Opinion
23-cv-05612
10-18-2024
IN THE MATTER OF KIA FULLWOOD, Plaintiff, v. THE FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK, a Federal Banking Corporation, Defendant.
Wayne B. Giampietro, Plaintiff's Attorney
Wayne B. Giampietro, Plaintiff's Attorney
COMPLAINT
NOW COMES Plaintiff, KIA FULLWOOD, by her attorneys, and complaining of THE FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK states as follows:
I. FACTS
1. Plaintiff, an individual, is a resident of the State of North Carolina, residing in Charlotte, North Carolina. Plaintiff performed all her job duties as a “Collateral Underwriter” employee of Defendant remotely for its office located at 4120 W. Diversey Ave., Chicago, IL
2. Defendant is a federally chartered banking institution (FDIC #35518), within the meaning of 12 U.S.C., §1813(q)(1)(C) and is chartered and examined by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. See 12 U.S.C., §§ 12 U.S.C., 1461 et seq., 5412(b)(2)(B). It is an “insured depository institution” as that term is defined in 12 U.S.C., §1813(c)(2)
3. Defendant's principal place of business is in Chicago, Illinois, within the ambit of this office of JAMS. Defendant is engaged in interstate commerce by, among other things, selling mortgage loans and other financial products at its office locations throughout the United States. Upon information and belief, Defendant's gross annual sales made, or business done, has been $500,000 per year or greater at all relevant times.
4. Defendant is and has been an “employer” engaged in interstate commerce and/or the production of goods for commerce within the meaning of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. §203(d).
5. Plaintiff was an “employee” of Defendant within the meaning of the FLSA, 29 U.S.C., §203(e)(1).
6. Plaintiff, KIA FULLWOOD is an individual holding a conventional collateral underwriter certificate, VA-SAR Certification, FHA Certification, S.A.F.E. Certification, Loan Originator License and Asset Based Lending Certification.
7. On July 9, 2021, Defendant offered to Plaintiff a position of employment as a Collateral Underwriter in the Chicago, Illinois office of Defendant, commencing on July 21, 2021. Plaintiff accepted that offer. A copy of the offer letter from Defendant to Plaintiff, which Plaintiff accepted, is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
8. Defendant issued its Employee Handbook, which contained provisions guaranteeing that Plaintiff and other employees would be paid overtime for work performed as described in the handbook. The relevant provisions of the Handbook are attached hereto as Exhibit “B” and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.
9. On or about July 21, 2021, Plaintiff began working for Defendant as a Collateral Underwriter reporting to Defendant's office located at 4120 W. Diversey Ave., Chicago, IL. She worked from home in North Carolina, but communicated daily with Defendant at that address in Chicago.
10. Plaintiff's duties as a Collateral Underwriter were to analyze, evaluate and decide appraisal reports within agency and investor guidelines. She was also responsible for requesting appraisal revisions from appraisers and inputting appraisal conditions and approval into the platform used to process a loan from origination to funding.
11. Plaintiff was constantly assigned extra tasks to perform for Defendant, such as processing loans, which were to be completed within two hours of the assignment. The assignment of this extra work caused Plaintiff to work overtime to complete both her normally assigned work as well as these extra tasks.
12. Throughout the time Plaintiff was employed by defendant, she was instructed daily to complete tasks that were a direct violation of the rules of the Office of the Comptroller or Currency and other federal regulatory agencies. She refused to violate those rules, but working around the improper instructions given to her caused her to work more hours than she would have otherwise spent.
13. As a Collateral Underwriter, Plaintiff was paid a set salary regardless of hours worked, and was eligible for nondiscretionary bonuses. Plaintiff routinely worked in excess of forty hours per workweek, and was not paid any overtime for hours worked over forty per work week. Throughout all the days of her employment, Plaintiff worked an average of 8 hours every work day. Plaintiff calculates that during the term of her employment by Defendant, she worked at least 182 hours of overtime for which she received no compensation whatsoever.
14. Defendant owes to Plaintiff at least Twenty Thousand ($20,000.00) Dollars in overtime pay which it has failed and refused to pay to her.
15. Defendant classified Plaintiff as exempt from overtime compensation under the FLSA's “administrative exemption” (as defined under 29 C.F.R. §541.200, et. Seq.). In fact, Plaintiff's job duties were not such that she was properly categorized as an “administrative exemption.”
