Case 2:11-cv-00809-PGR Document 1 Filed 04/21/11 Page 1 of 13

1 Luis Ramírez
2 lramirez@pryorandamar.com
40 W. Baseline Road, Suite 203
3 Tempe, AZ 85283
4
Pro se Plaintiff

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Luis Ramirez, ) Case No.:

)
10
Plaintiff, ) COMPLAINT
11 )
vs. )
12
)
13 Quarles & Brady LLP, )
)
14
Defendant. )
15 )
16
1. This is an employment discrimination action brought by Plaintiff pursuant
17
to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as codified by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.; and
18

19 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
20
2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to (a) 28 U.S.C. § 1331,
21

22
because the case arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States; (b) 28

23 U.S.C. § 1343, because this action seeks redress and damages for violation of 42 U.S.C. §
24
1981. 28 U.S.C. § 1232, since there is diversity of citizenship and this is a civil action
25

26
involving, exclusive of interest and costs, a sum in excess of $75,000.

27
3. Plaintiff, Luis Ramirez (“Plaintiff”), is an Arizona resident.
28

Complaint - 1
 Case 2:11-cv-00809-PGR Document 1 Filed 04/21/11 Page 2 of 13

1 4. Defendant, Quarles & Brady LLP (“Defendant” or “Quarles”) is a law firm

2
incorporated in Wisconsin. Defendant operates and employs individuals in Arizona via
3

4
its Phoenix branch office.

5 5. On or about September 2003, Plaintiff was hired by Quarles as an

6
Associate Attorney. Plaintiff had been previously employed by Quarles in 2002 as a
7
Summer Associate
8

9 6. During Plaintiff’s employment he was subjected to discrimination and

10
retaliation in the form of unequal treatment in the evaluation process, unequal treatment
11
is the assignment of work, being blackballed from work on certain clients, including one
12

13 of the Firm’s biggest clients.

14
7. Throughout the Firm, associates’ work is assigned by partners. The
15
quantity and type of work assignment an associate receives affects that associate’s
16

17 professional development, advancement, and pay. Plaintiff and other minority (i.e. non-
18
Caucasian) attorneys employed by Quarles were frequently overlooked in the assignment
19
of tasks while the Firm’s partners preferred to give the work to non-minority associates.
20

21 8. Plaintiff and other minority associates were also subject to unequal

22 treatment in the Firm’s evaluation process. Plaintiff was subjected to evaluations that
23
were unduly more critical than the evaluations of non-minority associates, contained
24

25 generalizations and stereotypes based on race and national origin, and false assertions

26 that were not verified for accuracy.

27
9. During one of Plaintiff’s initial evaluations a partner made a disparaging
28
comment attacking Plaintiff’s work ethic. However, during this period Plaintiff was

Complaint - 2
 Case 2:11-cv-00809-PGR Document 1 Filed 04/21/11 Page 3 of 13

1 actually staying late at the office working on a document production project for another
2
partner (usually from 5-9pm for close to a year). There were other non-minority
3

4
associates who, like Plaintiff, were also leaving their offices to go work on the document

5 production room. Upon information and belief, none faced similar criticism. At
6
Plaintiff’s evaluation, Plaintiff complained about the inaccuracy in the comments and
7
informed the Firm’s representative that he could verify Plaintiff’s contribution with the
8

9 partner in charge of the document production project. The Firm chose not to verify the
10
facts after Plaintiff complained. Plaintiff was told not to “worry” about the comment.
11
Five years later, in their position statement in response to Plaintiff’s discrimination and
12

13 retaliation EEOC Charge, the Firm attempted to exploit the old comment and issue which
14
they refused to clarify at the time of the evaluation in order to disparage Plaintiff.
15
10. John Pettibone (“Pettibone”), then a Senior Partner at the Firm (now
16

17 Managing Partner), evaluated Plaintiff differently than other non-minority associates and
18
made comments about Plaintiff which were not based on fact. Including his statement in
19
his first evaluation of Plaintiff that Plaintiff “did not have what it takes to make it here.”
20

