And she just wouldn't take it anymore
Here's an American female teacher who was just a little fed up with being treated like she was a foreigner in her own country and was tired of being discriminated against by the Turks. Now if we can only get the rest of the female and male American teachers on board in the other 120 schools.
What is puzzling to us -- and has been all along -- is why is it that our government and in particular, other EEOC offices have not acted more judiciously in prosecuting these guys? If it were any other race or national group discriminating in the consistent manner that these guys do, they would have been stopped in their tracks a long time ago. So why is it that the Turkish guys are given carte blanche' to continually perpetrate discriminatory acts against American teachers?
We once heard one of the Turkish administrators say -- in response to a discrimation accusation," That's what's so wonderful about America, I can hire and fire anyone whenever I want to." I guess they teach that in the Gulen training camp before they put the boys out there to run our schools.
And back to the teacher -- she sued -- and here's her complaint below:
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
BRENDA A. COUCH,
Plaintiff,
v. No.:
HARMONY SCIENCE ACADEMY-EL PASO,
FATIH AY, PRINCIPAL, COSMOS FOUNDATION,
INC.
Defendants.
COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
1. Plaintiff, Brenda A. Crouch, through undersigned counsel, brings this action, pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, and the Civil Rights Act of 1991, seeking damages to
remedy violations of her civil rights guaranteed by the Civil Rights Act of 1866, Titles
VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, the Texas Labor
Code and the New Mexico Human Rights Act, as amended. Plaintiff Couch also seeks
damages for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
and for promissory estoppel pursuant to New Mexico and Texas common law.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2. Plaintiff is a resident of El Paso, Texas and a former employee of Harmony Science
Academy-El Paso (Defendant or Charter School), a public charter school in El Paso,
Texas. Defendant Cosmos Foundation Inc. (Defendant or Cosmos) is the corporate
Case 2:07-cv-01314-LH-KBM Document 1 Filed 12/28/07 Page 1 of 16
2
parent of Defendant Charter School and is headquartered in Houston, Texas.
Defendant Cosmos owns a total of nine charter schools in six major cities
throughout Texas.
3. The acts and effects complained of herein all occurred in New Mexico or Texas
within 90 miles of the federal courthouse in Las Cruces, New Mexico. Plaintiff’s
causes of action all arose in New Mexico or Texas within 90 miles of the federal
courthouse in Las Cruces, New Mexico.
4. Defendant Charter School employs approximately 30 individuals and is located in
El Paso, Texas. Defendant Fatih Ay (Defendant Ay or Principal) is believed to
reside in El Paso, Texas.
5. The court has subject matter (federal question and supplemental) jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1331 and 1367 (a).
6. The Court also has personal jurisdiction over Defendants under New Mexico’s longarm
statute.
7. The court has personal jurisdiction over all necessary parties for the reasons stated
above.
8. Venue is proper in this district.
ALLEGATIONS OF FACT
9. Plaintiff Couch is a Hispanic female of Mexican origin and of the Christian faith.
10. Defendant Charter School hired Plaintiff Couch as a Spanish and Health teacher
in July 2006 for a one-year contractual term.
11. Plaintiff received $26,000 per year pursuant to the one-year contract.
Case 2:07-cv-01314-LH-KBM Document 1 Filed 12/28/07 Page 2 of 16
3
12. During the contract term in 2006 and 2007, Plaintiff Couch was one of
approximately 13 Christian, female employees of non-Turkish origin at
Defendant Charter School. The remaining approximately 15 employees were all
or mostly Muslim, male teachers of Turkish origin.
13. Defendant Principal is a Muslim male of Turkish origin.
14. Plaintiff Couch is a Texas certified Spanish and Health teacher. Plaintiff received
the aforementioned certification prior to commencing employment with
Defendant Charter School.
15. During Plaintiff’s contract term none of the male teachers was certified by the
State of Texas.
16. Plaintiff Couch was a better qualified, more experienced and more effective
teacher than all of the male, Muslim and Turkish teachers.
17. Early during her contract term, Plaintiff noticed, and commented to coworkers,
that Defendant Principal and other school administrators appeared to treat the
male, Muslim and Turkish teachers more favorably than the female, Christian,
non-Turkish teachers.
18. Defendants required the female, Christian, non-Turkish teachers to teach more
classes and/or to carry-out more daily extra duties, such as the After School
Program, than the male, Muslim, Turkish teachers.
19. Plaintiff Couch questioned the quality of the Turkish teachers and commented to
coworkers and parents about the inability of the Turkish teachers to communicate
effectively with their English-speaking students.
20. Plaintiff Couch did not receive many of the requested and necessary books for her
Case 2:07-cv-01314-LH-KBM Document 1 Filed 12/28/07 Page 3 of 16
4
classes at the beginning of the school year. Plaintiff noticed, and complained to
coworkers, that the male, Muslim and Turkish teachers had all been provided
their necessary books.
21. In May 2007, Plaintiff Couch learned from a coworker that all the male, Muslim
and Turkish teachers were paid $40, 000 per year, substantially more than she and
the other female, Christian and non-Turkish teachers were paid. Defendant
Charter School paid Plaintiff Couch only $26, 000 per year.
