Logo
1100 PEACHTREE ST NE # 500
ATLANTA, GA 30309-4501
New Clients:
Main Number:
Atlanta Employment lawyer - Barrett & Farahany Justice at Work

Jameson Inns, Inc. Lawsuit – Sexual Harassment

Barrett & Farahany file a sexual harassment lawsuit against Park Management Group’s Jameson Inns.   The Plaintiff started working at Jameson Inn in April of 2011. The Plaintiff was exposed to nearly daily harassment by her direct supervisor, Hector, who told her: “I like to do the 69,” “you have got a big ass,” “do you have a boyfriend,” and “I want to go get some drinks and come to your house.” He also touched her arm and massaged her shoulders against her will.   The Plaintiff complained to the General Manager in April or May 2011, June or July 2011, late October 2011, and November 19, 2011 about both the harassment and the company’s failure to accommodate her disability, but neither problem was resolved.  Instead, the Plaintiff was terminated a mere two days after her last complaint.  The company chose not to take responsibility for it actions, and this lawsuit ensued.

See lawsuit at Nipple v. Park Management Group, LLC d/b/a Jameson Inns, Inc.


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION

LOUVEINA NIPPLE,

Plaintiff,

v.

PARK MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC,
d/b/a JAMESON INNS, INC.,

Defendant.
_________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

COMES NOW, Plaintiff Louveina Nipple (hereinafter “Plaintiff” or “Ms.
Nipple”), by and through her undersigned counsel, and files this, her Complaint for
Damages against Defendant Park Management Group, LLC, d/b/a Jameson Inns,
Inc. (hereinafter “Defendant” or “Jameson Inns”), and respectfully shows this
Court as follows:
I. NATURE OF COMPLAINT
1.
Plaintiff brings this action to obtain full and complete relief and to redress
the unlawful employment practices described herein.

Case 1:13-cv-01428-CAP-WEJ Document 1 Filed 04/29/13 Page 1 of 18 2
2.
This action seeks declaratory relief, liquidated and actual damages for
Defendant’s unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex in violation of
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 42 USC §§ 2000e, et seq. (hereinafter
“Title VII”).
3.
Additionally, this action seeks damages for Defendant’s discrimination on
the basis of disability, and failure to provide accommodations to Plaintiff in
connection with the same pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. § 12111 et seq. (hereinafter “ADA”).

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4.
Plaintiff invokes the jurisdiction of this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331
and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f); Plaintiff also invokes this Court’s pendant jurisdiction
to hear Plaintiff’s state law claims.
5.
The unlawful employment practices alleged in this Complaint were
committed within this District in the State of Georgia.

Case 1:13-cv-01428-CAP-WEJ Document 1 Filed 04/29/13 Page 2 of 18 3
6.
Therefore, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1391 and 42 U.S.C. §2000(e)-
5(f), venue is appropriate in this Court.
III. PARTIES
7.
Plaintiff is a female citizen of the United States of America, and is subject to
the jurisdiction of this Court.
8.
Defendant Jameson Inns is qualified and licensed to do business in Georgia,
and at all times material hereto has conducted business within this District.
9.
Defendant Jameson Inns may be served with process by delivering a copy of
the summons and complaint to its Registered Agent and Chief Financial Officer
(“CFO”), C. David Carley, whose office is located at 4770 South Atlanta Road,
S.E., Smyrna, Georgia 30080-7057.
10.
Defendant is now, and at all times relevant hereto, has been an employer
engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of the ADA and
Case 1:13-cv-01428-CAP-WEJ Document 1 Filed 04/29/13 Page 3 of 18 4
§§701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII and has employed more than the requisite
number of persons for the requisite duration under the ADA and Title VII.
IV. ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

