Deloitte Title VII Violations

Case 3:12-cv-01271-FAB-BJM Document 1 Filed 04/20/12 Page 1 of 28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
WANDA G. MIRANDA
Plaintiff,
v.
DELOITTE LLP, DELOITTE TAX LLP,
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP, DELOITTE
SERVICES
LLP,
FRANCISCO
A.
CASTILLO PENNE, RICARDO VILLATE
PRIETO,
MICHELLE
CORRETJER
CATALN, JOHN DOE, RICHARD DOE,
ABC, DEF INSURANCE COMPANIES
CIVIL
AGE AND SEX DISCRIMINATION;
SEXUAL HARASSMENT; RETALIATION
Defendants
COMPLAINT
TO THE HONORABLE COURT:
Come now the plaintiff, through the undersigned attorney, and respectfully alleges,
states and prays:
I. NATURE OF THE ACTION
1.
This is an action for declaratory and equitable relief, back pay, double compensatory
and liquidated damages arising under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. 621 et seq., Puerto Rico Law 100 of June 30, 1959 , as
amended, 29 L.P.R.A, 146 et seq., Puerto Rico Law No. 69 of July 6, 1985 29
L.P.R.A. 1321 et seq., Puerto Rico Law No. 115 of December 20, 1991, 29
L.P.R.A. 194 et seq.; Law 17 of April 22,1988, 29 L.P.R.A 155 et seq; Torts
Law of Puerto Rico, article 1802, Civil Code of Puerto Rico 31 L.P.R.A. 5141, and
wrongful discharge under Puerto Ricos Law No. 80 of May 30, 1976, 29 L.P.R.A.

185a. et seq. Compensatory and Punitive damages are also sought pursuant to 42
U.S.C. 1981a.
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2.
This Court has jurisdiction to entertain the claims pleaded herein pursuant to 29
U.S.C. 621 et seq., 42 U.S.C 2000e et seq. and 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1343 et seq.
3.
Supplemental jurisdiction is invoked under 28 U.S.C. 1367 with regard to all

plaintiffs claims against defendants for damages, including, but not limited to,
infliction of emotional distress resulting from the same nucleus of operative facts as
those affirmed by Co-plaintiff Wanda G. Miranda under her federal law claim.
Plaintiff invokes application of Puerto Rico Law 100 of June 30, 1959 , as amended,
29 L.P.R.A. 146 et seq., Puerto Rico Law No. 69 of July 6, 1985 29 L.P.R.A.
1321 et seq., Puerto Rico Law No. 115 of December 20, 1991, 29 L.P.R.A. 194
et seq.; Puerto Rico Law 17 of April 22,1988, 29 L.P.R.A. 155 et seq; Torts Law
of Puerto Rico, article 1802, Civil Code of Puerto Rico 31 L.P.R.A. 5141, and
wrongful discharge under Puerto Ricos Law No. 80 of May 30, 1976, 29 L.P.R.A.
185 et seq., to the present controversy, in consideration to its factually related
issues, thus reasserting the inequity, prejudice, and damages caused.
4.
All the discriminatory employment practices alleged herein were committed within
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
5.
This action properly lies in the United States District Court of Puerto Rico because
the unlawful employment practice was committed in this judicial district.
III.
6.
EEOC FILING AND RIGHT TO SUE
A timely charge of employment discrimination on the basis of sex and age

discrimination and retaliation was filed on June 29, 2011 with the Puerto Rico

Department of Labor - Anti Discrimination Unit and the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission ("EEOC").
7.
On January 12, 2012, plaintiff requested a Right to Sue letter.
8.
The EEOC issued a Right to Sue letter on January 24, 2012, a true and accurate copy
of which is attached hereto as Exhibit I.
IV.PARTIES
9.
Plaintiff Wanda G. Miranda (also referred to as "Mrs. Miranda"), is a female citizen

of the United States, resident of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and was born on
July 31, 1968.
10.
Defendant Deloitte LLP is a Delaware entity authorized to do business within the

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
11.
Defendant Deloitte LLP is an employer within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. 630 (b)
and 42 U.S.C. 2000e(b).
12.
Defendant Deloitte LLP is engaged in an "industry affecting commerce" within the

meaning of 29 U.S.C. 630 (h) and 42 U.S.C. 2000e.
13.
Defendant Deloitte Tax LLP has a branch office and place of business in San Juan
(Deloitte Tax San Juan), Puerto Rico within the jurisdiction of this Court.
14.
Defendant Deloitte Tax LLP is an employer within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. 630
(b) and 42 U.S.C. 2000e(b).
15.
Defendant Deloitte Tax LLP is engaged in an "industry affecting commerce" within

the meaning of 29 U.S.C. 630 (h) and 42 U.S.C. 2000e.
16.
Defendant Deloitte & Touchee LLP, has a branch and place of business in San Juan,
Puerto Rico within the jurisdiction of this Court.
17.
Defendant Deloitte & Touchee LLP is an employer within the meaning of 29 U.S.C.
630 (b) and 42 U.S.C. 2000e(b).
3
18.

Defendant Deloitte & Touchee LLP is engaged in an "industry affecting commerce"
within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. 630 (h) and 42 U.S.C. 2000e.
19.
Defendant Deloitte Services LLP has a branch office and place of business in San
Juan, Puerto Rico within the jurisdiction of this Court.
20.
Defendant Deloitte Services LLP is an employer within the meaning of 29 U.S.C.

630 (b) and 42 U.S.C. 2000e(b).
21.
Defendant Deloitte Services LLP is engaged in an "industry affecting commerce"

within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. 630 (h) and 42 U.S.C. 2000e.
22.
Defendant Francisco A. Castillo Penne was plaintiffs supervisor at the time of the
events described in this complaint.
23.
Defendant Ricardo Villate Prieto was plaintiffs counselor and supervisor at the time
of the events described in this complaint.
24.
Defendant Michelle Corretjer Cataln was plaintiffs supervisor since September

2010.
25.
John Doe and Richard Doe may have contributed to the damages claimed in this
complaint, designated under fictitious names because their correct names are
unknown at the present.
26.
Codefendants ABC and DEF Insurance Companies, designated under fictitious

names because their correct names are unknown at the present, are insurance carriers
organized and existing under the laws of Puerto Rico, with their principal place of
business in said jurisdiction.
27.
At all relevant time herein codefendants ABC and DEF had in full force and effect
insurance policies covering the legal liability of any or all of the defendants for the
acts and omissions that give rise to this case.
V. NARRATIVE OF FACTS
4
a.
28.

