Case 3:10-cv-02609-P Document 1 Filed 12/21/10 Page 1 of 6 PageID 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
(DALLAS DIVISION)

LYNDA DARDEN §
Plaintiff, §
§
VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. _______
§
§
HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES, INC. §
§
Defendant, § JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

NOW COMES, Lynda Darden, and files this suit against Halliburton Energy Services,

Inc. complaining about sexual discrimination and wrongful termination, and would show the

following:

NATURE OF THE CASE

1. This is a sex discrimination case arising out of Lynda Darden’s termination from

Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. in Alvarado, Texas as a result of becoming pregnant while

employed by the company. At all times relevant to these allegations, Lynda Darden was an

employee of Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. when she was sexually discriminated against and

terminated as a result of her pregnancy. The individuals who promulgated the acts which made

certain that Halliburton would not continue to employ Plaintiff and which form the basis of this

lawsuit were at all times under the employ of Halliburton Energy Services.

THE KELLY LAW FIRM, P.C.

Original Complaint
Page 1 of 6
 Case 3:10-cv-02609-P Document 1 Filed 12/21/10 Page 2 of 6 PageID 2

PARTIES

2. Plaintiff, Lynda Darden currently resides in Dallas, Texas, and began working for

Halliburton Energy Services in 2007 in Grand Junction, Colorado. In 2008, she was transferred

to Texas and worked as an administrative associate in the dispatch office at the Alvarado Camp.

Although a good, dedicated and productive employee, she was terminated on June 3, 2009, when

she apparently violated the company’s policy against procreation.

3. Defendant, Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. (hereinafter, “Halliburton”) was a Delaware

corporation headquartered in Houston, Harris County, Texas at the time Lynda signed her

employment contract. Halliburton regularly conducts business throughout the State of Texas and

is, thus, amenable to jurisdiction in this State. This Defendant may be served with process by

service upon its registered agent, CT Corporation System, 350 N. St. Paul Street, Suite 2900,

Dallas, Texas 75201-4234.

JURISDICTION, VENUE AND LIMITATIONS

4. Jurisdiction is based on federal question. 28 U.S.C. §1332. The amount in controversy is

substantially in excess of Seventy-Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000), exclusive of interest and

costs. Defendant regularly conducts business within the Northern District and the events

involved took place in Johnson County. Therefore, venue is permissible in this District pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. §1391.

5. Further, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction in that Plaintiff’s injuries arose due to

violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as pendant jurisdiction over

Plaintiff’s claims under Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code.

THE KELLY LAW FIRM, P.C.

Original Complaint
Page 2 of 6
 Case 3:10-cv-02609-P Document 1 Filed 12/21/10 Page 3 of 6 PageID 3

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

6. Plaintiff has exhausted all administrative remedies required as a prerequisite to filing this

civil action. Specifically, Lynda timely filed a Charge of Discrimination with the United States

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and the Texas Workforce Commission

under the “dual filing” rule. The EEOC issued Lynda written notice of her right to sue. Lynda

filed this civil action within 90 days of receiving notice of her right to sue from the EEOC.1

FACTS

It has become necessary to file this suit as a result of the following facts.

7. Lynda Darden was hired by Halliburton Energy Services in 2007 in Grand Junction,

Colorado. In 2008, she was transferred to Texas and worked as an administrative associate in the

dispatch office at the Alvarado Camp. She was a good employee and well respected.

8. In March of 2009, Lynda informed her supervisor, Mike Queener, that she was pregnant.

9. On June 3, 2009, when Lynda was 27 weeks pregnant, she was called into Kevin

Anderson’s office. Kevin Anderson was the subordinate immediately below Mr. Queener. Also

present in Mr. Anderson’s office was a woman named Bridgette from Human Resources.

10. When Lynda was seated, Mr. Anderson informed Lynda that she was being laid off from

her employment. She was instructed to take only her personal belongings and to leave all other

items and vacate the premises.

11. Mr. Anderson walked Lynda out to her car to retrieve her badge.

12. To her knowledge, Lynda was the only employee “laid off” in her area even though there

1 See Attachment 1, Lynda Darden’s “Right to Sue” Letter

THE KELLY LAW FIRM, P.C.