22. On May 25, 2007, Defendant Principal informed Plaintiff that he would not
renew her employment contract for the next academic year.
23. Defendant Principal stated that he had decided not to renew Plaintiff’s
employment contract because he had received complaints about her from parents.
24. Defendant Principal did not warn Plaintiff of the alleged complaints at the time he
claims he received them or at any other time before the last day of Plaintiff’s
contract.
25. Defendant Principal never asked about the circumstances of the alleged
complaints or investigated the validity of the complaints.
26. The complaints that Defendant Principal cited as the basis of the non-renewal
were all trivial and most were simple grade-based disputes. It is very likely that,
as Plaintiff contends the complaints could have been motivated by apparent
dislike of the Plaintiff because of her less than flattering evaluation of some of the
Turkish teachers and the aforementioned statements she made regarding the better
treatment she believed that the male teachers received from Defendants.
27. Defendants used the mostly parental grade-based complaints as a pretext for
Case 2:07-cv-01314-LH-KBM Document 1 Filed 12/28/07 Page 4 of 16
5
discrimination and retaliation against Plaintiff couch.
28. Plaintiff denied the validity of the alleged complaints but Defendants failed to
adequately investigate the complaints to establish their validity.
29. Plaintiff’s alleged performance deficiencies were minor, even if true, and did not
constitute misconduct or poor performance justifying termination or non-renewal
of her employment contract.
30. Defendant Principal renewed the contracts of male, Muslim, Turkish teachers
who had been accused of involvement in serious misconduct, including one case
of sexual harassment of a co-worker and another case involving a police report of
alleged misconduct with a child.
31. Defendants received complaints from students and parents regarding poor
performance of the male Turkish language teachers but renewed their
employment contracts anyway.
32. Defendants failed to renew the employment contracts of three other female,
Christian, non-Turkish teachers.
33. Defendants’ failure to adequately respond to an outrageous incident of sexual
harassment by one male, Muslim, Turkish teacher led Plaintiff’s coworker Sandra
Aguirre-Magana, a very well qualified and experienced female, Christian, non-
Turkish teacher, to resign in January 2007.
34. On June 14, 2007, Plaintiff Couch filed a timely discrimination charge with the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging Defendant
Principal’s failure to renew her employment contract.
35. On June 20, 2007, Defendant Principal called Plaintiff to berate her for filing an
Case 2:07-cv-01314-LH-KBM Document 1 Filed 12/28/07 Page 5 of 16
6
EEOC charge and stated that he would not provide her with a satisfactory letter of
recommendation because of the EEOC charge.
36. On June 21, 2007, Plaintiff Couch filed another timely EEOC charge alleging
Defendant Principal’s retaliatory employment actions, as stated in the previous
paragraph.
37. In October 2007, the EEOC issued Plaintiff’s right to sue notices.
38. Defendants breached the employment contract and the implied covenant of fair
dealing and good faith by failing to treat Plaintiff fairly relative to her male, Muslim
and Turkish coworkers, and to fairly evaluate her work performance and to decide to
renew or not renew her contract based solely upon objective, work-related criteria.
39. Defendants breached various enforceable promises to Plaintiff by intentionally
failing to treat Plaintiff fairly relative to her coworkers or to determine her eligibility
for employment contract renewal based solely upon objective, work-related criteria.
40. Defendants’ retaliation against Plaintiff upon being informed of her EEOC charge
was intentional, malicious, wanton, and obdurate and in gross and reckless disregard
of Plaintiff Couch’s civil rights.
41. Defendants acted knowingly to discriminate against Plaintiff on the basis of her
religion, sex, and national origin and then to retaliate against her when she
complained of the discrimination.
42. Defendants’ actions proximately caused Plaintiff’s damages and injuries including,
but not limited to, damage to her professional reputation and her opportunities for
obtaining other employment and professional advancement. Defendants’ actions
also proximately caused Plaintiff’s foreseeable and considerable emotional pain and
Case 2:07-cv-01314-LH-KBM Document 1 Filed 12/28/07 Page 6 of 16
7
suffering.
43. Plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress following, in particular, finding out that
she had been severely underpaid, upon non-renewal of her employment contract,
and after receiving an offensive phone call from Defendant Principal threatening to
not provide satisfactory recommendations to prospective employers.
COUNT I
VIOLATIONS OF THE EQUAL PAY ACT OF 1963
(SEX)
44. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the allegations set forth in the preceding
paragraphs.
45. Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff because of her sex.
46. Although she was a certified teacher who was better qualified, more effective, more
experienced and had a busier class-schedule, Defendants paid Plaintiff substantially
less than they paid her male coworkers who were uncertified, less effective and less
experienced.
47. Defendants conduct as alleged herein constituted sex discrimination in violation of
the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (29 U.S.C. Section 201), as amended, the New Mexico
Human Rights Act, as amended and the Texas Labor Code, Chapter 21, as amended.