Employment Relationship
Wanda G. Miranda was originally hired by Deloitte & Touche LLP on September 3,
1990 as a Tax Staff.
29.
Deloitte LLP is the holding company of Deloitte & Touche LLP, Deloitte Tax LLP,
Deloitte Services LLP, and other entities (collectively referred to herein as
Deloitte).
30.
On or about September of 1992, Mrs. Miranda was promoted to Senior Tax

Consultant.
31.
On December 31, 1996, Mrs. Miranda resigned to Deloitte & Touch LLP.
32.
On December 21, 1999, Deloitte & Touche LLP offered Mrs. Miranda the position
of Tax Manager starting on January 24, 2000.
33.
Mrs. Miranda accepted Deloitte & Touche LLPs offer and signed a Manager
Agreement on January 24, 2000.
34.
On or about June 3, 2007, Deloitte Tax LLP became the employer of Wanda G.
Miranda by virtue of a reorganization by which Mrs. Miranda's employment
agreement with Deloitte & Touche LLP was assigned to Deloitte Tax LLP.
35.
Wanda G. Miranda provided her services under her employment relationship

described herein in Deloitte & Touche LLPs and Deloitte & Tax LLPs San Juan
office (collectively referred to herein as Deloitte San Juan).
36.
Deloitte & Touche LLP and Deloitte Tax LLP had the same fiscal year which runs
from June through May with a 52/53 week year end ending on the closer Saturday to
June.
37.
Deloitte Services LLP provides the administration and related services, such as the
Human Resources Departments, of all Deloitte LLPs entities, including Deloitte &
Touche LLP and Deloitte Tax LLP among other entities.
5

b. Mrs. Mirandas Performance Evaluation Prior to October 5, 2010
38.
Deloitte's employees are evaluated twice a year: at mid-year (November) and at

year-end (May).
39.
During the time that Mrs. Miranda worked for Deloitte, Deloitte had established
procedures and deadlines for the performance evaluations of its employees.
40.
Pursuant to Deloittes evaluation procedures, Deloittes employees in Deloitte San

Juan selected their counselors and were assigned a primary and a secondary
feedback provider.
41.
As part of Deloittes performance evaluation process and policies, Deloitte San

Juans employees performed self evaluations of their own performance which were
filed through Deloittes website.
42.
The employees self assessments were reviewed by their respective counselors and
feedback providers and submitted in a final form through Deloittes website by the
counselors and feedback providers without any discussion with the employees.
43.
After the evaluations were submitted by the counselors and feedback providers, the
employees and their feedback providers had to have counseling sessions within the
deadlines established by Deloitte.
44.
Since January 24, 2000, Mrs. Mirandas counselor and primary feedback provider
was codefendant Ricardo Villate (also referred to herein as "Mr. Villate")
45.
At some point in time, Deloitte used a system called Great Performance System to
evaluate its employees performance.
46.
Through the Great Performance System, Deloitte used Great Performance

Scorecards (GPS).
47.
Under the GPS, an employee could obtain the following evaluations: Substantially
Exceeding Expectation (SEE), Exceeding Some Expectations (ESE), Meeting
6

Expectations (ME), Meeting Some Expectations (MSE), and Not Meeting
Expectation (NME).
48.
At some point in time during Mrs. Miranda's employment relationship with Deloitte,
Deloittes performance evaluation system changed to use a Deloitte Performance
Management Evaluation (DPME).
49.
Under the DPME, an overall rating of 2 meant that the individuals results had more
than achieved agreed goals, performance and contributions expectations.
50.
Under the DPME, an overall rating of 3 meant that the individuals results had
achieved goals, performance, and contribution expectations.
51.
Under the DPME, an overall rating of 4 meant that the individuals results had
mixed, but have achieved some agreed goals, performance, and contribution
expectations and further development was necessary.
52.
Under the DPME, an overall rating of 5 meant that the individuals results did not
achieve a majority of agreed goals, performance and contribution expectations.
53.
At some point in time during Mrs. Miranda's employment relationship with Deloitte,
Deloitte implemented an additional step using a Project Evaluation (PE) Form,
which divided the evaluation in different competency areas that used the following
rating scales for the management group: EP (Exceptional Performance), HP (High
Performance), OT (On Target Performance), IPR (Improved Performance Required),
BT (Below Target)
54.
Also under the DPME, the employees had to fill out a form referred to as Goals at
the beginning of each of Deloittes fiscal years which was evaluated twice a year by
the employees respective counselors.
55.
The Goals evaluated the following areas: market, people clients, and operational
services.
7
56.

In the final evaluations for the years ended on May 2005 through May 2009,
codefendant Ricardo Villate, as her feedback provider, gave Wanda G Miranda a
rating of 3.
57.
On the Mid Year 2008-2009, codefendant Mr. Castillo as her feedback provider,
gave Mrs. Miranda a rating of 3.
58.
On the Mid Year 2009-2010 Mr. Castillo, as her feedback provider, gave Mrs.
Miranda an overall competency rating of at targeted proficiency level.
59.
On the 2006 Goals, Wanda G. Miranda had all the goals on-track with a Y for yes
60.
On the 2008 Goals, Wanda G. Miranda had all the goals on-track with a Y for yes.
61.
On the 2009 Goals, Wanda G. Miranda had all the goals on-track with a Y for yes.
62.
On the 2010 Goals, on the Deloitte Performance Management (DPM) Form Year
End 2010, Ricardo Villate stated that Mrs. Miranda had all the goals on-Track.
63.
On the 2011 Goals, on the Deloitte Performance Management (DPM) Form

Ricardo Villate stated that all the goals of Mrs. Miranda were on-Track.
64.
For the fiscal year ended 2010, Wanda G. Miranda met all the pre-established goals.
65.
The year end 2010 evaluation was never discussed with Wanda G. Miranda.
66.
When a Deloittes employee received a MCC status of accelerated, it meant that

the employee needed improvement to reach his/her expected level of performance.
67.
Wanda G. Miranda was never assigned a MCC profile status of "accelerated".
c.
Mrs. Miranda was the Tax Manager in charge of the Deloitte San Juans
partners returns prior to October 5, 2010
68.
Wanda G. Miranda was assigned as the Tax Manager for the 2008 tax returns for the
following Deloitte's partners: Mr. Fernando Nido, Mr. Manuel Garrido, Mr. Gilberto
del Valle and codefendant Mr. Castillo,
69.

Mrs. Miranda was assigned as the Tax Manager for the 2009 tax returns for the
following Deloittes partners: Mr. Fernando Nido, Mr. Gilberto del Valle, and
codefendant Mr. Castillo.
70.
Mrs. Miranda was assigned as the Tax Manager for the 2009 tax returns of Mrs.
Mary Catherine Chubrick, Deloittes Director of Deloittes National Office.
71.
Wanda G. Miranda was assigned as the Tax Manager for the 2010 tax returns for the
following Deloittes partners: Mr. Fernando Nido, Mr. Gilberto del Valle, and
codefendant Mr. Castillo.
72.
Wanda G. Miranda was assigned as the Tax Manager for the 2010 tax returns of
Mrs. Mary Catherine Chubrick, Deloittes Director of Deloittes National Office.
73.
On or about April 15, 2011, Wanda G. Miranda was assigned as the Tax Manager
for the 2011 estimated tax declarations for the following Deloittes partners: Mr.
Fernando Nido, Mr. Gilberto del Valle, and codefendant Mr. Castillo.
74.
On or about April 15, 2011, Wanda G. Miranda was assigned as the Tax Manager
for the 2011 estimated tax declarations of Mrs. Mary Catherine Chubrick, Deloittes
Director of Deloittes National Office.
d. Mr. Castillos offensive behavior was well known in Deloitte San Juan
75.
Mr. Castillo enjoyed making offensive jokes of sexual content to the female
employees of Deloitte San Juan.
76.
In Deloitte San Juan, it was commonly known that Mr. Castillos jokes were of
sexual content, offensive and disrespectful to women.
77.
Mr. Castillo routinely visited the work stations of the tax department to talk and tell
lewd jokes, such as jokes related to viagra.
78.
Mr. Castillo enjoyed staring at Mrs. Miranda and other female employees in sexually
suggestive manners, such as looking at their breasts.
9
79.
80.