21 Pettibone's comment was driven by his bias against minority attorneys and the stereotypy

22 that minority attorneys did not belong at the Firm and were hired based on their status
23
rather than their qualifications. In fact, other non-minority associates have made
24

25 substantive mistakes while working with Pettibone and he has not been as critical in their

26 evaluations.
27
11. Similarly, Plaintiff was subjected to discriminatory treatment by one of the
28
Firm’s Senior Associates (later Partner) Sandra Creta (“Creta”). Creta also exploited the

Complaint - 3
 Case 2:11-cv-00809-PGR Document 1 Filed 04/21/11 Page 4 of 13

1 evaluation process to make false statements about Plaintiff and disparage Plaintiff’s
2
competence, even suggesting that Plaintiff attend “remedial” classes. Creta’s statements
3

4
were not based on fact. Creta treated non-minority associates differently and was less

5 critical than she was of Plaintiff and other minorities. Creta was known by several other
6
employees at the Firm to have made disparaging remarks about minorities, including
7
asserting that one of the Firm’s few minority partners was promoted based on her race.
8

9 12. The Firm allows the evaluations to be used by discriminatory actors like
10
Pettibone and Creta as a tool to label minority employees and send the message that they
11
are not going to make it to partnership and therefore have no reason to stay at the Firm
12

13 long term. The Firm also ignores that minority associates have a very difficult time
14
getting work assignments. Consequently, many minority associates, including Hispanics,
15
leave the Firm and never become partners.
16

17 13. Indeed, Plaintiff attended a minority attorney retreat created by the Firm for
18
its minority attorneys. At this retreat, many attorneys shared information concerning the
19
discriminatory experiences within the Firm. Many attorneys asserted going through
20

21 similar experiences at the Firm concerning discriminatory perceptions evaluations,

22 comments, and assignment of work.

23
14. Even when the evaluations submitted were positive and provided by
24

25 attorneys that were satisfied with the work produced by Plaintiff, the Firm continued to

26 cast them in a negative light. Positive and constructive written comments by evaluators
27
were purposefully skewed to sound negative in the evaluation meeting and subsequent
28
memorandum summary of the meeting. On at least one occasion, one of the evaluators

Complaint - 4
 Case 2:11-cv-00809-PGR Document 1 Filed 04/21/11 Page 5 of 13

1 had to write a follow-up memo explaining that his comments were not to be viewed as
2
negative. The Firm did not use the evaluation process in such a manner with non-
3

4
minority employees.

5 15. In 2005, one of the Firm’s minority partners, in an attempt to remediate the
6
issues facing minority associates, set up a meeting with the Firm’s then Managing
7
Partner, Kent Stevens. Plaintiff was asked to participate in this meeting and attended
8

9 along with two other associates.

10
16. At the meeting, Plaintiff notified the Managing Partner of the
11
discriminatory actions of Pettibone and Creta and of the work assignment issues. The
12

13 other associates in attendance at the meeting also raised similar concerns about work
14
assignments. One of the associates noted that she was even forced to switch practice
15
groups after she was routinely passed over for work assignments.
16

17 17. The Managing Partner agreed that the comments made in Plaintiff’s
18
evaluation by Pettibone and Creta did not seem appropriate. He stated that he would
19
discuss the impropriety of these comments with Pettibone. He also stated that Creta
20

21 would not be a part of the team evaluating Plaintiff any longer.

22 18. Pettibone’s reaction to the meeting and to Plaintiff’s complaint was to

23
blackball Plaintiff. For the two years following the meeting, Pettibone refused to assign
24

25 Plaintiff any work and forbade any other associates or partners working on matters

26 involving Pettibone’s clients to assign Plaintiff work on such matters.