48. Defendants’ actions were intentional, willful, wanton and malicious.
Case 2:07-cv-01314-LH-KBM Document 1 Filed 12/28/07 Page 7 of 16
8
COUNT II
VIOLATIONS OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964
(SEX)
49. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the allegations set forth in the preceding
paragraphs.
50. Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff because of her sex. Although she was a
certified teacher with better qualifications, more experience and a busier teachingschedule,
Defendants paid Plaintiff substantially less than they paid her male
coworkers who had lighter teaching-schedules, were not certified, were less
experienced, and who were less effective.
51. Defendants treated Plaintiff less favorably as stated herein because of her sex origin
in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. Section 2000) ,
the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e) and in violation of the New
Mexico Human Rights Act and the Texas Labor Code, Chapter 21.
52. Defendants’ actions were intentional, willful, wanton and malicious.
COUNT III
VIOLATIONS OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964
(SEX)
53. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the allegations set forth in the preceding
paragraphs.
54. Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff because of her sex.
55. Although she was a certified teacher with better results, qualifications, more
experience and a busier class-schedule than her male coworkers, Defendants failed
Case 2:07-cv-01314-LH-KBM Document 1 Filed 12/28/07 Page 8 of 16
9
to renew her employment contract although it renewed the employment contracts of
male teachers who were less successful, less qualified, less experienced and who
had lighter class-schedules.
56. Defendants treated Plaintiff less favorably as stated herein because of her sex in
violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. Section 2000) , the
Civil Rights Act of 1991 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e) and in violation of the New Mexico
Human Rights Act and the Texas Labor Code, Chapter 21.
57. Defendants’ actions were intentional, willful, wanton and malicious.
COUNT IV
VIOLATIONS OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964
(NATIONAL ORIGIN)
58. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the allegations set forth in the preceding
paragraphs.
59. Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff because of her national origin. Although
she was an effective and certified teacher with better qualifications, more experience
and a busier teaching-schedule, Defendants paid Plaintiff substantially less than they
paid her less effective, Turkish coworkers who had lighter teaching-schedules, were
not certified and who were less experienced.
60. Defendants treated Plaintiff less favorably as stated herein because of her national
origin in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. Section
2000) , the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e) and in violation of the
New Mexico Human Rights Act and the Texas Labor Code, Chapter 21.
61. Defendants’ actions were intentional, willful, wanton and malicious.
Case 2:07-cv-01314-LH-KBM Document 1 Filed 12/28/07 Page 9 of 16
10
COUNT V
VIOLATIONS OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964
(NATIONAL ORIGIN)
62. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the allegations set forth in the preceding
paragraphs.
63. Defendants treated Plaintiff less favorably because of her Mexican origin.
64. Although she was an effective, certified teacher with better qualifications, more
experience and a busier teaching-schedule than her male coworkers, Defendants
failed to renew her employment contract although it renewed those of less effective,
Turkish teachers who were less qualified, less experienced and had lighter teachingschedules.
65. Defendants actions as stated herein constitute national origin discrimination in
violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. Section 2000) , the
Civil Rights Act of 1991 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e) and in violation of the New Mexico
Human Rights Act and the Texas Labor Code, Chapter 21.
66. Defendants’ actions were intentional, willful, wanton and malicious.
COUNT VI
VIOLATIONS OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866
(NATIONAL ORIGIN/RACE)
67. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the allegations set forth in the preceding
paragraphs.
68. Defendants treated Plaintiff less favorably because of her Hispanic origin.
69. Although she was an effective, certified teacher with better qualifications, more
Case 2:07-cv-01314-LH-KBM Document 1 Filed 12/28/07 Page 10 of 16
11
experience and a busier class-schedule than her male, uncertified coworkers,
Defendants failed to renew her employment contract although it renewed the
employment contracts of Turkish teachers who were less effective, less qualified,
less experienced and who had lighter class-schedule.
70. Defendants treated Plaintiff less favorably as stated herein because of her Mexican
national origin or race in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (as re-enacted and
amended at 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1981), the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (42 U.S.C. Sec.
2000e), and the New Mexico Human Rights Act, and the Texas Labor Code,
Chapter 21.
71. Defendants’ actions were intentional, willful, wanton and malicious.
COUNT VII
VIOLATIONS OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964
(RELIGION)
72. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the allegations set forth in the preceding
paragraphs.
73. Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff because of her Christian religion.
Although she was an effective and certified teacher with better qualifications, more
experience and a busier teaching-schedule, Defendants paid Plaintiff substantially
less than they paid her less effective Muslim coworkers who had lighter teachingschedules,
were not certified and who were less experienced.
74. Defendants treated Plaintiff less favorably as stated herein because of her religion
in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. Section 2000) ,
the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e) and in violation of the New
Case 2:07-cv-01314-LH-KBM Document 1 Filed 12/28/07 Page 11 of 16
12
Mexico Human Rights Act and the Texas Labor Code, Chapter 21.
75. Defendants’ actions were intentional, willful, wanton and malicious.
COUNT VIII
VIOLATIONS OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964
(RELIGION)
76. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the allegations set forth in the preceding
paragraphs.