Mr. Castillo used to quietly approach Mrs. Mirandas desk and stare at her.
Once Mr. Castillo approached Mrs. Miranda to tell her a joke about if she had
touched her husband's wichu. Wichu sounds like a vulgar word used in Puerto
Rico to refer to a males penis.
81.
Mrs. Miranda told Mr. Castillo that she did not like the joke but Mr. Castillo
continued making the wichu joke in front of her to other female co-workers that
were in the office of Mrs. Miranda.
82.
Mr. Castillo continually showed Mrs. Miranda uninvited offensive jokes of sexual
content that he received through his cellular.
83.
Mr. Castillo and Ms. Teresa Pascual, who was the Human Resources Director for
Deloitte San Juan are very close friends.
84.
Mr. Castillos inadequate and offensive behavior toward female employees was well
known by Deloitte San Juans partners, Human Resources Director, and other
personnel of Deloitte San Juan.
85.
To the best of Mrs. Miranda knowledge no disciplinary action was ever taken against
Mr. Castillo during Mrs. Miranda's employment relationship with Deloitte.
e. Submission of Incident Report on Sexual Harassment against codefendant

Francisco Castillo on October 6, 2010
86.
On October 5, 2010, Mrs. Miranda was participating in Deloitte's Flu Shot Day
Program by which Deloitte's employees receive the influenza vaccine as an
employee benefit.
87.
The flu shot is administered in the employee's arm.
88.
Deloitte separated a space within Deloitte's El Faro Training Room, located at the
San Juan Office, for the flu shot procedure.
10
89.

After Mrs. Miranda walked in the Training Room and started to fill out the
assistance record to get her flu shot, Mr. Castillo entered into the Training Room.
90.
Mr. Castillo had already received his flu shot at Deloitte's Partners Meeting.
91.
In the Training Room were Mrs. Miranda, a male nurse that was administering the
flu shots and codefendant Francisco Castillo.
92.
Mr. Castillo asked the male nurse to administer the flu shot to Mrs. Miranda not in
her arm but in her buttocks.
93.
Mr. Castillo used offensive body language to show the male nurse how he should
administer the flu shot to Mrs. Miranda by separating his legs, bending over and
reclining over the back of a chair, lifting his buttocks and making as if he was going
to pull down his pants.
94.
Mrs. Miranda felt intimidated, humiliated, and embarrassed over Mr. Castillo's
offensive conduct.
95.
Mrs. Miranda remained in shock and intimidated while the male nurse administered
the flu shot to her.
96.
Mr. Castillo remained in the room watching how the male nurse administered the flu
shot to Mrs. Miranda and did not leave the room until the male nurse finished.
97.
Mrs. Miranda felt so bad that she had to leave the office earlier that day.
98.
Next day, October 6, 2010, Mrs. Miranda called Deloitte's Integrity Help Line to
report the incident of the flu shot.
99.
Mrs. Miranda knew about Deloitte's Integrity Help Line because Deloitte informed
its employees about it.
100.
The Integrity Help Line personnel instructed Mrs. Miranda to get Deloitte's
Harassment Policy on the Deloitte's net web site and to file an incident report on
sexual harassment against Mr. Castillo.
11

101. Mrs. Miranda proceeded as she was instructed, and, in accordance with Deloitte's
Administrative Harassment Policy ("Administrative Policy Release 213 (U.S.)"), on
October 6, 2010 filed via email an incident report on sexual harassment against
codefendant Castillo to Leslie Berry (D&T San Diego Office) and Alisa A. Brussel
(D&T New York Office)
102.
On that same date, Mrs. Miranda was informed that her internal complaint against
Mr. Castillo was received and that it would be kept confidential and that she would
be contacted after the prompt examination of her Sexual Harassment Incident
Report.
103.
After the above mentioned communication of October 6, 2011, no one from Deloitte
Integrity Help Line, neither Ms. Berry or Ms. Brussel or any person from Deloitte's
Human Resources Department, or any other department of Deloitte, contacted Mrs.
Miranda to inform her about the outcome of the examination of her incident report.
104.
Deloitte failed to take appropriate actions regarding the incident report filed by Mrs.
Miranda on October 6, 2011 in violation of Deloittes sexual harassment policy.
f.
No warnings or negative memos regarding Mrs. Mirandas performance prior

to October 5, 2010
105.
Mrs. Mirandas personnel file did not have complaints, warnings or memos
regarding her performance prior to October 5, 2010.
g.
106.
Mrs. Mirandas supervisors as of October 5, 2010

On September 2010, codefendant Michelle Corretjer (also referred to herein as "Ms.
Corretjer") was appointed to Tax Director of Deloitte Tax LLP.
107.
As of October 5, 2010, Mrs. Mirandas supervisors were codefendants Francisco

Castillo, Michelle Corretjer, and her counselor Ricardo Villate.
108.
As of October 5, 2010, within Deloitte San Juan, the levels of authority that were
above the managers level were composed of Dialy M. Otero, Senior Tax Manager,
12

Roberto Sol, Senior Tax Managers, codefendants Ricardo Villate and Michelle
Corretjer who were both Directors of Deloitte Taxs San Juan Office and, above all
of them, was Mr. Castillo as the Tax Managing Partner of Deloitte San Juan.
109.
For years, Mr. Villate and Ms. Corretjer have been engaged in a consensual
relationship.
110.
Since January 24, 2000 and until Mrs. Miranda was terminated, Mr. Castillo had the
authority to take disciplinary actions against Mrs. Miranda, including her
termination.
111.
Since January 24, 2000 and until Mrs. Miranda was terminated, Mr. Villate had the
authority to recommend disciplinary actions against Mrs. Miranda.
112.
Since September 2010 and until Mrs. Miranda was terminated, Ms. Corretjer had the
authority to recommend disciplinary actions against Mrs. Miranda.
113.
Since January 24, 2010, Mr. Castillo had the authority to direct Mrs. Mirandas daily
work activities.
114.
Since January 24, 2000, Mr. Villate had the authority to direct Mrs. Mirandas daily
work activities.
115.
Since September 2010 and until Mrs. Miranda was terminated, Ms. Corretjer had the
authority to direct Mrs. Mirandas daily work activities.
h. Retaliatory events that followed October 5, 2010 and the sexual harassment
complaint
116.
On or about October 7, 2010, while Mrs. Miranda was discussing Deloitte San Juan's
Individual Hourly Rate with Mr. Castillo, he approached her from behind and
pushed his body against her back pushing her toward her computer screen, causing
Mrs. Miranda to be frightened and intimidated.
117.
Few weeks after Mrs. Miranda submitted the sexual harassment complaint to
Deloittes Integrity Line, Mr. Castillo called Mrs. Miranda to his office at closed
13

door to demand Mrs. Miranda an explanation on why she filed a Sexual Harassment
Incident Report against him.
118.
Mr. Castillo told Mrs. Miranda that Mrs. Miranda had tainted his record and that
next time he would appreciate that Mrs. Miranda talk to him at front and face-to-face
before filing any future report.
119.
Immediately after the meeting, Mr. Castillo sent an email to Mrs. Miranda where he
thanked Mr. Miranda for allegedly accepting his apology.
120.
Mrs. Miranda did not accept Mr. Castillo's apology.
121.
In accordance with Deloittes performance evaluation guidance, on November 1,

2010, Mrs. Miranda submitted her 2011 mid-year evaluation.
122.
Based on Deloittes established procedures, the feedback providers should have

completed the 2011 mid-year evaluations by November 15, 2010.
123.
Based on Deloittes established procedures, the secondary feedback providers should

have completed the 2011 mid-year evaluations by November 18, 2010.
124.
Based on Deloittes established procedures, all discussions about the 2011 mid-year
evaluation should have terminated as of January 31, 2011.
125.
On February 15, 2011, at or about 6:00 pm, Mr. Villate submitted Mrs. Mirandas
2011 mid-year evaluation where Mr. Villate, as counselor and primary provider, and
Mr. Castillo, as secondary provider, assigned Mrs. Miranda a performance overall
rate of 4.
126.
Mr. Castillo and Mr. Villate assigned Mrs. Miranda a performance overall rate of 4
in the 2011 mid-year evaluation in retaliation for her filing of the sexual incident
report against Mr. Castillo.
127.
The 2011 mid-year evaluation was never discussed with Mrs. Miranda.
14

