Case 4:10-cv-00346-RAS Document 1 Filed 07/12/10 Page 1 of 7

JURY DEMANDED 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION

Vicki Rich, §
§
Plaintiff, §
§
v. § CIVIL ACTION NO.
§
Bombardier Aerospace Corporation, § ____________________
d/b/a Flexjet, Inc. § Jury Demanded
§
Defendant. §

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Vicki Rich (“Rich” or “Plaintiff”) files this Original Complaint against Bombardier

Aerospace Corporation d/b/a Flexjet, Inc. (“Bombardier” or “Defendant”) and would respectfully

show as follows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343.

2. This Court is a proper venue for this suit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because

Defendant resides in this district and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to

Plaintiff’s claims occurred in this judicial district and Plaintiff would have worked in this judicial

district but for the alleged unlawful employment practices.

PARTIES

3. Plaintiff Rich is a resident of Wenatchee, Washington. Rich previously worked

for Defendant in Richardson, Texas.

4. Defendant Bombardier is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of

business in Richardson, Texas. It may be served through the procedure provided for in Rule 4,

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for acknowledgement of mail service in federal complaints.
 Case 4:10-cv-00346-RAS Document 1 Filed 07/12/10 Page 2 of 7

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

5. At the time of her termination Plaintiff held the position of pilot, with the rank of

Captain and assigned aircraft the Challenger Jet 300. At all relevant times herein, she had a

spotless disciplinary record. Plaintiff was terminated on or about May 8, 2009. The stated basis

was the failure of her six-month instrument checkride.

6. On information and belief, the termination process involved a bogus and

pretextual testing process, in which test deficiencies were either manufactured or grossly inflated,

in violation of applicable FAA rules. Further, more exacting standards were applied to Plaintiff

than other male individuals being tested either prior to or subsequent to Plaintiff’s failed

checkride.

7. Prior to her termination, Plaintiff had raised issues pertaining to the treatment of

other female employees of Defendant. Specifically, she complained about the use of derogatory

references to female employees, differentials in discipline applied to other females in addition to

herself, as well as the office environment at Defendant. In that regard, Defendant allows a “boy’s

club” atmosphere, where the following conduct is either encouraged or not prohibited: (1) off-

color and sexually-charged jokes; (2) allowing access, by office employees, to pornographic

materials for display during working hours; (3) statements denigrating female pilots (some

detailing personal medical conditions unique to females); (4) affairs and sexual liaisons among

employees; (5) unequal and discriminatory terms and conditions of employment and fringe

benefits; unequal and discriminatory application of safety and maintenance rules; and (6) unequal

and discriminatory disciplinary rules vis a vis males and females.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 2

 Case 4:10-cv-00346-RAS Document 1 Filed 07/12/10 Page 3 of 7

8. Plaintiff complained about this atmosphere, as well as differentials in treatment of

other females including herself, and was thereafter ostracized, marginalized and humiliated, as

well as terminated on May 8, 2009, on the basis of bogus and pretextual reasons.

CONDITIONS PRECEDENT

9. On or about November 2, 2009, Plaintiff timely filed with the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) a charge of discrimination against Defendant on the basis of

sex, age and retaliation.

10. On or about April 12, 2010, the EEOC mailed to Plaintiff her Notice of Right to

Sue and this lawsuit was filed within ninety (90) days of Plaintiff’s receipt of the EEOC’s Notice

of Right to Sue.

11. Plaintiff has satisfied all private, administrative, and judicial prerequisites to the

institution of this action.

CAUSES OF ACTION

A. Sex Discrimination

12. Rich realleges the facts described above as though fully set forth herein.

13. Defendant employed Plaintiff from approximately February 7, 2000 until

approximately May 8, 2009.

14. Plaintiff satisfactorily performed her job duties during her employment with

Defendant.