77. Defendants treated Plaintiff less favorably because of her Christian religion.
78. Although she was an effective, certified teacher with better qualifications, more
experience and a busier teaching-schedule than her male coworkers, Defendants
failed to renew her employment contract although it renewed those of Muslim
teachers who were less effective, less qualified, less experienced and who had
lighter teaching-schedules.
79. Defendants actions as stated herein constitute religious discrimination in violation of
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. Section 2000) , the Civil Rights
Act of 1991 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e) and in violation of the New Mexico Human
Rights Act and the Texas Labor Code, Chapter 21.
80. Defendants’ actions were intentional, willful, wanton and malicious.
COUNT IX
RETALIATION
81. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the allegations set forth in the preceding
paragraphs.
Case 2:07-cv-01314-LH-KBM Document 1 Filed 12/28/07 Page 12 of 16
13
82. Defendants treated Plaintiff differently in retaliation for her legally protected
activities.
83. Although Plaintiff was a certified teacher with good results, good qualifications,
good experience and a busy teaching-schedule, Defendants refused to renew her
employment contract or to provide her satisfactory written recommendations
because she had complained to coworkers about wage disparity, general different
treatment, and ineffective male teachers, and because she filed an EEOC charge of
discrimination against Defendants.
84. Defendants retaliatory actions as stated herein constitute religious, sex and national
origin discrimination in violation of Titles VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 (42 U.S.C. Section 2000), the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e)
and in violation of the New Mexico Human Rights Act and the Texas Labor Code,
Chapter 21.
85. Defendants’ actions were intentional, willful, wanton and malicious.
COUNT X
BREACH OF CONTRACT
86. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the allegations set forth in the preceding
paragraphs.
87. Plaintiff is an effective and experienced Spanish and Health teacher.
88. Defendants breached the written employment contract it entered with Plaintiff in
July 2006 by, for example, failing to follow the proper notice and other procedures
provided for non-renewal of the contract.
Case 2:07-cv-01314-LH-KBM Document 1 Filed 12/28/07 Page 13 of 16
14
89. Defendants also made an implied agreement with Plaintiff that she would be treated
fairly relative to her coworkers, that her work performance would be evaluated
based solely upon objective, work-related criteria, and that a decision to renew her
contract would be based upon similar criteria only.
90. Defendants’ representations, promises, and conduct were sufficient to induce
reasonable expectations on the behalf of Plaintiff that she would be treated fairly
relative to her coworkers, that her work performance would be evaluated based
solely upon objective, work-related criteria, and that a decision whether to renew her
employment contract would be based upon work-related criteria.
91. Defendants breached the written agreement to follow the notice and other
requirements provided by the written contract, and by the Charter School and
District policies for contract non-renewals.
92. Despite the written and implied contracts Defendants failed to treat Plaintiff fairly
relative to her coworkers or to evaluate her work-performance based solely upon
objective, work-related criteria.
93. Defendants’ actions in breach of the express and implied contracts were intentional,
willful, wanton and malicious.
COUNT XI
BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH
AND FAIR DEALING
94. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the allegations set forth in the preceding
paragraphs.
Case 2:07-cv-01314-LH-KBM Document 1 Filed 12/28/07 Page 14 of 16
15
95. Plaintiff is an effective and experienced Spanish and Health teacher.
96. Pursuant to Texas and New Mexico law, the implied contract included an implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
97. Defendants’ actions, as complained of herein, were undertaken in bad faith with
complete and deliberate disregard for the contractual rights of Plaintiff Couch in
violation of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
98. Defendants wrongfully and intentionally breached the implied agreement and
covenant to the detriment of Plaintiff.
99. Defendant’s actions injured Plaintiff’s rights to receive the benefits of the implied
agreement.
100. Defendants’ actions were intentional, willful, wanton and malicious.
COUNT XII
PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL
101. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the allegations set forth in the preceding
paragraphs.
102. Plaintiff is an effective, experienced and certified Spanish and Health teacher.
103. Defendants made promises to Plaintiff that she would be treated fairly relative to her
coworkers and that her work performance would be evaluated based solely upon
objective, work-related criteria which promises Defendant should have reasonably
expected to induce action on the part of Plaintiff Couch.
104. Plaintiff’s reliance on the promises of Defendants was reasonable.
105. Defendants are bound by the promise they made to Plaintiff Couch.
Case 2:07-cv-01314-LH-KBM Document 1 Filed 12/28/07 Page 15 of 16
16
106. Defendants’ actions in violation of the aforementioned promises were intentional,
willful, wanton and malicious.
RELIEF REQUESTED
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows:
A. Compensatory and punitive damages.
B. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, as allowed by law.
C. Reasonable costs and attorneys fees incurred in bringing this action.
D. Such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all counts and issues so triable.
Respectfully submitted this 28th day of December 2007,
LAW OFFICES OF
P A U L M . G A Y L E - S M I T H
2961 Sundance Cir
Las Cruces, New Mexico 88011-4609
Phone: 505.522.8300
[email protected]
Attorney for Plaintiff
By: _________/S/ ____________
Paul M. Gayle-Smith
Case 2:07-cv-01314-LH-KBM Document 1 Filed 12/28/07 Page 16 of 16
What is puzzling to us -- and has been all along -- is why is it that our government and in particular, other EEOC offices have not acted more judiciously in prosecuting these guys? If it were any other race or national group discriminating in the consistent manner that these guys do, they would have been stopped in their tracks a long time ago. So why is it that the Turkish guys are given carte blanche' to continually perpetrate discriminatory acts against American teachers?