128. Nor Mr. Villate neither Mr. Castillo held any counseling meeting with Mrs. Miranda
regarding her 2011 mid-year evaluation.
129.
On February 15, 2011, minutes after Mrs. Miranda 2011 mid-year evaluation was
submitted, Mr. Villate went to Mrs. Mirandas office and asked her to accompany
him to a conference room and order her not to talk.
130.
In the conference room were Mr. Geoffrey Horst, Deloittes South Regional Tax
Partner, and Mr. Francisco Castillo who handed to Mrs. Miranda a document titled
"Memo which in its part of reference indicated Performance Improvement Plan".
131.
Based on Deloittes policies, Deloitte's Performance Improvement Plan is a

document given to an employee who needs to improve his or her performance.
132.
The "Memo" of February 15, 2011 (also referred to herein as the "PIP") was the first
performance improvement plan, or equivalent thereof, that Mrs. Miranda received
since she started working for Deloitte.
133.
Mr. Castillo issued the PIP to Mrs. Miranda in retaliation for her filing of the sexual
incident report against Mr. Castillo.
134.
Mr. Castillo did not use Deloittes Performance Improvement Plan model.
135.
Deloittes Performance Improvement Plan model which is obtained in Deloittes

website is a two column document, where the first column indicates the area of
improvement for the employee; the second column indicates how the improvement
needs to be accomplished and how it will be measured.
136.
On Deloittes Website, it is established that an employee should be given 6 to 9

months to comply with a Performance Improvement Plan.
137.
In the Performance Improvement Plan that was handed to Mrs. Miranda, Mr. Castillo
and Mr. Horst mentioned concerns regarding three corporate clients, for two of
which Mrs. Miranda does not perform any work since August 2009 or before.
15

138. As February 15, 2011, Ms. Miranda had approximately 40 corporate clients and 60
individual clients assigned to her.
139.
In the PIP, no concern was mentioned regarding any particular individual client.
140.
The three corporate clients for which concerns were mentioned in the PIP were Avis,
Getinge and Cognizant.
141.
For Avis, two issues were mentioned which were related to the tax year 2008.
142.
The last work that Mrs. Miranda performed for Avis took place on or before August
2009.
143.
For Getinge, one concern was mentioned which was related to the tax year 2008.
144.
The last work that Mrs. Miranda performed for Getinge took place on or before
August 2009.
145.
For Cognizant, one concern was mentioned which was neither related to tax year
2010 nor tax year 2011.
146.
In the PIP, concerns were mentioned related to Mrs. Miranda's technical knowledge
regarding the 2011 tax code, billings, review of staffs and seniors, development of
assigned accounts, lack of participation in professional, civic, community
involvement and networking activities and needs to volunteer for tax letters or
seminars.
147.
Through the PIP, Mrs. Miranda was requested to make immediate and sustained
improvement in the areas for which concerns were mentioned therein.
148.
Contrary to Deloittes Performance Improvement Plan model, the PIP handed to

Mrs. Miranda did not give her guidelines on how the requested improvements were
going to be measured.
16

149. Although Mrs. Miranda feared and believed that Mr. Castillos decision to issue her
the PIP was motivated by her filing of the sexual harassment complaint against him,
she immediately worked on the plan that was handed to her.
150.
To comply with the PIP, Mrs. Miranda joined social organizations such as the
Business Administration Faculty of the University of Puerto Rico Alumni (also
known as "AFAE" for its acronym in Spanish) and the Committee from the Puerto
Rico CPA Board named Montate en la Ola.
151.
Mrs. Miranda took continuing education courses on the new tax code which became
effective on January 2011.
152.
After the PIP was issued, Mrs. Miranda met every billing period goal and kept Mr.
Villate informed about it.
153.
Clients feedback for Mrs. Mirandas work was excellent.
154.
Mrs. Miranda also gave a tax seminar to the audit partners during the 2011 tax busy
season after which she was congratulated by Deloitte San Juans audit partners.
155.
Mrs. Miranda also complied with the e-filing requirements.
156.
Mrs. Miranda sent an email to Mr. Villate to notify her entrance and departure time.
157.
On May 23, 2011, Mrs. Miranda informed Mr. Villate that she was going to run for
Director of the Board of Directors of the Puerto Rico Certified Public Accountants'
(CPA's) Chapter.
158.
On May 25, 2011, at approximately 11:59 a.m., Mrs. Miranda informed to Deloitte
San Juan's personnel, including codefendants Mr. Castillo, Mr. Villate and Ms.
Corretjer, that she had submitted her application to run for Director of the Board of
Directors of the Puerto Rico CPA's Chapter. Mrs. Miranda won the election on
September 2011.
17

159. As described below, Mr. Castillo, Mr. Villate and Ms. Corretjer concerted actions to
create a hostile work environment for Mrs. Miranda that severely interfered with
Mrs. Miranda's conditions of employment.
160.
While Mr. Villate maintained very limited communication with Mrs. Miranda and
did not give any feedback on her performance after February 15, 2011, Ms. Corretjer
and Mr. Castillo interfered with Mrs. Mirandas performance by treating her with
hostility.
161.
Prior to February 15, 2011, Ms. Corretjer never sent an email to, or had any other
type of communication with, Mrs. Miranda regarding Mrs. Mirandas performance
162.
After February 15, 2011, Ms. Corretjer and Mr. Castillo did not recognize the efforts
made by Mrs. Miranda to comply with the PIP and continually interfered with Mrs.
Mirandas conditions of work through communications intended to intimidate Mrs.
Miranda and underestimate her efforts.
163.
For instance, one Monday Mrs. Corretjer called Mrs. Miranda to question and
demand an explanation for not answering a phone call that Mrs. Corretjer allegedly
made her on the previous Saturday.
164.
Mrs. Corretjer questioned Mrs. Miranda for not participating in discussions about the
2011 tax code which were not programmed or announced to Mrs. Miranda.
165.
On Monday March 28th, 2011, Mrs. Corretjer called Mrs. Miranda to an immediate
meeting where she reprimanded Mrs. Miranda for taking the initiative on her own to
give the aforementioned tax seminar to the audit partners and underestimated Mrs.
Mirandas professional capacity.
166.
Mrs. Corretjer also reprimanded Mrs. Miranda for not preparing tax templates which
were previously assigned to another Manager named Juan Carlos Pacheco and which
were inefficient.
18

