subjected to a sexually hostile work environment. The
female nurse's complaint was promptly investigated and action was immediately taken.
Major Hidrogo called both Wortman and Plaintiff Smith into his office to admonish them
against engaging in. Wortman admitted to Hidrogo that he had been engaging in inappropriate
behavior towards Plaintiff, that Plaintiff had not used any inappropriate language and took full
responsibility for it. Nonetheless, both Wortman and Plaintiff Smith were warned against such
behavior. At this point, Plaintiff-baffled that one complaint by a female nurse of working in a
sexually hostile work environment received immediate attention while his repeated complaints
received no action whasoever--once again complained to Major Hidrogo ofthe ongoing abuse
that he was suffering at the hands of Wortman and asked to be paired with someone else for the
remainder of OlT. Once again, his request was denied and Hidrogo cautioned Plaintiff Smith
that further complaints would result in his termination from employment with Defendant.
Plaintiff Smith continued to be subjected to a hostile work environment through the end
ofOlT as Wortman and other officers openly joked about Plaintiff walking "in a feminine way,"
joked about Plaintiff Smith flirting with inmates because he is a homosexual male, and joking
that Plaintiff was going to get raped by inmates because he is a homosexual male.
Upon the completion of OlT, Plaintiff received an assignment to work on "D Card" at
Defendant's Bridgeport correctional facility where he continued to be subjected to a hostile work
environment as Defendant's employee officers including Booker and Tate, with whom Plaintiff

SMITH v. MANAGEMENT TRAINING CORP.: FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Pg.3

Case 4:16-cv-00176-A Document 23 Filed 08/15/16

Page 4 of 9 PageID 127

was assigned to work, berated Plaintiff with accusations that he was not man enough to do his
job because he is a homosexual male. Booker and Tate also openly discussed Plaintiffs
homosexuality with inmates in Plaintiffs presence.
On several occasions, Plaintiff complained of this harassing behavior to his direct
supervisors, including Lt. Peavy and Lt. Lane, who responded by punishing Plaintiff Smith for
making complaints. Rather than address the harassing behavior Plaintiff was being subjected to
with the harassers, they began to prohibit Plaintiff from performing his job functions with the
stated reason that he could not perform certain functions because he is a homosexual.
Lt. Lane advised Plaintiff that he would be terminated if an inmate complained that he
had witnessed Plaintiff "licking his lips," which Plaintiff understood to be a reference to an
incorrect assumption on the part of Lane that Plaintiff could not perform his duties around male
inmates because he is a homosexual.
On several occasions in late September through October of2014, Plaintiff was assigned
to work with officer Booker, whom had subjected Plaintiff to verbal harassment of a sexual
nature on numerous occasions before, and about whom Plaintiff had complained to his
supervisors. On these occasions, Booker resumed his verbal assaults on Plaintiff, all of which
were directed at Plaintiff s homosexuality.
Having failed to get any of his supervisors to respond to his complaints of being
subjected to a hostile work environment, and in fact being punished for doing so, Plaintiff Smith
requested a meeting with the warden of Defendant's Bridgeport facility, Robert Treon. During
this meeting, Plaintiff detailed the sustained and substantial verbal attacks he had been subjected
to in the workplace - always directed at his homosexuality - and the failure of his supervisors to

SMITH v. MANAGEMENT TRAINING CORP.: FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

PgA

Case 4:16-cv-00176-A Document 23 Filed 08/15/16

Page 5 of 9 PageID 128

take any action to remedy the problems other than punish Plaintiff. Instead oftaking action,
Warden Treon dismissed the verbal assaults as "guy talk."
At this point, Plaintiff determined that he could not continue to work under the hostile
conditions of the workplace at Defendant's Bridgeport correctional facility and advised
Defendant that he refused to come to work until they could assure him that his complaints of
ongoing verbal harassment and punishment for making complaints would cease. Plaintiff was
placed on unpaid leave by Defendant. Several weeks later, Defendant communicated to Plaintiff
that it had determined that while they agreed that he had been subjected to a hostile work
environment with respect to Wortman's behavior, that issue had been resolved and that they did
not believe any of Plaintiff s subsequent complaints.
Consequently, Plaintiff was forced into a decision of whether to continue to work in an
intolerably hostile environment in which his sexuality would be repeatedly attacked by make coworkers and he would be treated as a second-class employee by his supervisors for no reason
other than his sexuality, or cease employment. Having concluded that he could no longer
tolerate the conditions of employment with Defendant, Plaintiff was constructively discharged.
IV
CAUSES OF ACTION

(Violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, codified at 42 U.S.c. §
2000e et seq., and the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1991)