27
19. Although not his client, Pettibone also blackballed Plaintiff and forbade
28
anyone to assign Plaintiff any work involving an international package delivery company,

Complaint - 5
 Case 2:11-cv-00809-PGR Document 1 Filed 04/21/11 Page 6 of 13

1 which was one of the Firm’s biggest clients. At Pettibone’s orders, Plaintiff stopped
2
receiving assignments involving the package delivery company and such assignments
3

4
were instead given to non-minority associates of Plaintiff’s same year, and even more

5 junior non-minority associates. Ironically, the Firm touted its supposed diversity to this
6
client and other clients while at the same time, Pettibone, one of its senior partners in the
7
Labor and Employment Group blackballed one of the few minority associates in the
8

9 group and prevented him from working with client.

10
20. Pettibone’s discriminatory and retaliatory blackballing was known to the
11
Firm. Additionally, Plaintiff brought the matter to the Firm Diversity Coordinator, yet
12

13 the Firm did nothing to investigate or remediate the problem.

14
21. In 2007 Creta, after being promoted to partner, began evaluate Plaintiff
15
once again. She continued with her discriminatory treatment and attempts to damage
16

17 Plaintiff’s career. The client for whom Plaintiff and Creta worked was happy with
18
Plaintiff’s performance and the client’s representative was happy with plaintiff’s
19
performance and praised his work. Nevertheless, Creta made several false statements in
20

21 Plaintiff’s evaluation concerning the same representation that was praised by the client.

22 22. Other than Creta’s disparaging comments, the 2007 evaluation at issue was
23
generally comprised of positive comments by other Partners and Senior Associates.
24

25 During that year, Plaintiff had obtained several favorable results for clients and clients

26 had also expressed satisfaction and confidence with Plaintiff’s work. Nevertheless, the
27
Firm determined, based on Creta’s comments, that Plaintiff would be evaluated again in
28

Complaint - 6
 Case 2:11-cv-00809-PGR Document 1 Filed 04/21/11 Page 7 of 13

1 six months. Only junior associates are evaluated every six months. Associates of
2
Plaintiff’s year are evaluated annually.
3

4
23. In August 2007, Plaintiff notified the Firm that he should not be treated

5 differently than other Associates. Plaintiff raised the issue of Creta’s discriminatory
6
treatment with the Firm and how this was affecting his professional development.
7
Plaintiff specifically requested that the Firm investigate his complaints and verify
8

9 whether or not the comments made by Creta were accurate. Plaintiff asked that if the
10
Firm found that the comments were accurate then the Firm take whatever action it
11
deemed appropriate; including the six month evaluation. However, if the Firm found the
12

13 comments to be inaccurate, Plaintiff requested that the Firm take action to remediate the
14
problem including having the comments removed from Plaintiff’s record or corrected.
15
Again, the Firm chose not to investigate the issues raised by Plaintiff or verify the
16

17 veracity of Creta’s attacks against Plaintiff.

18
24. While ignoring Plaintiff’s complaint, the Firm conducted a different limited
19
investigation of Creta in 2007 and deliberately excluded Plaintiff. After Plaintiff
20

21 complained about Creta, other individuals came forward with allegations improper

22 remarks by Creta in front of associates. The Firm allowed Pettibone to investigate.

23
Pettibone investigated only alleged inappropriate sexual remarks Ms. Creta made, and
24

25 restricted the investigation to interviewing Caucasian males in the group. Pettibone did

26 not interview Plaintiff nor show any concern that Plaintiff was present when some of Ms.
27
Creta’s allegedly inappropriate sexual remarks were made. Moreover, Pettibone and the
28
Firm deliberately did not investigate Plaintiff’s specific and related complaint that Creta

Complaint - 7
 Case 2:11-cv-00809-PGR Document 1 Filed 04/21/11 Page 8 of 13

1 made racially discriminatory remarks about minorities and took discriminatory actions
2
against Plaintiff.
3

4
25. In 2007, Pettibone was promoted to Head of the Labor and Employment

5 Group. On or about that time, Plaintiff was in the process of meeting with a Firm
6
representative concerning the discriminatory issues described above. During this meeting,
7
Plaintiff reminded the representative that Pettibone had blackballed him after his last
8

