Show Multidocs
Show Multidocs
AMBER N. SHARPE, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No. _________________
)
CORECIVIC OF TENNESSEE, LLC, ) JURY TRIAL DEMAND (12)
)
Defendant. )
COMPLAINT
Comes now the Plaintiff, AMBER N. SHARPE (“Plaintiff”), by and through counsel and
files this civil action against the Defendant, and CORECIVIC OF TENNESSEE, LLC,
I. PARTIES
organized under the laws of Tennessee and doing business in the State of Tennessee. Defendant,
CoreCivic of Tennessee, LLC may be served with process by serving one of its registered agents
for service of process, C T Corporation System, located at 300 Montvue Road, Knoxville, TN
37919-5546.
3. The facts and circumstances giving rise to these causes of action, or a certain of
4. Plaintiff’s causes of action arise under the laws of the United States, namely Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Plaintiff brings this Complaint based on the claims stated
herein in U.S. District Court under federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
5. A certain of Plaintiff’s causes of action arise under and by virtue of the laws of the
State of Tennessee. Said claims are so related to claims in the action within the U.S. District
Court’s original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III
of the United States Constitution. Accordingly, the U.S. District Court exercises jurisdiction over
6. Venue in this District is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, in that the Defendant
or its agents, or a certain of them, may be found here; a substantial part of the events giving rise to
Plaintiff’s claims occurred here; and the Defendant transacts business here.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Plaintiff subsequently requested that the EEOC issue her
a Right to Sue letter. The EEOC issued a Right to Sue letter dated November 15, 2029, which
10. At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant,
CoreCivic of Tennessee, LLC began engaging in a pattern of unwelcome, harassing, and sexually
12. On or about December 10, 2018, Correctional Officer Billings made unwelcome
13. In the incident of December 10, Correctional Officer Billings said to Plaintiff, “You
sound like you need a full body massage with oil,” and, “Come in to the break room and we will
16. This conduct was observed by no fewer than five (5) facility inmates.
17. Several weeks after the incident of December 10, 2018, Correctional Officer
19. Several weeks after the aforementioned incident, Correctional Officer Billings
20. In the third incident of unwelcome and harassing conduct, Plaintiff was in the break
21. Plaintiff, fully clothed, was fixing her shirt. Correctional Officer Billings came at
Plaintiff with his right hand outstretched in a claw-like position, moving toward Plaintiff’s chest.
23. Correctional Officer Billings said, “Come on. Let me see,” while pointing at
Plaintiff’s chest.
25. In said instance, Correctional Officer Billings propositioned Plaintiff no less than
three times to pull down her shirt to allow Correctional Officer Billings to see Plaintiff’s bare
26. The same day, Plaintiff reported Correctional Officer Billings’ unwelcome,
sexually harassing conduct to her supervisor Lieutenant Williams. Plaintiff told Lieutenant
27. Lieutenant Williams failed to take any action in response to Plaintiff’s complaint
of sexual harassment.
28. Defendant, CoreCivic of Tennessee, LLC failed to take any remedial action in
Defendant, CoreCivic of Tennessee, LLC, through its employees and/or agents, began a pattern of
retaliatory conduct toward Plaintiff aimed at coercing the Plaintiff to resign from her employment
for Defendant.
30. On January 10, 2019, Plaintiff went to the office of Assistant Warden Yolanda
Pittman. Plaintiff reported to Ms. Yolanda Pittman that Plaintiff had been sexually harassed the
previous day.
31. Ms. Pittman handed the Plaintiff a pen. After Plaintiff accepted the pen from Ms.
Pittman, Ms. Pittman stated, “I know you didn’t just snatch that pen out of my hand,” and “Hell
no! You better get her out of here!” Ms. Pittman became verbally and physically belligerent toward
Plaintiff and had to be physically restrained by other employees to prevent her from battering the
Plaintiff.
32. Following the incident with Assistant Warden Yolanda Pittman, the Plaintiff and
33. On March 21, 2019, Plaintiff returned to work for Defendant, following more than
34. When Plaintiff returned to work, she was subjected to false rumors from inmates,
including falsity that she performed sexual favors for guards and inmates. Plaintiff is informed and
believes that such falsities originated from and were proliferated by employees and agents of
Defendant made it impossible for Plaintiff to perform her job as correctional officer.
37. Plaintiff incorporates all of the statements contained in each of the numbered
38. Defendant’s employees, during the course and scope of their employment for
39. This sexually harassing conduct was severe, pervasive, and offensive to a
reasonable person and created a hostile work environment which interfered with Plaintiff’s
40. Defendant, through its agents or supervisors failed to adequately supervise, control,
discipline, and/or otherwise penalize the conduct of its employees toward Plaintiff.