Original Complaint
Page 3 of 6
 Case 3:10-cv-02609-P Document 1 Filed 12/21/10 Page 4 of 6 PageID 4

were five employees who had less experience in that position than she did. None of those

employees was pregnant. Thus, the company retained employees in the same or similar positions

with less qualifications who were not in the protected class. The Defendant’s proferred reason

for termination was a pretext for discriminatory purpose.

13. Lynda had always received glowing recommendations as an employee for Halliburton

Energy Services. The alleged layoff was a pretext for unlawful discrimination as a result of her

pregnancy.

SEX DISCRIMINATION BY DEFENDANT, HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES

14. Incorporating the factual allegations stated herein above, Lynda would show that during

her employment, she was subject to and the target of sexual discrimination by employees, agents

and/or ostensible agents or employees of Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. including but not

limited to Michael Queener. Lynda, as a female employee is protected against sexual

discrimination under the law. The sexual discrimination negatively impacted the terms,

conditions, and privileges associated with Lynda’s employment, and continue to do so. Lynda

has suffered significant damages for which Defendant is responsible.

15. Defendant’s conduct of sexual discrimination toward Lynda was in violation of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964 §703(a), 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-2(a) as well as Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor

Code.

16. Each and every, all and singular of the foregoing acts and omissions, on the part of

Defendant constitutes a direct and proximate cause of the damages set forth below.

DAMAGES AND REMEDIES

17. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned discrimination on the part of the
THE KELLY LAW FIRM, P.C.
Original Complaint
Page 4 of 6
 Case 3:10-cv-02609-P Document 1 Filed 12/21/10 Page 5 of 6 PageID 5

Defendant, Lynda Darden was caused to suffer serious injuries. As a result of same, Lynda has

suffered the following damages:

a. Mental anguish in the past;

b. Mental anguish in the future;

c. Emotional distress

d. Inconvenience

e. Loss of enjoyment of life

f. Injury to reputation

g. Back pay

h. Front pay in lieu of reinstatement, which would not be feasible under the

circumstances.

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES

18. Without waiving the foregoing, Lynda seeks exemplary damages pursuant to Texas

Labor Code §21.2585 and/or 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e. Specifically, Defendant, Halliburton Energy

Services, Inc., engaged in a discriminatory practice with malice or with reckless indifference to the

state-protected and constitutionally protected rights of Lynda Darden, by sexually discriminating

against her and wrongfully terminating her based on her pregnancy.

19. If the trier of fact finds the requisite degree of culpability required by law for an

assessment of punitive or exemplary damages, Plaintiff seek such an award as is right and just,

considering relevant evidence, including but not limited to the net worth of Defendant.

JURY DEMAND

20. Plaintiff hereby invokes her right to trial by jury.

THE KELLY LAW FIRM, P.C.

Original Complaint
Page 5 of 6
 Case 3:10-cv-02609-P Document 1 Filed 12/21/10 Page 6 of 6 PageID 6

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that the Defendant be cited to appear and answer herein,

and that, after a trial, she receive such monetary damages, both actual and exemplary, and other

relief as is sought herein and appropriate under the law and the facts.

Respectfully submitted,

s/Susan E. Hutchison
Susan E. Hutchison
State Bar No. 10354100
hutch@seeyouincourt.com
S. Rafe Foreman
State Bar No. 07255200
Warriorforjustice@seeyouincourt.com
Kern A. Lewis
State Bar No. 12295320
lewis@seeyouincourt.com
Foreman, Lewis & Hutchison, P.C.
611 S. Main Street, Suite 700
Grapevine, Texas 76051
(817) 336-5533
FAX: (817) 336-9005

THE KELLY LAW FIRM, P.C.

L. Todd Kelly
S.D. Tex. No. 724727
State Bar No. 24035049
Heidi O. Vicknair
S.D. Tex. No. 568715
State Bar No. 24046557
Jeff Musslewhite
S.D. Tex. No. pending
State Bar No. 24041555
1 Riverway, Suite 1150
Houston, Texas 77056
Tel. (713) 255-2055
Fax. (713) 523-5939

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF, LYNDA DARDEN

THE KELLY LAW FIRM, P.C.
Original Complaint
Page 6 of 6