9 complaint of discrimination. Plaintiff informed her that no other associate in the group
10
was being treated in such a manner. At that time, Plaintiff was informed that Pettibone
11
would begin to work with him and allow him to complete work on behalf of his clients
12

13 and on his matters. However, the Firm never investigated or addressed Plaintiff’s
14
complaints about discrimination, the evaluation process, or Pettibone’s treatment. Less
15
than six months after Pettibone started to work with Plaintiff, Plaintiff was let go based
16

17 on Pettibone’s representations.
18
26. Immediately after beginning to work with Plaintiff again, Pettibone
19
continued his pattern of discrimination and retaliation against Plaintiff. Pettibone made
20

21 assertions in Plaintiff’s evaluation that were manufactured and not based on fact.

22 27. At the evaluation conference Pettibone attempted to draw Plaintiff into an

23
argument, and was generally confrontational and aggressive. For his part, Plaintiff
24

25 calmly explained that he wholly disagreed with Pettibone’s conclusions, that he did not

26 want to argue. He explained that he wanted to find common ground and concentrate on
27
the future and continuing his professional growth.
28

Complaint - 8
 Case 2:11-cv-00809-PGR Document 1 Filed 04/21/11 Page 9 of 13

1 28. Despite Plaintiff’s attempt to keep the evaluation conference constructive,

2
Pettibone attempted to exploit the occasion. Following the evaluation conference
3

4
Pettibone drafted a memorandum misrepresenting the meeting and Plaintiff’s attempts to

5 avoid a confrontation.
6
29. During this evaluation Plaintiff was not discharged nor otherwise counseled
7
that his position with the Firm was in jeopardy. Indeed, at the start of the evaluation
8

9 conference, the Firm’s representative, Lisa Duran, stated generally that she was glad
10
there was an evaluation, that the Associate’s Evaluation Committee was happy with
11
Plaintiff’s evaluation as he had done well during the evaluation period, and that Pettibone
12

13 simply wanted to make a few additional comments. As described above, Pettibone

14
attempted to use the evaluation meeting to create a pretext.
15
30. Weeks later, Plaintiff’s employment was terminated by Quarles. According
16

17 to Quarles, the termination was based upon the evaluations and comments made by Creta
18
and Pettibone. The same evaluations and comments that it refused to investigate all
19
along.
20

21 31. Any additional facts and allegations not listed herein are provided in the

22 Intake Questionnaire to Plaintiff’s EEOC Charge and its supporting documentation;

23
which are hereby incorporated by reference.
24

25 32. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury.

26

27

28

Complaint - 9
 Case 2:11-cv-00809-PGR Document 1 Filed 04/21/11 Page 10 of 13

1 COUNT I
2 TITLE VII DISCRIMINATION

3
33. The allegations of the preceding paragraphs are realleged and incorporated
4
herein by this reference.
5

6 34. As set forth in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, Quarles denied
7 to Plaintiff certain rights and benefits afforded to other similarly situated employees
8
outside of his race (Hispanic) and national origin (Dominican Republic). Quarles'
9

10 discriminatory actions include, without limitation: evaluating Plaintiff in a different

11 manner than others outside his protected group, refusing to investigate Plaintiff’s claims
12
and excluding Plaintiff from investigations, blackballing Plaintiff, and discriminatorily
13

14
assigning work in violation of by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.

15 35. As a proximate result of Quarles’ discriminatory actions against Plaintiff,

16
Plaintiff has been harmed in that he has suffered the loss of the wages, salary, benefits,
17
employment related opportunities, and additional amounts of money he would have
18

19 received if Quarles had not discriminated against him.