16. At the time Defendant terminated her, Plaintiff requested that she be given her personnel file maintained by Defendant. Defendant refused to provide that information to Plaintiff.
17. While performing her duties as an employee of Defendant, Plaintiff became aware that Defendant had a bias against all female employees. She was told that male bankers did not want to work with women employees, or even speak to them.
18. Among the actions taken by Defendant against Plaintiff which constituted discriminatory treatment were:
A. Plaintiff began receiving less work than my male counterparts.
B. When Plaintiff would offer to assist with software training - training that she was specifically trained in, she was passed over for two male colleagues who were not trained in it and had very little experience in it.
19. Defendant has no Human Resources department or division- as such, there is no protection for employees against discrimination; Plaintiff had no one to whom she could voice these concerns.
20. On several occasions, Plaintiff observed numerous discriminatory actions taken by male managers, supervisors, and sales bankers of Defendant against women employees.
21. In September of 2022, Plaintiff received a staff performance evaluation for the period August 2021, through August 2022. Of the nine areas in which Plaintiff was evaluated, she was rated “Outstanding” in two categories, “Exceeds Expectations” in 2 categories, and “Meets Expectations” in 3 categories.
22. In early November 2022, at Defendant's telephonic national sales meeting, Defendant's senior lead stated that while the working hours of some employees might be reduced due to market performance, no layoffs were going to be made by Defendant.
23. On November 22, 2022, Plaintiff was informed that she was being laid off due to low productivity.
24. Approximately one month before she was laid off from her employment, Plaintiff was told by her supervisor that she had “anger issues.” This statement was based upon a response to an email Plaintiff had sent regarding the manner in which she was being treated by a male employee. That accusation was totally untrue.
25. All employees who have been fired or laid off from the collateral Underwriting department have been women.
II. VIOLATION OF THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT
26. Plaintiff realleges as though fully set forth herein paragraphs 1 through 22 as this paragraph 26.
27. The Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C., §201 et seq. requires Defendant to pay Plaintiff overtime equal to one and one-half her regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of forty hours per workweek. 29 U.S.C., §207(a).
28. Defendant's conduct, as set forth above, is a willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act within the meaning of 29 U.S.C., §255(a) as Defendant knew, or showed reckless disregard for, the fact that its compensation practices were in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
29. Plaintiff has suffered from Defendant's flagrant violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and is entitled to receive compensation at the rate of one and one-half times her regular rate of pay for the overtime hours she has worked.
III. VIOLATION OF ILLINOIS PERSONNEL RECORD REVIEW ACT
30. Plaintiff realleges as though fully set forth herein the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 29 as this paragraph 30.
31. The Illinois Personnel Records Review Act 820 ILCS 40/2, 3, specifically requires an employer to allow an employee to inspect “any personnel documents which are, have been or are intended to be used in determining that employee's qualifications for employment, promotion, transfer, additional compensation, discharge or other disciplinary action . . .” and to make copies of those documents.
32. Defendant's refusal to allow Plaintiff to review her personnel records is a flagrant violation of the provisions of that Act.
33. Plaintiff is entitled to an Order requiring Defendant to provide Plaintiff with her personnel records, plus sanctions, costs and attorney's fees. 820 ILCS 40/12.
IV. VIOLATION OF FEDERAL ANTI- DISCRIMINATION ACT
34. Plaintiff realleges as though fully set forth herein the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 25 as this paragraph 34.
35. Defendants' actions described above constitute sex discrimination and harassment against Plaintiff solely because her sex.
36. Plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination embodying the claims for violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C.. §2000e et seq., set forth above with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on February 20, 2023. A copy of that Charge is attached hereto as Exhibit “C” and incorporated herein by reference. On June 20, 2023, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued to Plaintiff a Notice of Right to Sue, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “D” and incorporated herein by reference.
37. Plaintiff filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, asserting the claims set forth in her charge or discrimination on August 23, 2023, which case was assigned case No. 1-23-cv-05612.
38. Defendant has filed a motion to stay that court proceeding and to compel arbitration of the claims set forth in Plaintiff's Complaint in that case, which motion has been granted by the Court.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that this Court grant her the following relief:
A. An award of compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial;
B. An award of punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial;
C. An award to Plaintiff of her costs and expenses incurred herein, including attorneys fees; and
D. Such other and further relief that is found to be just and proper.
Respectfully submitted.
Wayne B. Giampietro, Plaintiff's Attorney