167. On March 29, 2011, Ms. Corretjer sent an email to Mr. Castillo and Mr. Villate
about her meeting of March 28th with Mrs. Miranda, without including Ms.
Mirandas position about most of the matters discussed in the meeting.
168.
On Friday April 1st, 2011, Mr. Castillo called Mrs. Miranda to another meeting with
him and Ms. Corretjer.
169.
On Saturday April 2, 2011, Mr. Castillo sent an email to Mrs. Miranda with copies to
himself, Mr. Villate, Ms. Corretjer and to Deloitte South East Region Human
Resources Manager, Mara Vilorio including baseless reprimands against Mrs.
Miranda.
170.
Mr. Castillo unreasonably demanded from Mrs. Miranda more office presence
although for the week ended April 2, 2011, Mrs. Miranda worked 60 hours of
chargeable time.
171.
In reaction to Mr. Castillo's demand, Mrs. Miranda worked 75 hours of chargeable

time during the week ended April 9, 2011 and 78 hours of chargeable time during
the week ended April 16, 2011.
172.
Wanda G. Miranda was the only Tax Manager in Deloitte Tax LLP San Juan office
on the Thursday, April 21, 2011 before Good Friday 2011 (Friday, April 22, 2011).
173.
On Thursday, April 21, 2011, Mr. Castillo, Mr. Villate, Ms. Corretjer, Ms. Otero,
and Mr. Sol, were all on personal time off (PTO).
174.
On or about the months of February and March 2011, Mr. Castillo told Mrs. Miranda
the following uninvited joke about a handyman:
"The handyman went to a house were a young boy was present. The
handyman started to work and his screwdriver fell and the young boy told
him that that's why his father had two screwdrivers. The handyman
continued to repair another appliance using a hammer. The hammer fell and
the boy told him that that's why his father had two hammers. The
handyman continued repairing different appliances throughout the day with
different tools and each time a tool fell the young boy replied that that's why
his father had two of those tools. The handyman went to the bathroom and
19

the boy followed him. The handyman grabbed his penis and told the boy
"don't tell me your father has two of this too" to which the boy replied "no,
he only has one but twice as long as yours".
175.
During the months of March and April 2011 Mr. Castillo continued to show Mrs.
Miranda uninvited offensive jokes of sexual content that he received through his
cellular.
176.
As of April 30, 2011 Mrs. Miranda had sold $777,619 in local tax WBS billings.
177.
Mrs. Miranda also sold additional amounts in billings for clients not considered for
local tax WBS billings and that were considered international or U.S. clients per
Deloitte San Juan.
178.
On May 24, 2011, Ms. Corretjer, as first provider, and Mr. Castillo, as secondary
provider, issued a year-end evaluation with an overall rating of 4.
179.
The May 24, 2011 evaluation was submitted beyond Deloittes deadline to submit
the 2011 year-end evaluation.
180.
The year-end evaluation was sent to Mrs. Miranda on May 24, 2011 on or about 2:00
pm.
181.
No one discussed the 2011 year-end evaluation with Mrs. Miranda.
182.
As of May 24, 2011 Mrs. Miranda had complied with her annual billing goal for the
year ended 2011.
183.
On May 25, 2011, at around 4:00 pm, Mr. Castillo verbally terminated Mrs.
Miranda's employment.
184.
The decision to terminate Mrs. Miranda was taken prior to May 24, 2011.
185.
Immediately after Mr. Castillo notified Mrs. Miranda that she was terminated, Mrs.
Miranda was escorted out from Deloitte San Juan.
186.
During Mrs. Mirandas employment relationship with Deloitte, no one had been
escorted out from Deloitte San Juan.
20

187. As of May 25, 2011, Mrs. Miranda was 42 years old.
188.
As of May 25, 2011 and since September 2009, Mrs. Miranda's base salary was
$87,500.
189.
As of May 25, 2011 and since September 2009, Mrs. Miranda also received the
following annual benefits from Deloitte: (a) annual health and welfare paid by
Deloitte of $8,637; (b) life/accident/disability insurance paid by Deloitte of $202; (c)
401(k) match by Deloitte of $1,366; (d) pension plan contribution by Deloitte of
$6,195; and (e) Christmas Bonus of $600.
190.
In sum, the total compensation received by Mrs. Miranda from Deloitte as of May
25. 2011 was $104,500.
191.
Mrs. Miranda was the only female manager in Deloitte Tax, San Juan office, older
than 40 years old.
192.
Mrs. Miranda was qualified for the position of Tax Manager that she held in
Deloitte.
193.
In the past, Deloitte Tax San Juan had terminated or offered voluntary termination
packages to all female employees that had not voluntarily resigned and who were
managers and close to turning 40 years old, except for Ms. Corretjer who has
maintained a consensual intimate relationship with Mr. Villate that started before
Ms. Corretjer was 40 years old.
194.
The only female employee that was above the manager level as of May 25, 2011,
other than Ms. Corretjer, was Dialy Otero who was a Senior Tax Manager and was
born on May 1976, being about 34 years old as of May 25, 2011.
195.
Deloitte Tax had a continuing need for the services that Mrs. Miranda provided.
196.
Upon her termination, Mrs. Mirandas clients were assigned to the following male
individuals: Marcos Morla and Fernando Rosario.
21

197. Mr. Marcos Morla was born during the month of May 1980.
198.
Mr. Fernando Rosario was born on August 8, 1975.
199.
After Mrs. Mirandas termination, Marcos Morla and Fernando Rosario were both
promoted to Tax Manager.
200.
For the July 2011 and August 2011 tax return deadlines, Mr. Morla and Mr. Rosario
acted as Tax Manager.
201.
Mr. Marcos Morla and Mr. Fernando Rosario were promoted to managers of
Deloitte San Juan on August 2011.
202.
As described herein, defendants Deloitte LLP and Deloitte Services, LLP failed to
exercise reasonable care to prevent, investigate and promptly correct the sexual
harassment committed against Mrs. Wanda G. Miranda.
203.
Codefendant Mr. Castillo's conduct as described herein was willful and with the
intention to harass Mrs. Wanda G. Miranda and to discriminate and retaliate against
Mrs. Wanda G. Miranda.
204.
Codefendant Mr. Villate's conduct as described herein was willful and with the
intention to discriminate and retaliate against Mrs. Wanda G. Miranda.
205.
Codefendant Ms. Corretjer's conduct as described herein was willful and with the
intention to discriminate and retaliate against Mrs. Wanda G. Miranda.
206.
All of the above, caused Mrs. Miranda severe emotional pain, mental anguish,
monetary damages, and other non-pecuniary damages to Wanda G. Miranda.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION:
SEXUAL DISCRIMINATION UNDER TITLE VII
207.
Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every preceding allegation as is fully set
herein.
22

208. Plaintiff was terminated from her employment even though she was performing her
job at a level that met Deloittes expectation.
209.
As a result of Mrs. Miranda's filing on October 6, 2010 the sexual harassment

incident report
against Mr. Castillo, codefendants issued negative performance
evaluations and the PIP in order to affect Mrs. Miranda's working conditions and
create a hostile working environment for Mrs. Miranda.
210.
Defendants Deloitte LLP and Deloitte Services, LLP failed to exercise reasonable
care to prevent, investigate and promptly correct the sexual harassment committed
against Mrs. Miranda.
211.
Plaintiff was terminated for codefendants motive to discriminate against her due to
Plaintiff's sex.
212.
Defendants sex discrimination against Plaintiff was willful.
213.
The defendants have discriminated against plaintiff Wanda G. Miranda in the terms
and conditions of her employment on the basis of her sex, in violation of Title VII of
the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, as amended 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., and the Civil
Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. U.S.C. 1981a, Law 100 of June 30, 1959 as
amended, 29 L.P.R.A. 146, et seq., Law 69 of July 6, 1985, 29 L.P.R.A. 1321; and
Law 17 of April 22,1988, 29 L.P.R.A. 155, et seq.
214.
As a result of the aforesaid discriminatory conduct, Wanda G. Miranda has suffered

severe emotional damages, as well as past and future loss of wages and employment
benefits for which the codefendants are liable.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION:
RETALIATION UNDER TITLE VII
215.
herein.
23