41. As a direct and proximate result of the hostile and offensive work environment
perpetrated by Defendant’s agents and/or employees, and Defendant’s failure to protect Plaintiff
from such discrimination, the Plaintiff suffered humiliation, emotional distress, and mental
be proven at trial.
discrimination in violation of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
V. RETALIATION
43. Plaintiff incorporates all of the statements contained in each of the numbered
44. As herein alleged, Defendant, by and through its officers, managing agents and/or
its supervisors, illegally retaliated against Plaintiff by subjecting her to unjust scrutiny, false
allegations of misconduct and unwelcome and derisive comments solely because she had reported
constructively terminating Plaintiff’s employment. Defendant had no legitimate reasons for any
such act. Each said act of retaliation is in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
45. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s acts of retaliation against Plaintiff,
Plaintiff suffered harms, including humiliation and mental anguish, and, ultimately, Plaintiff’s
constructive termination from her employment for Defendant. Plaintiff is thereby entitled to
46. Plaintiff incorporates all of the statements contained in each of the numbered
47. Plaintiff was employed as a sales representative for Defendant under a valid and
48. After Plaintiff was initially hired by Defendant, Plaintiff undertook and continued
employment, and duly performed all of the conditions of the above said employment agreement to
termination of Plaintiff. At the time of Plaintiff’s termination, she was ready, willing, and able to
perform all of the duties and conditions of the employment agreement to be performed by Plaintiff.
49. Defendant constructively terminated Plaintiff’s employment without cause and for
a discriminatory purpose, namely for pretextual and defamatory reasons in retaliation for her
the reasons described above, and as such, said termination is illegal and is excepted from the
employment-at-will doctrine.
52. Plaintiff incorporates all of the statements contained in each of the numbered
Plaintiff was caused to suffer, and continues to suffer, from humiliation, anxiety, and severe
emotional distress. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to special and general damages in an amount
to be proven at trial.
56. Plaintiff would state that Defendant’s conduct, described above, was reckless and
VIII. DEFAMATION
57. Plaintiff incorporates all of the statements contained in each of the numbered
58. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant, by Defendant’s employees and/or
agents, by the herein-described acts, conspired to, and in fact, did negligently and recklessly cause
excessive and unsolicited internal and external publications of defamation, of and concerning
Plaintiff, to third persons and to the community. These false and defamatory statements included
express and implied accusations that Plaintiff violated company policies; that she was such a poor
performer; that she deserved warnings and disciplinary actions against her; that she was
incompetent and a troublemaker; and was dishonest. These and other similar false statements
expressly and impliedly stated that Plaintiff was dishonest, lazy, incompetent, and a poor
performer.
60. The Defendant’s defamatory publications consisted of oral and written, knowingly
false and unprivileged communications, tending directly to injure Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s personal,
business, and professional reputation. As a direct and proximate result of said acts of defamation,
61. The Defendant’s acts of defamation directly impugned Plaintiff’s professional and
62. Plaintiff would state that Defendant’s conduct, described above, was reckless and
63. Plaintiff incorporates all of the statements contained in each of the numbered
64. The conduct of Defendant, as described above, was offensive and outrageous to a
reasonable person and was undertaken with reckless disregard for whether Plaintiff would suffer
emotional distress. Plaintiff indeed suffered emotional distress, including depression and anxiety
65. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s conduct, as described above,
66. Plaintiff would state that Defendant’s conduct, described above, was reckless and
X. DAMAGES
67. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s unlawful conduct, as indicated
Defendant;
68. Plaintiff has sustained and will continue to sustain further additional damages as a
69. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s unlawful acts and/or omissions,
Plaintiff is entitled to recover, from the Defendant, compensatory damages for the damages set out
in this Complaint.
to be fair and reasonable under the law and evidence, but in no event less than the
amount of $250,000.00.
D. That a jury of twelve (12) persons be empaneled in this case to try all matters
G. That Plaintiff be awarded such other general relief the Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted on this the 10th day of February, 2020, by the following counsel:
pur?osc ot rIlrhatrng rhe crvll Jocker shcer tsEE tNS|RULT'I,NS oN NExT'tutGE ot'7t S tofiM.)
I. (,) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS
Amber N. Sharpe Corecivic of Tennessee, LLC
(b) Couty ornesiaence ofFirst Lisled Plainrifi Trousdale Comty ofResidence ofFimt Listed Defendant Davidson
(EXCEPT N U-S- PI}]MIFF CASES) (lN U.S. PUNTIFF CASES oNlfl
NOTE: rN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE TIIE L0CATIoN oF
T}IE TRACT OF LAND T}IIVOLYED.
(C) Attorneys /r'fa Nd ne, Address. atut Tel?thone Nt bet) Attotueys 0f rro@)
Il. IIASIS OF JURISDICTION rri,.."" "x" i,otuBo\ontr) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES ptace aa "x" ir oae Bo' rot ptuinti
(Fot Di'e.si4'C66 o,b) dnd ok Boxfot Defehdaht)
L.lI X3 Fcdcral Qucsion PTF DEF PTF DEF
(U-5.Go,eraM Not a Party) Cilizcn ofThis Sta0e rll Cl I lncoDordtcd o' kincipal Place 17 4 i4
ofBu.sin6s ltrThis St tc
'tl U.S.Golellrlrmr Cl4 Divc$iry Ci&in ofAnolhs SBte lf 2 D lrcorlDEled ,r./ Pmflpal Placr rl 5 .'I 5
Dcfendet (lndicute Cnize8hip dPanies in lteh 1I) ofBusincss !n Another Sale
Rl'( tilPI ri
Case 3:20-cv-00122 Document 1-1 Filed 02/10/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID
AMOUNT #: 12
N,IAG, ]LIDGE
Case 3:20-cv-00122 Document 1-2 Filed 02/10/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 13