Case: 1:17-cv-00638-TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/17 Page: 1 of 7 PAGEID #: 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT CINCINNATI

THERESA CARTER * CASE NO. 1:17 CV 638

267 BURMAN AVENUE
TROTWOOD, OH 45426 * JUDGE:

Plaintiff, *
COMPLAINT WITH
-vs- * JURY DEMAND

ARAMARK d/b/a ARAMARK *

SERVICES, INC.
1101 MARKET STREET *
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19107
*
and
*
GREGORY NELSON
2754 LAURELWOOD COURT *
BEAVERCREEK, OH 45431
*
Defendants.

Plaintiff Theresa Carter sets forth her Complaint against Defendants Aramark doing
business as Aramark Services, Inc. and Gregory Nelson, jointly and severally, as follows:

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Theresa Carter seeks redress with respect to Defendants’ violations of her civil
rights based on sex discrimination and sexual harassment, as detailed specifically within this
Complaint.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This Complaint is brought pursuant to both Federal and Ohio state laws, including Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2]; The Civil Rights Act of 1991; Ohio
Revised Code §§ 4112.02(A).
 Case: 1:17-cv-00638-TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/17 Page: 2 of 7 PAGEID #: 2

2. Jurisdiction is founded upon 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

3. Plaintiff’s state law claims for relief are within the supplemental jurisdiction of this Court,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, as those claims form a part of the same case or controversy
under Article III of the United States Constitution.

4. The unlawful actions alleged in this Complaint took place within the jurisdiction of the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio (Western Division). Venue is
proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
III. PARTIES

5. Plaintiff Theresa Carter (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), at all times relevant to this Complaint, was a
resident of the City of Trotwood, the County of Montgomery, and the State of Ohio.

6. Defendant Aramark d/b/a Aramark Services, Inc. (hereinafter “Defendant Aramark”), is a

Corporation that, at all times relevant to this Complaint, was operating in the City of
Lebanon, the County of Warren, and the State of Ohio.

7. Defendant Gregory Nelson (hereinafter “Defendant Nelson”) is an individual that was a

manager for Defendant Aramark, at all times relevant to this Complaint, with the authority to
hire and terminate the employment of Plaintiff, and was a resident of the City of
Beavercreek, the County of Greene, and the State of Ohio.

8. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Aramark employed more than 15
employees.

IV. EXHAUSTION OF REMEDIES

9. Plaintiff filed a timely Complaint with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission and received notice of her right to sue on June 27, 2017, a copy of which is
attached hereto and incorporated herein, as Exhibit 1. All conditions precedent to the
institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.

V. STATEMENT OF FACTS

10. On or about December 30, 2015, Defendant Nelson on behalf of Defendant Aramark hired
Plaintiff, a female, to serve as a Cook Supervisor within the Lebanon Correctional Institution
in Lebanon, Ohio.

11. Plaintiff applied for the position and was interviewed by Defendant Nelson who extended an
offer of employment at the initial interview.

12. Plaintiff participated in an abbreviated version of Defendant Aramark’s orientation and initial
training with the answers to test questions being provided.

2
 Case: 1:17-cv-00638-TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/17 Page: 3 of 7 PAGEID #: 3

13. Plaintiff began working for Defendants and was a reliable employee that effectively
performed all the essential functions of her position.

14. After her employment began, Plaintiff made Defendant Nelson aware of a disability she
suffered from that sometimes affected her ability to work and should be covered by the
Family Medical Leave Act.

15. In early January of 2016, after approximately one week on the job, Defendant Nelson began
complimenting Plaintiff’s physical appearance.

16. Initially, Defendant Nelson’s compliments of Plaintiff’s physical appearance were not
inappropriate.

17. After approximately two weeks on the job, Plaintiff began receiving inappropriate text
messages from Defendant Nelson about her physical appearance that were sexual in nature.

18. When Defendant Nelson started texting inappropriate messages, he also began making
inappropriate sexual comments to Plaintiff.

19. Defendant Nelson’s sexual comments and texts often included mentioning Plaintiff’s
buttocks and how it appeared.

20. By the end of January 2016, Defendant Nelson began to inappropriately touch Plaintiff at
work by grabbing her buttocks with his hands and brushing his crotch against her.

21. Because Defendant Nelson was the most senior member of management for Defendant
Aramark’s Lebanon operation, Plaintiff felt powerless to address his inappropriate behavior.

22. Plaintiff reasonably believed her employment depended on her submission to the desires of
the person that hired her, Defendant Nelson.

23. Defendant Nelson began pressuring Plaintiff to meet him after work.

24. Initially, Plaintiff made excuses not to meet with Defendant Nelson hoping he would
eventually stop asking.

25. Defendant Nelson was undeterred by Plaintiff’s excuses and persisted in his demands that
she meet with him after work.

26. Defendant Nelson knew, or should have known, that due to Plaintiff’s disability, she was
especially susceptible to being pressured.

27. Eventually, in late January of 2016, Plaintiff agreed to meet with Defendant Nelson after
work.

3
 Case: 1:17-cv-00638-TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/17 Page: 4 of 7 PAGEID #: 4

28. Defendant Nelson continued to inappropriately touch Plaintiff during these after work
meetings.

29. Defendant Nelson’s sexual touching started with kissing and fondling Plaintiff’s breast and
buttocks.

30. Defendant Nelson used his position of authority with Defendant Aramark to schedule
Plaintiff’s work hours so that she was available to meet him after work.

31. Defendant Nelson’s sexual demands eventually increased to touching and penetrating
Plaintiff’s vagina and making her touch his penis.