We once heard one of the Turkish administrators say -- in response to a discrimation accusation," That's what's so wonderful about America, I can hire and fire anyone whenever I want to." I guess they teach that in the Gulen training camp before they put the boys out there to run our schools.
And back to the teacher -- she sued -- and here's her complaint below:
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
BRENDA A. COUCH,
Plaintiff,
v. No.:
HARMONY SCIENCE ACADEMY-EL PASO,
FATIH AY, PRINCIPAL, COSMOS FOUNDATION,
INC.
Defendants.
COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS
1. Plaintiff, Brenda A. Crouch, through undersigned counsel, brings this action, pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. Section 1981, and the Civil Rights Act of 1991, seeking damages to
remedy violations of her civil rights guaranteed by the Civil Rights Act of 1866, Titles
VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Pay Act of 1963, the Texas Labor
Code and the New Mexico Human Rights Act, as amended. Plaintiff Couch also seeks
damages for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
and for promissory estoppel pursuant to New Mexico and Texas common law.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2. Plaintiff is a resident of El Paso, Texas and a former employee of Harmony Science
Academy-El Paso (Defendant or Charter School), a public charter school in El Paso,
Texas. Defendant Cosmos Foundation Inc. (Defendant or Cosmos) is the corporate
Case 2:07-cv-01314-LH-KBM Document 1 Filed 12/28/07 Page 1 of 16
2
parent of Defendant Charter School and is headquartered in Houston, Texas.
Defendant Cosmos owns a total of nine charter schools in six major cities
throughout Texas.
3. The acts and effects complained of herein all occurred in New Mexico or Texas
within 90 miles of the federal courthouse in Las Cruces, New Mexico. Plaintiff’s
causes of action all arose in New Mexico or Texas within 90 miles of the federal
courthouse in Las Cruces, New Mexico.
4. Defendant Charter School employs approximately 30 individuals and is located in
El Paso, Texas. Defendant Fatih Ay (Defendant Ay or Principal) is believed to
reside in El Paso, Texas.
5. The court has subject matter (federal question and supplemental) jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1331 and 1367 (a).
6. The Court also has personal jurisdiction over Defendants under New Mexico’s longarm
statute.
7. The court has personal jurisdiction over all necessary parties for the reasons stated
above.
8. Venue is proper in this district.
ALLEGATIONS OF FACT
9. Plaintiff Couch is a Hispanic female of Mexican origin and of the Christian faith.
10. Defendant Charter School hired Plaintiff Couch as a Spanish and Health teacher
in July 2006 for a one-year contractual term.
11. Plaintiff received $26,000 per year pursuant to the one-year contract.
Case 2:07-cv-01314-LH-KBM Document 1 Filed 12/28/07 Page 2 of 16
3
12. During the contract term in 2006 and 2007, Plaintiff Couch was one of
approximately 13 Christian, female employees of non-Turkish origin at
Defendant Charter School. The remaining approximately 15 employees were all
or mostly Muslim, male teachers of Turkish origin.
13. Defendant Principal is a Muslim male of Turkish origin.
14. Plaintiff Couch is a Texas certified Spanish and Health teacher. Plaintiff received
the aforementioned certification prior to commencing employment with
Defendant Charter School.
15. During Plaintiff’s contract term none of the male teachers was certified by the
State of Texas.
16. Plaintiff Couch was a better qualified, more experienced and more effective
teacher than all of the male, Muslim and Turkish teachers.
17. Early during her contract term, Plaintiff noticed, and commented to coworkers,
that Defendant Principal and other school administrators appeared to treat the
male, Muslim and Turkish teachers more favorably than the female, Christian,
non-Turkish teachers.
18. Defendants required the female, Christian, non-Turkish teachers to teach more
classes and/or to carry-out more daily extra duties, such as the After School
Program, than the male, Muslim, Turkish teachers.
19. Plaintiff Couch questioned the quality of the Turkish teachers and commented to
coworkers and parents about the inability of the Turkish teachers to communicate
effectively with their English-speaking students.
20. Plaintiff Couch did not receive many of the requested and necessary books for her
Case 2:07-cv-01314-LH-KBM Document 1 Filed 12/28/07 Page 3 of 16
4
classes at the beginning of the school year. Plaintiff noticed, and complained to
coworkers, that the male, Muslim and Turkish teachers had all been provided
their necessary books.
21. In May 2007, Plaintiff Couch learned from a coworker that all the male, Muslim
and Turkish teachers were paid $40, 000 per year, substantially more than she and
the other female, Christian and non-Turkish teachers were paid. Defendant
Charter School paid Plaintiff Couch only $26, 000 per year.