COUNT 1: HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT

Smith repeats each of the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.
Plaintiff has been subjected to a hostile work environment and discrimination in
employment because of sex which affected the terms, conditions and privileges of employment

SMITH V. MANAGEMENT TRAINING CORP.: FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Pg.5

Case 4:16-cv-00176-A Document 23 Filed 08/15/16

Page 6 of 9 PageID 129

and which has resulted in an adverse employment action. Specifically, Defendant is liable to
Plaintiff pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 2000e (a)(1).
In creating and / or allowing a sexually hostile work environment to go without remedy
in spite of repeated complaints by Plaintiff, Defendant MTC's conduct constitutes discrimination
because of sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In Oncale v. Sundowner
Offshore Services, 523 U.S. 75 (1998) the Supreme Court, in a unanimous opinion written by
Justice Scalia, concluded that sex discrimination consisting of same-sex sexual harassment is
actionable under Title VII.
COUNT 2: GENDER STEREOTYPING

Smith repeats each of the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.
Insofar as Plaintiffs complaints of a sexually hostile work environment routinely
consisted of being told to "man up," and stop "walking like a girl," and being specifically told
told that he was unfit to carry out certain duties because he is homosexual, MTC's conduct
constitutes discrimination based on sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
In Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 (1989) the Supreme Court held that
discriminatory employment practices that are based on gender-stereotyping is discrimination
"because of ... sex" in accordance with Title VIt
Smith has been damaged as a result ofMTC' discrimination against him. Smith's
damages include lost back pay, lost benefits, lost front pay, emotional distress and pain and
suffering.
MTC' discrimination was done with malice and/or with reckless disregard for Smith's
statutorily-protected rights. An award of exemplary damages is therefore warranted.

SMITH v. MANAGEMENT TRAINING CORP.: FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Pg.6

Case 4:16-cv-00176-A Document 23 Filed 08/15/16

Page 7 of 9 PageID 130

COUNT 3: RETALIATION

Smith repeats each of the foregoing allegations as if fully set forth herein.
Insofar as Plaintiff Smith lodged complaints to Defendant that he was being subjected to
a sexually hostile work environment and Defendant responded by punishing him by limiting his
work opportunities (disallowing him to perform certain functions which in tum would limit his
opportunity for growth within the company that individuals who did not make complaints would
normally have), MTC's conduct constitutes discrimination based on sex in violation of Title VII
ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Title VII makes it an unlawful employment practice for a person covered by the Act to
discriminate against an individual "because he has opposed any practice made an unlawful
employment practice by this subchapter, or because he has made a charge, testified, assisted, or
participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this subchapter." 42
U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a).
V

JURY DEMAND
Smith hereby demands a jury trial as to all claims that may be tried to ajury.

VI
PRAYER
Wherefore, Plaintiff Smith respectfully requests that the Defendant MTC be cited to
answer this Complaint, and to defend against the allegations contained herein. Plaintiff asks that
the Court award him, to the fullest extent allowed by law:
A. Reinstatement and/or front pay;

SMITH v. MANAGEMENT TRAINING CORP.: FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Pg.7

Case 4:16-cv-00176-A Document 23 Filed 08/15/16

Page 8 of 9 PageID 131

B. Compensatory damages, including back pay, and compensation for lost benefits,

emotional distress and pain and suffering;
C. Exemplary damages;

D. Attorneys' fees;
E. Costs, including expert witness fees; and
F. Such other and further relief to which Plaintiff may be entitled.
Dated this 11 th day of August, 2016.

Respectfully submitted,
HINDM.ANIBY~UM,P.e.
~)
/ IfI

II~!/! /i

1.1/
t I
i

/

..•

i'

,1 /11.

,/!I

I.

i

~

1

II

,I

Michael HiiJ.dmari
,
I
State Bar No. 24000267
Michael.hindman@hindmanbynum.com
5005 Greenville AVe., Suite 200
Dallas, Texas 75206
Phone No.
(214) 941-4611
Fax No.
(469)906-2340
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

SMITH v. MANAGEMENT TRAINING CORP.: FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Pg.8

Case 4:16-cv-00176-A Document 23 Filed 08/15/16

Page 9 of 9 PageID 132

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that the foregoing has been filed pursuant to the electronic filing
requirements ofthe United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas on the 11 th day
of August, 2016, which provides for service on couns.el of res;ord in accordance with the electronic
'1
If 1

li/l / // /7

filing protocols in place.

.(i
!

;

v / /
I,

\

i

/

/

/;, I

,/

L

I

I
I

I
j

\

\

SMITH V. MANAGEMENT TRAINING CORP.: FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

Pg.9