11.
Plaintiff timely filed a charge of discrimination against Defendant Jameson
Inns with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
12.
The EEOC issued a “Notice of Right to Sue” on January 29,2013, entitling
an action to be commenced within ninety (90) days of receipt of that notice.
13.
This action has been commenced within ninety (90) days of Ms. Nipple’s
receipt of the “Notice of Right to Sue.”
V. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
14.
Defendant hired Hector Del Rosario (hereafter “Mr. Del Rosario”) for
employment.
15.
Mr. Del Rosario sexually harassed individuals, including Plaintiff, while
employed by Defendant.
Case 1:13-cv-01428-CAP-WEJ Document 1 Filed 04/29/13 Page 4 of 18 5
16.
Defendant was aware of Mr. Del Rosario’s propensity to sexually harass its
employees.
17.
Louveina Nipple was hired by Defendant on June 26, 2011 as a
Housekeeper.
18.
Mr. Del Rosario was Louveina Nipple’s direct supervisor.
19.
Starting immediately after Plaintiff began working for Defendant, Mr. Del
Rosario began sexually harassing Louveina Nipple.
20.
The sexual harassment was severe or pervasive, so as to alter the terms and
conditions of Ms. Nipple’s employment.
21.
Defendant created a hostile work environment that Ms. Nipple was required
to endure as a condition of her continued employment with Defendant.

Case 1:13-cv-01428-CAP-WEJ Document 1 Filed 04/29/13 Page 5 of 18 6
22.
By way of example, Mr. Del Rosario would tell Plaintiff, a female of
slightly heavier build, that he “like[s] big girls, I don’t like skinny girls,”
23.
On multiple occasions, Mr. Del Rosario would stare at Ms. Nipple’s behind
in a lewd and inappropriate manner and say “mmm, you have a big ass,” and “do
you have a boyfriend?”
24.
On a regular basis, Mr. Del Rosario would rub Ms. Nipple’s shoulders and
arms, without her permission or consent, and would approach Ms. Nipple very
closely, lean into her face and ask her “how was your night?”
25.
On at least one occasion in July or August of 2011, Mr. Del Rosario sent
Ms. Nipple a text message stating: “What are you doing? Someone’s got the hots
for you.”
26.
On at least one occasion in July or August of 2011, Mr. Del Rosario called
Ms. Nipple on her cell phone and said “I wish I could come over to your house so
we could get naked and drink Jack Daniels.”
Case 1:13-cv-01428-CAP-WEJ Document 1 Filed 04/29/13 Page 6 of 18 7
27.
In response to these comments and behaviors, Ms. Nipple would ask Mr. Del
Rosario to stop and not to make those comments.
28.
On at least one occasion during the summer of 2011, Ms. Nipple spoke with
Defendant’s General Manager Mr. Michael Frankly about the harassment.
29.
Mr. Frankly responded by telling Ms. Nipple that he would “take care of it.”
30.
On Approximately August 2, 2011, Ms. Nipple went to Mr. Frankly again to
speak with him about Mr. Del Rosario’s harassment.
31.
In their meeting, Ms. Nipple told Mr. Frankly in detail what had been taking
place with Mr. Del Rosario and told Mr. Frankly that Mr. Del Rosario was sexually
harassing her, touching her, and saying inappropriate comments to her.
32.
Mr. Frankly responded by telling Ms. Nipple “Louveina, I’m going to get
around to it.”