22. On May 25, 2007, Defendant Principal informed Plaintiff that he would not
renew her employment contract for the next academic year.
23. Defendant Principal stated that he had decided not to renew Plaintiff’s
employment contract because he had received complaints about her from parents.
24. Defendant Principal did not warn Plaintiff of the alleged complaints at the time he
claims he received them or at any other time before the last day of Plaintiff’s
contract.
25. Defendant Principal never asked about the circumstances of the alleged
complaints or investigated the validity of the complaints.
26. The complaints that Defendant Principal cited as the basis of the non-renewal
were all trivial and most were simple grade-based disputes. It is very likely that,
as Plaintiff contends the complaints could have been motivated by apparent
dislike of the Plaintiff because of her less than flattering evaluation of some of the
Turkish teachers and the aforementioned statements she made regarding the better
treatment she believed that the male teachers received from Defendants.
27. Defendants used the mostly parental grade-based complaints as a pretext for
Case 2:07-cv-01314-LH-KBM Document 1 Filed 12/28/07 Page 4 of 16
5
discrimination and retaliation against Plaintiff couch.
28. Plaintiff denied the validity of the alleged complaints but Defendants failed to
adequately investigate the complaints to establish their validity.
29. Plaintiff’s alleged performance deficiencies were minor, even if true, and did not
constitute misconduct or poor performance justifying termination or non-renewal
of her employment contract.
30. Defendant Principal renewed the contracts of male, Muslim, Turkish teachers
who had been accused of involvement in serious misconduct, including one case
of sexual harassment of a co-worker and another case involving a police report of
alleged misconduct with a child.
31. Defendants received complaints from students and parents regarding poor
performance of the male Turkish language teachers but renewed their
employment contracts anyway.
32. Defendants failed to renew the employment contracts of three other female,
Christian, non-Turkish teachers.
33. Defendants’ failure to adequately respond to an outrageous incident of sexual
harassment by one male, Muslim, Turkish teacher led Plaintiff’s coworker Sandra
Aguirre-Magana, a very well qualified and experienced female, Christian, non-
Turkish teacher, to resign in January 2007.
34. On June 14, 2007, Plaintiff Couch filed a timely discrimination charge with the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging Defendant
Principal’s failure to renew her employment contract.
35. On June 20, 2007, Defendant Principal called Plaintiff to berate her for filing an
Case 2:07-cv-01314-LH-KBM Document 1 Filed 12/28/07 Page 5 of 16
6
EEOC charge and stated that he would not provide her with a satisfactory letter of
recommendation because of the EEOC charge.
36. On June 21, 2007, Plaintiff Couch filed another timely EEOC charge alleging
Defendant Principal’s retaliatory employment actions, as stated in the previous
paragraph.
37. In October 2007, the EEOC issued Plaintiff’s right to sue notices.
38. Defendants breached the employment contract and the implied covenant of fair
dealing and good faith by failing to treat Plaintiff fairly relative to her male, Muslim
and Turkish coworkers, and to fairly evaluate her work performance and to decide to
renew or not renew her contract based solely upon objective, work-related criteria.
39. Defendants breached various enforceable promises to Plaintiff by intentionally
failing to treat Plaintiff fairly relative to her coworkers or to determine her eligibility
for employment contract renewal based solely upon objective, work-related criteria.
40. Defendants’ retaliation against Plaintiff upon being informed of her EEOC charge
was intentional, malicious, wanton, and obdurate and in gross and reckless disregard
of Plaintiff Couch’s civil rights.
41. Defendants acted knowingly to discriminate against Plaintiff on the basis of her
religion, sex, and national origin and then to retaliate against her when she
complained of the discrimination.
42. Defendants’ actions proximately caused Plaintiff’s damages and injuries including,
but not limited to, damage to her professional reputation and her opportunities for
obtaining other employment and professional advancement. Defendants’ actions
also proximately caused Plaintiff’s foreseeable and considerable emotional pain and
Case 2:07-cv-01314-LH-KBM Document 1 Filed 12/28/07 Page 6 of 16
7
suffering.
43. Plaintiff suffered severe emotional distress following, in particular, finding out that
she had been severely underpaid, upon non-renewal of her employment contract,
and after receiving an offensive phone call from Defendant Principal threatening to
not provide satisfactory recommendations to prospective employers.
COUNT I
VIOLATIONS OF THE EQUAL PAY ACT OF 1963
(SEX)
44. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the allegations set forth in the preceding
paragraphs.
45. Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff because of her sex.
46. Although she was a certified teacher who was better qualified, more effective, more
experienced and had a busier class-schedule, Defendants paid Plaintiff substantially
less than they paid her male coworkers who were uncertified, less effective and less
experienced.
47. Defendants conduct as alleged herein constituted sex discrimination in violation of
the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (29 U.S.C. Section 201), as amended, the New Mexico
Human Rights Act, as amended and the Texas Labor Code, Chapter 21, as amended.
48. Defendants’ actions were intentional, willful, wanton and malicious.
Case 2:07-cv-01314-LH-KBM Document 1 Filed 12/28/07 Page 7 of 16
8
COUNT II
VIOLATIONS OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964
(SEX)
49. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the allegations set forth in the preceding
paragraphs.
50. Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff because of her sex. Although she was a
certified teacher with better qualifications, more experience and a busier teachingschedule,
Defendants paid Plaintiff substantially less than they paid her male
coworkers who had lighter teaching-schedules, were not certified, were less
experienced, and who were less effective.
51. Defendants treated Plaintiff less favorably as stated herein because of her sex origin
in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. Section 2000) ,
the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e) and in violation of the New
Mexico Human Rights Act and the Texas Labor Code, Chapter 21.
52. Defendants’ actions were intentional, willful, wanton and malicious.
COUNT III
VIOLATIONS OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964
(SEX)
53. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the allegations set forth in the preceding
paragraphs.
54. Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff because of her sex.
55. Although she was a certified teacher with better results, qualifications, more
experience and a busier class-schedule than her male coworkers, Defendants failed
Case 2:07-cv-01314-LH-KBM Document 1 Filed 12/28/07 Page 8 of 16
9
to renew her employment contract although it renewed the employment contracts of
male teachers who were less successful, less qualified, less experienced and who
had lighter class-schedules.
56. Defendants treated Plaintiff less favorably as stated herein because of her sex in
violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. Section 2000) , the
Civil Rights Act of 1991 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e) and in violation of the New Mexico
Human Rights Act and the Texas Labor Code, Chapter 21.
57. Defendants’ actions were intentional, willful, wanton and malicious.
COUNT IV
VIOLATIONS OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964
(NATIONAL ORIGIN)
58. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the allegations set forth in the preceding
paragraphs.
59. Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff because of her national origin. Although
she was an effective and certified teacher with better qualifications, more experience
and a busier teaching-schedule, Defendants paid Plaintiff substantially less than they
paid her less effective, Turkish coworkers who had lighter teaching-schedules, were
not certified and who were less experienced.
60. Defendants treated Plaintiff less favorably as stated herein because of her national
origin in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. Section
2000) , the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e) and in violation of the
New Mexico Human Rights Act and the Texas Labor Code, Chapter 21.
61. Defendants’ actions were intentional, willful, wanton and malicious.
Case 2:07-cv-01314-LH-KBM Document 1 Filed 12/28/07 Page 9 of 16
10
COUNT V
VIOLATIONS OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964
(NATIONAL ORIGIN)
62. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the allegations set forth in the preceding
paragraphs.
63. Defendants treated Plaintiff less favorably because of her Mexican origin.
64. Although she was an effective, certified teacher with better qualifications, more
experience and a busier teaching-schedule than her male coworkers, Defendants
failed to renew her employment contract although it renewed those of less effective,
Turkish teachers who were less qualified, less experienced and had lighter teachingschedules.
65. Defendants actions as stated herein constitute national origin discrimination in
violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. Section 2000) , the
Civil Rights Act of 1991 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e) and in violation of the New Mexico
Human Rights Act and the Texas Labor Code, Chapter 21.
66. Defendants’ actions were intentional, willful, wanton and malicious.
COUNT VI
VIOLATIONS OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866
(NATIONAL ORIGIN/RACE)
67. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the allegations set forth in the preceding
paragraphs.
68. Defendants treated Plaintiff less favorably because of her Hispanic origin.
69. Although she was an effective, certified teacher with better qualifications, more
Case 2:07-cv-01314-LH-KBM Document 1 Filed 12/28/07 Page 10 of 16
11
experience and a busier class-schedule than her male, uncertified coworkers,
Defendants failed to renew her employment contract although it renewed the
employment contracts of Turkish teachers who were less effective, less qualified,
less experienced and who had lighter class-schedule.
70. Defendants treated Plaintiff less favorably as stated herein because of her Mexican
national origin or race in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (as re-enacted and
amended at 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1981), the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (42 U.S.C. Sec.
2000e), and the New Mexico Human Rights Act, and the Texas Labor Code,
Chapter 21.
71. Defendants’ actions were intentional, willful, wanton and malicious.
COUNT VII
VIOLATIONS OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964
(RELIGION)
72. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the allegations set forth in the preceding
paragraphs.
73. Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff because of her Christian religion.
Although she was an effective and certified teacher with better qualifications, more
experience and a busier teaching-schedule, Defendants paid Plaintiff substantially
less than they paid her less effective Muslim coworkers who had lighter teachingschedules,
were not certified and who were less experienced.
74. Defendants treated Plaintiff less favorably as stated herein because of her religion
in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. Section 2000) ,
the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e) and in violation of the New
Case 2:07-cv-01314-LH-KBM Document 1 Filed 12/28/07 Page 11 of 16
12
Mexico Human Rights Act and the Texas Labor Code, Chapter 21.
75. Defendants’ actions were intentional, willful, wanton and malicious.
COUNT VIII
VIOLATIONS OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964
(RELIGION)
76. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the allegations set forth in the preceding
paragraphs.