20
36. As a further proximate result of Quarles’ discriminatory actions against
21
Plaintiff, he has been harmed in that he has suffered humiliation, mental anguish, and
22

23 emotional and physical distress, and has been injured in mind and body.
24
37. The above-recited actions of Quarles were intentional and done with
25
malice, fraud, or oppression, and/or were done in reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s rights.
26

27 Moreover, upon information and belief, Quarles has a pattern and practice of such
28
conduct.

Complaint - 10
 Case 2:11-cv-00809-PGR Document 1 Filed 04/21/11 Page 11 of 13

1 COUNT II
2 VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1981

3 38. The allegations of the preceding paragraphs are realleged and incorporated
4
herein by this reference.
5
39. As set forth in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, Quarles denied
6

7 to Plaintiff the full and equal enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions
8
of the contractual employment relationship. Quarles’ actions were taken on account of
9
Plaintiff’s race (Hispanic) and national origin (Dominican Republic). Moreover, Quarles
10

11 allowed other similarly situated employees outside of Plaintiff’s race and national origin
12 to enjoy benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual employment
13
relationship denied to Plaintiff.
14

15 40. As a proximate result of Quarles’ discriminatory actions against Plaintiff,

16 Plaintiff has been harmed in that he has suffered the loss of the wages, salary, benefits,
17
employment related opportunities, and additional amounts of money he would have
18

19
received if Quarles had not discriminated against him.

20 41. As a further proximate result of Quarles’ discriminatory actions against

21
Quarles, as alleged above, he has been harmed in that he has suffered humiliation, mental
22
anguish, and emotional and physical distress, and has been injured in mind and body.
23

24 42. The above-recited actions of Quarles were intentional and done with
25
malice, fraud, or oppression, and/or were done in reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s rights.
26
Moreover, upon information and belief, Quarles has a pattern and practice of such
27

28 conduct.

Complaint - 11
 Case 2:11-cv-00809-PGR Document 1 Filed 04/21/11 Page 12 of 13

1 COUNT III
2 RETALIATION

4
43. The allegations of the preceding paragraphs are realleged and incorporated

5 herein by this reference.

6
44. Various times Plaintiff complained about and notified Quarles of various
7
actions and inactions by Quarles, its partners, and senior associates that he reasonably
8

9 believed they were discriminatory and unlawful.

10
45. As set forth in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, Quarles took
11
certain actions in retaliation for the protected activities of Plaintiff. These actions,
12

13 included, without limitation: refusing to investigate, refusing to include Plaintiff in

14
investigation of Creta designed to protect similarly situated Caucasian employees,
15
subjecting Plaintiff to more scrutiny than similarly situated Caucasian employees,
16

17 denying him work assignments, and blackballing Plaintiff. There was a causal link
18
between the protected activity of Plaintiff and the retaliatory actions of Quarles.
19
46. As a proximate result of Quarles retaliatory actions against Plaintiff,
20

21 Plaintiff has been harmed in that he has suffered the loss of the wages, salary, benefits,

22 employment related opportunities, and additional amounts of money Plaintiff would have
23
received if Quarles had not retaliated against him.
24

25 47. As a further proximate result of Quarles’ retaliatory actions against

26 Plaintiff, as alleged above, he has been harmed in that he has suffered humiliation, mental
27
anguish, and emotional and physical distress, and has been injured in mind and body.
28

Complaint - 12
 Case 2:11-cv-00809-PGR Document 1 Filed 04/21/11 Page 13 of 13

1 48. The above-recited actions of Quarles were intentional and done with
2
malice, fraud, or oppression, and/or were done in reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s rights.
3

4
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

5 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as follows:

6
a. An award of actual damages and/or any other equitable relief the court
7
deems appropriate; compensatory damages, and punitive damages.
8

9
b. Plaintiff’s reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and 42
10
U.S.C. § 2000e-5.
11

12
c. Such additional relief as the interests of justice may require.
13

14

15 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 21st day of April, 2011.

16

17 By: /s/Luis Ramirez

Luis Ramírez
18 40 W. Baseline Road, Suite 203
19 Tempe, AZ 85283

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Complaint - 13