32. Defendant Nelson continued to send inappropriate sexual text messages and began
demanding nude photos of Plaintiff.

33. On one of the after-work meeting, Defendant Nelson insisted that Plaintiff go to a hotel with
him.

34. Plaintiff reluctantly complied with Defendant Nelson’s demand that she go to a hotel.

35. Once Defendant Nelson had Plaintiff in the hotel room, he pressured her into having
intercourse with him.

36. Plaintiff began to be overwhelmed with the pressure put on her by Defendant Nelson and it
was having a significant impact on her disability.

37. Plaintiff began to withdraw and did everything in her power to avoid Defendant Nelson.

38. In early March of 2016, Plaintiff began to ignore Defendant Nelson when he made sexual
demands and tried to avoid coming into contact with him at work.

39. Defendant Nelson became angry with Plaintiff and began using his position with Defendant
Aramark to take actions against her.

40. After Plaintiff began ignoring Defendant Nelson, he changed her schedule and delayed the
time when she could receive her paycheck.

41. After Plaintiff began ignoring Defendant Nelson, he issued Plaintiff unwarranted discipline
in retaliation.

42. The consequences for Plaintiff’s refusal to succumb to Defendant Nelson’s sexual demands
were exactly what she feared from the beginning.

43. Upon information and belief, Defendant Nelson made a false allegation against Plaintiff with
Lebanon Correctional Institution.

4
 Case: 1:17-cv-00638-TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/17 Page: 5 of 7 PAGEID #: 5

44. Based on the allegation from Defendant Nelson, Lebanon Correctional Institute began an
investigation of Plaintiff.

45. Plaintiff denied the false allegations made against her with Lebanon Correctional Institution
and offered to provide proof of her innocence.

46. Based on the false allegations made against Plaintiff, her security clearance to work at
Lebanon Correctional Institution was revoked and her employment was terminated by
Defendant Aramark.

47. Upon information and belief, after revoking Plaintiff’s clearance, Lebanon Correctional
Institution learned that the allegations against Plaintiff were untrue.

48. Upon information and belief, Defendant Nelson was asked whether Lebanon Correctional
Institution should reinstate Plaintiff’s clearance to work at the facility.

49. Upon information and belief, Defendant Nelson told personnel for Lebanon Correctional
Institution not to reinstate the clearance of Plaintiff.

50. Plaintiff contacted Defendant Aramark’s corporate office to report what had occurred during
her employment and to report that she was wrongly terminated.

51. Plaintiff spoke with someone at the corporate office named Sharon and received a case
number of AFSS-16-03-0422.

52. Upon information and belief, Defendant Nelson had a history of sexually harassing female
employees and Defendant Aramark was aware of this history.

53. Despite knowledge of Defendant Nelson’s propensity to sexually harass subordinate

employees, Defendant Aramark retained him in a management position with the company.

54. Defendant Aramark never followed up with Plaintiff regarding her report of sexual
harassment and wrongful termination.

VI. CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT I
SEX DISCRIMINATION AND SEXUAL HARASSMENT

In violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Ohio Revised Code §
4112.02(A).

55. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 54 above, as if fully rewritten herein.

56. Plaintiff is a female.

57. As a female, Plaintiff is a member of a protected class.

5
 Case: 1:17-cv-00638-TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/17 Page: 6 of 7 PAGEID #: 6

58. Defendant Nelson began making sexual demands of Plaintiff shortly after she was hired.

59. Plaintiff initially acquiesced to Defendant Nelson’s sexual demand, but subsequently refused
to comply.

60. Defendant Nelson and Defendant Aramark took adverse employment action against Plaintiff
by changing her terms and conditions of employment including issuing her unwarranted
discipline.

61. Defendant Nelson took actions that led to the termination of Plaintiff’s employment with
Defendant Aramark.

62. Defendant Aramark was made aware of Defendant Nelson’s actions on their behalf and
failed to address the sexual harassment and wrongful termination of Plaintiff.

63. Plaintiff was qualified for the position she held with Defendant Aramark.

64. Defendants treated similarly situated employees, outside of Plaintiff’s protected class, more
favorably.

65. Defendant Nelson took the adverse employment actions against Plaintiff because she refused
to comply with his sexual demands.

66. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ discrimination against Plaintiff, she has
suffered damages and loss.

COUNT II
NEGLIGENT HIRING AND RETENTION

67. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraph 1 through 66 above, as if fully rewritten herein.

68. Defendant Aramark had a duty to provide a workplace free of sexual harassment.

69. Defendant Aramark knew, or should have known, that Defendant Nelson had a history of
sexually inappropriate conduct with subordinate employees.

70. Defendant Aramark knew, or should have known, that Defendant Nelson was committing
inappropriate sexual acts against employees, including Plaintiff.

71. Defendant Aramark negligently hired and negligently retained Defendant Nelson despite
knowledge of his conduct.

6
 Case: 1:17-cv-00638-TSB Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/22/17 Page: 7 of 7 PAGEID #: 7

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally,

in an amount exceeding one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000), together with pre-judgment

interest, interest, costs herein expended, compensatory damages, punitive damages, reasonable

attorney fees, and such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Julius L. Carter _

Julius L. Carter (#0084170)
Julius L. Carter Co., LPA
130 W. Second Street Suite 1622
Dayton, OH 45402
(937) 222-7900
(937) 716-2181 Fax
jcarter@juliuscarter.com
Trial Attorney for Plaintiff Theresa Carter

JURY DEMAND

Now comes the Plaintiff and hereby demands a trial by Jury of all issues so triable.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Julius L. Carter _

Julius L. Carter (#0084170)
Julius L. Carter Co., LPA
130 W. Second Street Suite 1622
Dayton, OH 45402
(937) 222-7900
(937) 716-2181 Fax
jcarter@juliuscarter.com
Trial Attorney for Plaintiff Theresa Carter