77. Defendants treated Plaintiff less favorably because of her Christian religion.
78. Although she was an effective, certified teacher with better qualifications, more
experience and a busier teaching-schedule than her male coworkers, Defendants
failed to renew her employment contract although it renewed those of Muslim
teachers who were less effective, less qualified, less experienced and who had
lighter teaching-schedules.
79. Defendants actions as stated herein constitute religious discrimination in violation of
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. Section 2000) , the Civil Rights
Act of 1991 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e) and in violation of the New Mexico Human
Rights Act and the Texas Labor Code, Chapter 21.
80. Defendants’ actions were intentional, willful, wanton and malicious.
COUNT IX
RETALIATION
81. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the allegations set forth in the preceding
paragraphs.
Case 2:07-cv-01314-LH-KBM Document 1 Filed 12/28/07 Page 12 of 16
13
82. Defendants treated Plaintiff differently in retaliation for her legally protected
activities.
83. Although Plaintiff was a certified teacher with good results, good qualifications,
good experience and a busy teaching-schedule, Defendants refused to renew her
employment contract or to provide her satisfactory written recommendations
because she had complained to coworkers about wage disparity, general different
treatment, and ineffective male teachers, and because she filed an EEOC charge of
discrimination against Defendants.
84. Defendants retaliatory actions as stated herein constitute religious, sex and national
origin discrimination in violation of Titles VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 (42 U.S.C. Section 2000), the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e)
and in violation of the New Mexico Human Rights Act and the Texas Labor Code,
Chapter 21.
85. Defendants’ actions were intentional, willful, wanton and malicious.
COUNT X
BREACH OF CONTRACT
86. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the allegations set forth in the preceding
paragraphs.
87. Plaintiff is an effective and experienced Spanish and Health teacher.
88. Defendants breached the written employment contract it entered with Plaintiff in
July 2006 by, for example, failing to follow the proper notice and other procedures
provided for non-renewal of the contract.
Case 2:07-cv-01314-LH-KBM Document 1 Filed 12/28/07 Page 13 of 16
14
89. Defendants also made an implied agreement with Plaintiff that she would be treated
fairly relative to her coworkers, that her work performance would be evaluated
based solely upon objective, work-related criteria, and that a decision to renew her
contract would be based upon similar criteria only.
90. Defendants’ representations, promises, and conduct were sufficient to induce
reasonable expectations on the behalf of Plaintiff that she would be treated fairly
relative to her coworkers, that her work performance would be evaluated based
solely upon objective, work-related criteria, and that a decision whether to renew her
employment contract would be based upon work-related criteria.
91. Defendants breached the written agreement to follow the notice and other
requirements provided by the written contract, and by the Charter School and
District policies for contract non-renewals.
92. Despite the written and implied contracts Defendants failed to treat Plaintiff fairly
relative to her coworkers or to evaluate her work-performance based solely upon
objective, work-related criteria.
93. Defendants’ actions in breach of the express and implied contracts were intentional,
willful, wanton and malicious.
COUNT XI
BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH
AND FAIR DEALING
94. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the allegations set forth in the preceding
paragraphs.
Case 2:07-cv-01314-LH-KBM Document 1 Filed 12/28/07 Page 14 of 16
15
95. Plaintiff is an effective and experienced Spanish and Health teacher.
96. Pursuant to Texas and New Mexico law, the implied contract included an implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
97. Defendants’ actions, as complained of herein, were undertaken in bad faith with
complete and deliberate disregard for the contractual rights of Plaintiff Couch in
violation of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
98. Defendants wrongfully and intentionally breached the implied agreement and
covenant to the detriment of Plaintiff.
99. Defendant’s actions injured Plaintiff’s rights to receive the benefits of the implied
agreement.
100. Defendants’ actions were intentional, willful, wanton and malicious.
COUNT XII
PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL
101. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the allegations set forth in the preceding
paragraphs.
102. Plaintiff is an effective, experienced and certified Spanish and Health teacher.
103. Defendants made promises to Plaintiff that she would be treated fairly relative to her
coworkers and that her work performance would be evaluated based solely upon
objective, work-related criteria which promises Defendant should have reasonably
expected to induce action on the part of Plaintiff Couch.
104. Plaintiff’s reliance on the promises of Defendants was reasonable.
105. Defendants are bound by the promise they made to Plaintiff Couch.
Case 2:07-cv-01314-LH-KBM Document 1 Filed 12/28/07 Page 15 of 16
16
106. Defendants’ actions in violation of the aforementioned promises were intentional,
willful, wanton and malicious.
RELIEF REQUESTED
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows:
A. Compensatory and punitive damages.
B. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, as allowed by law.
C. Reasonable costs and attorneys fees incurred in bringing this action.
D. Such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all counts and issues so triable.
Respectfully submitted this 28th day of December 2007,
LAW OFFICES OF
P A U L M . G A Y L E - S M I T H
2961 Sundance Cir
Las Cruces, New Mexico 88011-4609
Phone: 505.522.8300
[email protected]
Attorney for Plaintiff
By: _________/S/ ____________
Paul M. Gayle-Smith
Case 2:07-cv-01314-LH-KBM Document 1 Filed 12/28/07 Page 16 of 16