Case 1:13-cv-01428-CAP-WEJ Document 1 Filed 04/29/13 Page 7 of 18 8
33.
However, to the best of Plaintiff’s knowledge, Defendant never took any
steps to investigate her complaints of harassment, or take any remedial or
corrective measures in connection with the same.
34.
Finally, in approximately October 2011, Ms. Nipple approached Mr. Frankly
one last time about Mr. Del Rosario’s sexual harassment; on this occasion, Mr.
Frankly responded only by stating “Louveina, I don’t have anything to do with
that,” and walked off.
35.
Defendant chose not to take reasonable steps to prevent sexual harassment
from occurring, despite its knowledge of its employee’s propensity for sexual
harassment.
36.
Defendant failed to take appropriate remedial actions to correct the sexual
harassment.
37.
Defendant did not widely disseminate a written anti-sexual harassment
policy.
Case 1:13-cv-01428-CAP-WEJ Document 1 Filed 04/29/13 Page 8 of 18 9
38.
Additionally, upon commencing her employment with Defendant, Plaintiff
informed her supervisors that she had ongoing foot problems with her right foot.
39.
As a result, Ms. Nipple requested that she be assigned to the cleaning of
first-floor rooms only, as Defendant’s premises did not have an elevator for the
Housekeeping Staff to travel to the upper floor, requiring Ms. Nipple to traverse
the stairs.
40.
Defendant failed to accommodate Ms. Nipple, and continued to assign her to
clean rooms on all floors.
41.
On at least one occasion, while discussing her disability with her supervisor,
Mr. Del Rosario, Ms. Nipple explained to Mr. Del Rosario that it caused her a
significant amount of pain and discomfort to traverse the stairs to clean the rooms
on the upper floor.
42.
In response, Mr. Del Rosario would pull up his pant leg to show Ms. Nipple
that he had a blood clot on his leg, indicating that they had similar disabilities in
Case 1:13-cv-01428-CAP-WEJ Document 1 Filed 04/29/13 Page 9 of 18 10
common; Mr. Del Rosario did not take any further action to address Ms. Nipple’s
complaints regarding her disability and her requests for accommodations for the
same.
43.
Defendant continued to assign Ms. Nipple to the upper floors, and continued
to deny her request for accommodations for her disability for the remainder of her
employment.
44.
On approximately November 19, 2011, when Ms. Nipple went in to work,
Mr. Frankly and Mr. Del Rosario informed her that she was being “let go” for
allegedly using an expletive in conversation with a co-worker.
VI. FEDERAL CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT SEXUAL HARASSMENT
45.
Plaintiff re-alleges the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.
46.
On a consistent basis during Plaintiff’s employment, Mr. Del Rosario
subjected her to sexual harassment.

Case 1:13-cv-01428-CAP-WEJ Document 1 Filed 04/29/13 Page 10 of 18 11
47.
Plaintiff’s was obligated to work in an atmosphere that was hostile by virtue
of unsolicited and unwelcome sexual advances, comments, sex based comments,
sexual innuendo and other sexually charged conduct.
48.
This sexual harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the
terms and conditions of employment and create a working environment that was
intimidating, insulting and abusive to employees.
49.
Because of its failure to take prompt and remedial action, and its deliberate
indifference to sexually hostile conduct, Defendant has intentionally engaged in
unlawful employment practices in violation of Title VII.
50.
The effect of the conduct complained of herein has been to deprive Plaintiff
of equal employment opportunity, and has otherwise adversely affected her status
as an employee because of sex.

Case 1:13-cv-01428-CAP-WEJ Document 1 Filed 04/29/13 Page 11 of 18 12
51.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s violation of Title VII,
Plaintiff has been made the victim of acts that have adversely affected her
psychological and physical well-being.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF UNDER CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1991
52.
Plaintiff re-alleges the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.
53.
Defendant permitted its employee to act in a hostile manner towards Plaintiff
and other employees, and in failing and refusing to take any appropriate remedial
action to remedy the unlawful employment practices has not only deprived
Plaintiff of equal employment opportunities, but exhibits malice or reckless
indifference to Plaintiff’s federally protected rights.
54.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful employment
practices, Plaintiff has been embarrassed, humiliated and has suffered damage to
her emotional health.

Case 1:13-cv-01428-CAP-WEJ Document 1 Filed 04/29/13 Page 12 of 18 13
55.
Plaintiff thus seeks compensatory and punitive damages pursuant to
§102(a)(1) of the Civil Rights Act of 1991.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF BASED ON
DISCRIMINATION ON ACCOUNT OF AN ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED
DISABILITY AND/OR FAILURE TO ACCOMMODATE IN VIOLATION
OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (“ADA”)

56.
Plaintiff re-alleges the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.
57.
Plaintiff has a known history of posterior tibial tendonitis and tendon
dysfunction.
58.
Plaintiff’s medical conditions substantially limited one or more of her major
life activities without reasonable accommodation.
59.
Defendant perceived that Plaintiff’s medical condition limited one or more
of her major life activities and regarded her as having a disability but refused to
provide her with reasonable accommodation even though to do so would not
impose an undue hardship.