216. Defendants conduct against Plaintiff constitutes retaliation under Title VII, which
makes unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an employee that opposes
unlawful practices.
217.
But for Defendants motive to retaliate against Plaintiff for her filing of the sexual
incident report against Mr. Castillo, Mrs. Miranda would not have been issued
negative job performance evaluations, the performance improvement plan and
subsequently terminated, and therefore, deprived of the benefits of her employment.
218.
As described above, Mr. Castillo, Mr. Villate and Ms. Corretjer concerted actions to
create a hostile work environment for Mrs. Miranda that severely interfered with
Mrs. Miranda's conditions of employment.
219.
Defendants retaliatory motive against Plaintiff was willful.
220.
Plaintiff has suffered severe emotional damages, as well as past and future loss of
wages and employment benefits as a direct consequence of codefendants' retaliation
against her.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION:

DISCRIMINATION UNDER ADEA
221.
Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every preceding allegation as if fully set
herein.
222.
As of the date of she was terminated, Mrs. Miranda was 42 years old.
223.
Mrs. Miranda was qualified for the position that she had held.
224.
Deloitte Tax subsequently demonstrated a continuing need for the services that Mrs.
Miranda provided by promoting two male employees who were under 40 years old
for the same position that Mrs. Miranda held.
225.
The adverse actions taken by the defendants against Mrs. Miranda was
discriminatory.
24

226. Deloittes discriminatory conduct constitutes a willful violation of the ADEA and, as
a result thereof, defendants are liable to plaintiff for liquidated damages.
227.
wages and employment benefits as a direct consequence of codefendants' age
discrimination against her.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION:
THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1991
228.
herein.
229.
As described herein, defendants discriminatory and retaliatory practices against

Plaintiff were malicious and/or carried with reckless indifference and/or intentional.
Thus, Plaintiff is entitled to receive punitive and compensatory damages.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION:
AGE DISCRIMINATION UNDER P.R. LAW 100
230.
herein.
231.
Defendants conduct constitutes discrimination on the basis of age in violation of

Law No. 100 of June 30, 1959, as amended, and as a result thereof defendant's are
liable to Plaintiff for emotional damages, back pay and double damages.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION:

GENDER DISCRIMINATION UNDER P. R. LAWS 17 AND 69
232.
herein.
233.
As described herein, deffendants conduct constitutes unlawful employment

practices in violation of Laws No. 17 of April 22,1988, and 69 of July 6, 1985, and
as a result thereof Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs for double damages.
25

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION:
RETALIATION UNDER PUERTO RICO LAW NO. 115 OF DECEMBER 20, 1991
234.
herein.
235.
Defendants conduct constitutes retaliation in violation of Law No. 115 of December

20, 1991, and as a result thereof it is liable to Plaintiff for double damages.
236.
Plaintiff Wanda G. Miranda's negative performance evaluations and subsequent

termination of her job at Deloitte Tax LLP constituted retaliation against Mrs.
Miranda for her filing of the sexual harassment incident report against Mr. Castillo.
237.
wages and employment benefits as a direct consequence of codefendants' retaliatory
conduct.
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION:

WRONGFUL DISCHARGE UNDER PUERTO RICO LAW NO. 80 OF MAY 30,
1976
238.
The defendants terminated without cause Plaintiff from her employment in violation
of 29 L.P.R.A. Section 185a.
NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION:

INTENTIONAL AND/OR NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL HARM
239.
The aforesaid action of the defendants was extreme, and egregious and by engaging
in the aforesaid action, said defendants intentionally meant that plaintiff Wanda G.
Miranda suffers emotional distress and mental anguish.
240.
As a result of defendants intentional malicious and/or negligent conduct, plaintiff

Wanda G. Miranda has suffered mental and psychological anguish and lost salaries
and other emoluments of work.
26

241. Defendant aforesaid conduct is actionable as an intentional or negligent infliction of
emotional distress under the Civil Rights Act of 1991 42 U.S.C. U.S.C. 1981a,
ADEA, Law 100 of June 30, 1959 as amended, 29 L.P.R.A 146, et seq., Law 69 of
July 6, 1985, 29 L.P.R.A. 1321; Law 17 of April 22, 1988, 29 L.P.R.A. 155, et seq.
and of Law No. 115 of December 20, 1991, 29 L.P.R.A. 194 et seq.
TRIAL BY JURY
242.
Plaintiff demands a jury trial on all issues raised by this complaint.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, plaintiff Wanda G. Miranda respectfully prays that judgment be
entered in her favor and against all codefendants, including the following relief:
a) An order declaring that the acts and practices complained of herein are in violation
of the following: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e, et seq.,
the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. 1981a, et seq.; ADEA: Law 100 of June 30,
1959 as amended 29 L.P.R.A. 146, et seq.; Law 69 of July 6, 1985, 29 L.P.R.A.
1321; Law 17 of April 22,1988, 29 L.P.R.A 155, et seq., and of Law No. 115 of
December 20, 1991, 29 L.P.R.A. 194 et seq. and Article 1802 of the Civil Code
of Puerto Rico, 31 L.P.R.A. 5141.
b) An award of compensatory damages for the emotional suffering and distress
resulting from defendants discriminatory and retaliatory conduct in an amount not
less than $5,000,000.00
c) Back pay, together with interest.
d) Past and future lost benefits
e) An award of liquidated damages equal to twice the back pay lost by the plaintiff.
f) Punitive damages in the amount of $1,000,000.00.
g) An award of double damages pursuant to Puerto Rico Laws 17, 69. 10, and 115.
27

h) An award of reasonable attorneys fees, together with the necessary litigation costs.
i) Any other relief that this Court may deem reasonable and just under the
circumstances.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
In San Juan, Puerto Rico on this 20th day of April 2012
s/ MARA I. SANTOS
USDC PR NO. 213708
Attorney for Plaintiff
Cond. Madrid, Suite 205
Loza Street 1760
Santurce, Puerto Rico 00911
Tel.: 787-726-0827
Fax: 787-725-5505
E-mail: m.santos.rivera@gmail.com
28

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
WANDA G. MIRANDA
Plaintiff,
v.
DELOITTE LLP, DELOITTE TAX LLP,
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP, DELOITTE
SERVICES
LP,
FRANCISCO
A.
CASTILLO PENNE, RICARDO VILLATE,
MICHELLE CORRETJER, JOHN DOE,
RICHARD DOE, ABC, DEF INSURANCE
COMPANIES
Defendants
CIVIL NO. 12-1271 (FAB)

CIVIL
AGE AND SEX DISCRIMINATION;
SEXUAL HARASSMENT; RETALIATION
JOINT STIPULATION OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL
TO THE HONORABLE COURT:

Come now the plaintiff Wanda Miranda and the defendants, Deloitte LLP, Deloitte
Tax LLP, Deloitte & Touche LLP, Deloitte Services LP, Francisco A. Castillo Penne,
Ricardo Villate, Michelle Corretjer, through the undersigned attorneys, and respectfully
state and pray:
1. The plaintiff Wanda Miranda and the defendants, Deloitte LLP, Deloitte Tax LLP,
Deloitte & Touche LLP, Deloitte Services LP, Francisco A. Castillo Penne, Ricardo
Villate, Michelle Corretjer agreed upon and duly executed a "Settlement Agreement
and Release of All Claims" which shall remain confidential.
2.
In light of the above, pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, plaintiff hereby voluntarily requests the dismissal of all her claims
against defendants in the captioned case.
3.
Therefore, the parties request from this Honorable Court the dismissal with
prejudice of all plaintiff's claims against defendants without special imposition of
1
costs, expenses and/or attorney's fees. The parties also request that the judgment
entered herein be final and unappealable.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that his Honorable Court take notice of
this Motion and dismiss this action with prejudice.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
In San Juan, Puerto Rico on this 17th day of January, 2014.
s/ MARA I. SANTOS
USDC PR NO. 213708
Attorney for Plaintiffs
Cond. Madrid, Suite 205
Loza Street 1760
Santurce, Puerto Rico 00911
Tel.: 787-726-0827
Fax: 787-728-5505
E-mail: m.santos.rivera@gmail.com
SCHUSTER AGUIL LLC