15. During the course of her employment, Plaintiff complained about the treatment of

other female employees of Defendant.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 3

 Case 4:10-cv-00346-RAS Document 1 Filed 07/12/10 Page 4 of 7

16. After Plaintiff made these complaints, Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff

based upon her sex, female, in violation of federal law by adversely altering the terms, conditions

and/or privileges of Plaintiff’s employment.

17. As shown by the foregoing, Plaintiff suffered intentional discrimination at the

hands of Defendant during the course of her employment with Defendant based upon her gender,

in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.

18. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s actions and/or inactions, Plaintiff

has been deprived of income, as well as other monetary and non-monetary benefits.

19. As a further direct and proximate result of Defendant’s actions and/or inactions,

Plaintiff has suffered inconvenience, emotional distress, pain and suffering, mental anguish, and

related compensatory damages.

20. Defendant failed to make good faith efforts to establish and enforce policies to

prevent illegal discrimination against its employees.

21. Defendant failed to properly train or otherwise inform its supervisors and

employees concerning their duties and obligations under the civil rights laws, including Title

VII.

22. As shown by the foregoing, Defendant engaged in these discriminatory practices

with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Plaintiff. Plaintiff is

therefore entitled to an award of punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish Defendant

or to deter it and other companies from like conduct in the future.

B. Retaliation

23. Rich realleges the facts described above as though fully set forth herein.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 4

 Case 4:10-cv-00346-RAS Document 1 Filed 07/12/10 Page 5 of 7

24. Defendant employed Plaintiff from approximately February 7, 2000 until

approximately May 8, 2009.

25. Plaintiff satisfactorily performed her job duties during her employment with

Defendant.

26. During the course of her employment, Plaintiff complained about the treatment

of other female employees of Defendant.

27. After Plaintiff made these complaints, Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff by

ostracizing her and humiliating her. Ultimately, Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff by

terminating her on May 8, 2009.

28. As shown by the foregoing, Plaintiff suffered intentional retaliation at the hands

of Defendant during the course of her employment with Defendant in violation of Title VII of the

Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.

29. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s actions and/or inactions, Plaintiff

has been deprived of income, as well as other monetary and non-monetary benefits.

30. As a further direct and proximate result of Defendant’s actions and/or inactions,

Plaintiff has suffered inconvenience, emotional distress, pain and suffering, mental anguish, and

related compensatory damages.

31. Defendant failed to make good faith efforts to establish and enforce policies to

prevent illegal retaliation against its employees.

32. Defendant failed to properly train or otherwise inform its supervisors and

employees concerning their duties and obligations under the civil rights laws, including Title

VII.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 5

 Case 4:10-cv-00346-RAS Document 1 Filed 07/12/10 Page 6 of 7

33. As shown by the foregoing, Defendant engaged in these retaliatory practices with

malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Plaintiff. Plaintiff is

therefore entitled to an award of punitive damages in an amount sufficient to punish Defendant

or to deter it and other companies from like conduct in the future.

C. Attorneys’ Fees

34. Plaintiff was forced to engage counsel to protect her rights under federal law.

Therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to recover from Defendant reasonable attorneys’ fees, as provided

in Section 706(k) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k).

JURY DEMAND

35. Rich demands a trial by jury on all contested issues of fact regarding her claims.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests she recover judgment from Defendant for the

following:

a. Reinstatement;

b. All appropriate damages, including, but not limited to back pay, front pay,

compensatory and punitive damages;

c. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as provided by law;

d. Attorneys’ fees, expenses and costs; and

e. Such further relief to which Plaintiff may be justly entitled.

Dated this 12th day of July 2010.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 6

 Case 4:10-cv-00346-RAS Document 1 Filed 07/12/10 Page 7 of 7

Respectfully submitted,

By: ___________________
Steve Kardell

STEVE KARDELL
State Bar No. 11098400
DEREK H. SPARKS
State Bar No. 24008063
KATHRYN KRAFT
State Bar No. 24046242
CLOUSE DUNN KHOSHBIN LLP
5200 Renaissance Tower
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas 75270-2142
Telephone: (214) 220-3888
Facsimile: (214) 220-3833

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 7