Case 1:13-cv-01428-CAP-WEJ Document 1 Filed 04/29/13 Page 13 of 18 14
60.
At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff was a qualified individual with a
known or perceived disability as defined in the ADA.
61.
Defendant refused to accommodate Plaintiff, and did not engage in the
interactive process to determine if an accommodation was warranted.
62.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, Plaintiff
has suffered emotional pain and suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of
enjoyment of life, and other past and future pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses.
63.
Defendant, therefore, violated the ADA and is thus liable for the damages
resulting from this violation.
64.
Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 12117 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981(a).

Case 1:13-cv-01428-CAP-WEJ Document 1 Filed 04/29/13 Page 14 of 18 15
VII. STATE LAW CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

NEGLIGENT AND WRONGFUL
HIRING, RETENTION AND SUPERVISION

65.
Plaintiff re-alleges the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.
66.
Defendant knew, or in the exercise of ordinary diligence, should have known
of the propensity of its employees to engage in sexually offensive conduct toward
other employees, and Louveina Nipple in particular.
67.
Defendant nevertheless failed and refused to act to protect Louveina Nipple.
68.
Defendant is thus liable to Louveina Nipple for all of the damages sustained
as a result.
NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO PREVENT SEXUAL HARASSMENT
69.
Plaintiff re-alleges the preceding paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.
70.
Defendant had a duty to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace.

Case 1:13-cv-01428-CAP-WEJ Document 1 Filed 04/29/13 Page 15 of 18 16
71.
Defendant failed to use ordinary care to prevent sexual harassment in the
workplace, causing Louveina Nipple to be sexually harassed.
72.
The conduct of Defendant was consciously or recklessly indifferent to the
inevitable or probable consequences of its conduct in failing to remedy the
harassment.
73.
Defendant is thus liable to Louveina Nipple for all of the damages sustained
as a result.
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
74.
Defendant’s conduct was extreme and outrageous.
75.
Defendant intended to inflict severe emotional distress or knew that it was a
high probability that the conduct would do so.
76.
Defendant’s conduct actually caused severe emotional distress.

Case 1:13-cv-01428-CAP-WEJ Document 1 Filed 04/29/13 Page 16 of 18 17
77.
Defendant is liable for all general and special damages proximately resulting
from the intentional infliction of emotional distress.
VIII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
78.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court GRANT
judgment as follows:
(a) General damages for mental and emotional suffering caused by
Defendant’s misconduct;
(b) Punitive damages based on Defendant’s willful, malicious,
intentional, and deliberate acts, including ratification,
condonation and approval of said acts;
(c) Special damages and/or liquidated damages for lost wages and
benefits and prejudgment interest thereon;
(d) Reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation;
(e) Trial by jury as to all issues;
(f) Prejudgment interest at the rate allowed by law;
(g) Declaratory relief to the effect that Defendant Jameson Inns has
violated Plaintiff’s statutory rights;
Case 1:13-cv-01428-CAP-WEJ Document 1 Filed 04/29/13 Page 17 of 18 18
(h) Injunctive relief of reinstatement, or front pay in lieu thereof,
and prohibiting Defendant Jameson Inns from further unlawful
conduct of the type described herein; and
(i) All other relief to which he may be entitled.
Respectfully submitted the 29th day of April, 2013.

Facebook Tweet Email ShareThis

  • Justice at Work. ® • Phone:
    1100 PEACHTREE ST NE # 500ATLANTA, GA 30309-4501

    Barrett & Farahany, Attorneys at Law, are located in Atlanta, GA and serve clients in and around Decatur, Atlanta, Scottdale, Clarkston, Avondale Estates, Pine Lake, Stone Mountain, Tucker, Smyrna, Conley, Marietta, Mableton, Forest Park, Ellenwood, Red Oak, Austell, Lithia Springs, Morrow, Lithonia, Rex, Riverdale, Clayton County, Cobb County, Dekalb County and Douglas County.

    Copyright © 2016 Barrett & Farahany, LLP. All rights reserved.

  •  
     
     
    Share
    Speak With an Attorney