Attorneys for Defendants
PO Box 363128
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00936-3128
Telephone: (787) 765-4646
Telefax: (787) 765-4611
s/Carl Schuster
Carl Schuster
USDC PR No. 201802
cschuster@salawpr.com
s/Mariela Rexach-Rexach
Mariela Rexach-Rexach
USDC PR No. 214110
mrexach@salawpr.com
s/Ana Beatriz Rivera-Beltrn
Ana Beatriz Rivera-Beltrn
USDC-PR Bar No. 230102
arivera@salawpr.com
Case 1:12-cv-00253-WYD-KMT Document 1 Filed 01/31/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 10
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No.
DANIELLE RICE,
Plaintiff,
v.
DELOITTE CONSULTING LLP
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
______________________________________________________________________________
Plaintiff Danielle Rice by and through counsel David A. Lane and Lauren L. Fontana of
KILLMER, LANE & NEWMAN, LLP, respectfully alleges for her Complaint and Jury Demand as
follows:
I.
1.
INTRODUCTION
This case involved Defendant Deloitte Consulting LLPs (Deloitte)
discriminatory termination of Plaintiff Danielle Rices employment. Defendant terminated Ms.

Rices employment, in whole or in part, because of her status as a qualified individual with a
disability and because of her sex, specifically her failure to conform to Defendants preferred
gender stereotypes. As a result of Defendants illegal treatment, Ms. Rice has suffered loss of
wages and benefits, humiliation, severe emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, and other
significant injuries, damages and losses.
II.
2.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1343.
This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
(Title VII), as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e, et seq, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42
U.S.C. 12111, et seq.
3.
The employment practices alleged herein to be unlawful were committed within
the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. Venue is proper
in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391.
III.
4.
ADMINISTRATIVE PREREQUISITES
Plaintiff timely filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission and has received her Notice of Right to Sue. Thus, all administrative
prerequisites have been met.
IV.
5.
PARTIES
Plaintiff Danielle Rice is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State
of Colorado. At all times referred to herein, Ms. Rice was employed by either BearingPoint,
which was subsequently purchased by Deloitte, or by Deloitte.
6.
Deloitte is a corporation with its principal place of business in New York.
Deloitte has an office in Denver, Colorado. Deloitte has continuously been an employer within
the meaning of Title VII at all times relevant to this Complaint.
V.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
7.
Ms. Rice was hired by BearingPoint as a Senior Manager in or around March 2005.
8.
In the Spring of 2009, Deloitte purchased BearingPoint.
9.
At that time, Deloitte extended employment offers to virtually all BearingPoint
employees.
10.
Despite offering her colleagues immediate employment offers, Deloitte singled Ms.
Rice out to investigate her credentials, despite not investigating the credentials of any other
BearingPoint employee.
11.
After Deloitte notified Ms. Rice that its investigator could not verify Ms. Rices
educational credentials, Ms. Rice provided Deloitte transcripts and diplomas from Tel Aviv
University, where she received her Bachelors Degree, and Pace University, where she received
her Masters Degree in Business Administration.
12.
After Ms. Rice provided proof of her education, Deloitte offered a position as
Senior Manager, which was the same position she held at BearingPoint.
13.
Upon beginning her employment, Ms. Rice questioned other members of her group
regarding the hiring process, and she learned that no one else had been required to prove the
legitimacy of their credentials.
14.
Ms. Rice diligently performed the duties of the Senior Manager position for
Deloitte.
15.
Despite Ms. Rices excellent performance, Ms. Rice was singled out for
discriminatory treatment by her supervisors.

16.
While Ms. Rice was the co-leader of a proposal effort for United Concordia,
another Senior Manager, Jason Bergstrom, repeatedly referred to Ms. Rice using male pronouns
during a conference call.
17.
Ms. Rice is transgender, and Mr. Bergstroms comments were explicitly
discriminatory based on Ms. Rices failure to conform to Mr. Bergstroms preferred gender
stereotypes.
18.
In July 2009, Ms. Rice submitted written materials to bid on a project.
19.
Because of Ms. Rices written materials, Deloitte was selected as one of two
finalists for the project.

20.
Ms. Rice and two other Deloitte employees, Brian Keane and Allan Krul,
participated in a oral presentation in conjunction with the project bid.

21.
The oral presentation was primarily conducted by Ms. Rices colleagues, with Ms.
Rice playing a small role by answering one question directed toward her during the presentation.
22.
As a result of the oral presentation, Deloitte was not awarded the project.
23.
Ron Crewe, Direct of Health Plans for Deloitte, sent an email to Ms. Rice, Mr.
Keane, and Mr. Krul, in which he relayed the concerns from the customer none of which
involved Ms. Rices writing or her response to the single question posed to her by the customer
during the oral presentation.
24.
Reflecting Ms. Rices history of successful performance, in August 2009, Robert
OMeara, Ms. Rices Deloitte Counselor at the time, gave Ms. Rice a performance rating of on
track to meet or exceed goals.
25.
On September 3, 2009, Deloitte Senior Manager Sunnah Pasha sent Ms. Rice an
email praising her work on a proposal.

26.
In December 2009, Ms. Rice received a second mid-year review by a newly
assigned Deloitte Counselor.
27.
During her second mid-year review, Ms. Rice unexpectedly received negative
feedback, despite having received an excellent review just four months prior.
28.
In her second mid-year review, Ms. Rices written and verbal communication skills
were criticized, even though she had been invited one month before to speak at the Rocky
Mountain PMI Spring Symposium, and a Deloitte colleague had characterized Ms. Rices
writing for a proposal effort as excellent.
29.
During the same review, Ms. Rice was criticized for her participation in the mid-
July project bid, despite Deloittes having been selected as one of two finalists based on Ms.
Rices written materials, and despite Mr. Crewe having indicated that the project loss had
nothing to do with Ms. Rices participation or responsibilities.
30.
After Ms. Rices second mid-year review, she was given the option to leave
Deloitte or be placed on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP).

31.
Because Ms. Rice loved her job, she chose to be placed on a PIP rather than leaving
Deloitte, even though she felt that the PIP was unwarranted and discriminatory.
32.
Over the next several months, Ms. Rice met the terms of her PIP and received two
Deloitte Applause Awards, one from a Deloitte Partner, and one from a Senior Manager on her
project.
33.
On June 7, 2010, Ms. Rice received a negative rating during a project performance
review with the Senior Manager on her project who had recently given her an Applause Award
34.
Ms. Rice submitted a written response to her negative project review.
35.
On June 9, 2010, Ms. Rice discussed her negative project performance review with
her Deloitte Counselor, Mike Van Den Eynde.
36.
Mr. Van Den Eynde admitted that Ms. Rices negative review was screwed up,
but he told Ms. Rice that he was not going to change it.
37.
At that time, Ms. Rice was told that even though she was complying with the terms
of her PIP, Deloitte felt that it would be better from Ms. Rice and Deloitte to part ways.
38.
Mr. Van Den Eynde informed Ms. Rice that they would discuss her future with
Deloitte the following week.

39.
On June 13, 2010, two days subsequent to this discussion with Mr. Van Den Eynde,
Ms. Rice suffered a heart attack and was rushed to Swedish Medical Center.
40.
Ms. Rice was on medical leave until mid-January 2011.
41.
In February 2011, Ms. Rice received her 2010 year-end review.
42.
In that review, Ms. Rice received the lowest possible rating for the first time in her
43.
At the time of Ms. Rices review, only six weeks remained until the next
career.
performance review would be conducted.

44.
Mr. Van Den Eynde told Ms. Rice that Deloitte was concerned that if Ms. Rice
attempted to do everything necessary to obtain a positive review in that short time, she would
suffer another heart attack.
45.
Ms. Rice was instructed to consider her options over the following week.
46.
The following Monday, March 7, 2011, Ms. Rice returned a phone call to Deloittes
Human Resources Department to discuss her options.

47.
A Deloitte Human Resources representative told Ms. Rice that that day March 7,
2011 would be her last day with Deloitte.
48.
The Human Resources representative said that Ms. Rice was entitled to nine weeks
of pay, and medical benefits paid through May 8, 2011.

49.
Ms. Rice was subsequently paid through March 18, 2011.
50.
Ms. Rice was informed that her medical benefits would expire at the end of March
2011, and that she would have to sign up for COBRA if she wanted to extend her benefits
further.
VI.
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12111, et seq.)
51.
Plaintiff hereby incorporates all paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set
forth herein.
52.
At the time of her termination, Ms. Rice was a qualified individual with a disability
under the ADA.

53.
Ms. Rice was qualified for her job, as evidenced by her history of successful
performance in the same job.

54.
As a result of Ms. Rices heart attack, she either was a person with a disability, had
a record of a disability, or was regarded as having a disability.

55.
Ms. Rices heart attack substantially limited a variety of major life activities,
including performing some manual tasks, breathing, and lifting. Because of Ms. Rices
disability, Ms. Rices record of a disability, or the fact that Deloitte regarded Ms. Rice as having
a disability, Ms. Rice was subjected to adverse treatment in the terms and conditions of her
employment, including but not limited to termination of her employment, as detailed herein.
56.
At all pertinent times, Plaintiff performed the functions of her job competently and
was more than qualified for the position she had before her employment was terminated.
7
57.
Despite her superior qualifications and exemplary job performance, Defendant
terminated Plaintiffs employment, in whole or in part, because of her disability, record of

disability, or being regarded as having a disability.
58.
Defendants asserted reasons for terminating Plaintiffs employment were pretext
for illegal disability discrimination.

59.
Defendants acts and conduct were committed with malice or with reckless
indifference to the federally protected rights of Plaintiff within the meaning of the ADA.
60.
Defendant Deloitte is liable for the acts and/or omissions of its agents and
employees. Defendant, either directly or by and through agents, discriminated against Plaintiff
on the basis of her disability, record of having a disability, or being perceived as having a
disability.
61.
As a consequence of Defendants illegal conduct, Plaintiff has sustained significant
economic, consequential and compensatory damages.

62.
Defendants conduct was the proximate cause of Plaintiffs injuries, damages and
losses.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Sex Discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,
42 U.S.C. 2000e, et seq.)
63.
Plaintiff hereby incorporates all paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set
forth herein.
64.
Because of her gender and/or sex, Ms. Rice is a protected person under Title VII
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.
65.
Defendant treated Plaintiff less favorably than her similarly situated counterparts
who conformed to the gender stereotypes preferred by Defendant.

66.
Plaintiff was subjected to adverse treatment in the terms and conditions of her
employment because of her sex and/or gender, including but not limited to termination of her
employment, as detailed herein.
67.
At all pertinent times, Plaintiff performed the functions of her job competently
and was more than qualified for the position she had before her employment was terminated.
68.
Despite her superior qualifications and exemplary job performance, Defendant
terminated Plaintiffs employment, in whole or in part, because of her sex and/or gender.
69.
Defendants asserted reasons for terminating Plaintiffs employment were pretext
for illegal gender and/or sex discrimination.

70.
Plaintiffs gender and/or sex were motivating factors in Defendants termination
of her employment.
71.
Defendants acts and conduct were committed with malice or with reckless
indifference to the federally protected rights of Plaintiff within the meaning of Title VII.
72.
Defendant Deloitte is liable for the acts and/or omissions of its agents and
employees. Defendant, either directly or by and through agents, discriminated against Plaintiff
on the basis of her gender and/or sex.
73.
As a consequence of Defendants illegal conduct, Plaintiff has sustained
significant economic, consequential and compensatory damages.

74.
Defendants conduct was the proximate cause of Plaintiffs injuries, damages and
losses.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in her favor
and against Defendant, and award her all relief as allowed by law, including, but not limited to
the following:
a. Declaratory relief and injunctive relief, as appropriate;
b. Actual economic damages as established at trial;
c. Compensatory damages, including, but not limited to those for future pecuniary
and non-pecuniary losses, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental
anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other non-pecuniary losses;
d. Punitive damages for all claims as allowed by law in an amount to be determined
at trial;
e. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the highest lawful rate;
f. Attorneys fees and costs; and
g. Such further relief as justice requires.
PLAINTIFF DEMANDS A JURY TRIAL ON ALL ISSUES SO TRIABLE.
Dated this 31st day of January 2012.
KILLMER, LANE & NEWMAN, LLP
s/ David A. Lane
____________________________
David A. Lane
Lauren L. Fontana
1543 Champa Street, Suite 400
Denver, Colorado 80202
(303) 571-1000
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
10

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-00253 WYD-KMT
DANIELLE RICE,
Plaintiff,
v.
DELOITTE CONSULTING LLP
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________
NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AND UNOPPOSED MOTION TO VACATE TRIAL
______________________________________________________________________
Plaintiff Danielle Rice, by and through her attorneys, David A. Lane and Darren
M. Jankord of KILLMER LANE & NEWMAN, LLP, hereby submits her Notice of Settlement
and Unopposed Motion to Vacate the Final Trial Preparation Conference and Trial
Dates and in support thereof states as follows:
1.
Trial in this case is set for October 7, 2013. The final preparation
conference is set for September 24, 2013.

2.
On Monday, September 16, 2013, the parties engaged in settlement
discussions and reached a settlement agreement. The agreement has been signed and
executed by the parties.
3.
In anticipation of final settlement payment and dismissal of this action,
Plaintiff hereby respectfully requests that this Court vacate the final trial preparation
conference and trial. After receipt of payment of the agreed settlement amount, Plaintiff
will file a Motion for Dismissal with Prejudice of this action.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO D.C. COLO. LCivR.7.1

4.
Counsel for Plaintiff, Darren Jankord, certifies that he conferred with
Christine Lamb, counsel for Defendant, who stated that Defendant is unopposed to the
granting of this motion.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order
granting her Unopposed Motion to Vacate the Final Trial Preparation Conference and
Trial.
Dated this 17th day of September 2013.
s/ Darren M. Jankord
_______________________________
Darren M. Jankord
David A. Lane
1543 Champa Street, Suite 400
Denver, CO 80202
(303) 571-1000
djankord@kln-law.com
dlane@kln-law.com
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on September 17, 2013, I electronically filed the foregoing
NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AND UNOPPOSED MOTION TO VACATE TRIAL with the
Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to the
following e-mail addresses:
Christine Lamb
FRIESEN LAMB LLP
1675 Larimer Street, Suite 675
Denver, CO 80202
clamb@friesenlamb.com
Darren M. Jankord
Darren M. Jankord
Case 4:09-cv-02766 Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 08/27/09 Page 1 of 12

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
)
)
CIVIL ACTION
)
FILE NO.
)
v.
)
)
DELOITTE CONSULTING LLP, and
JURY DEMANDED
)
WAL-MART STORES, INC.
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________________________________________________________
MOHAMMED ZAKARIA MEMON
Plaintiff,
PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
NOW COMES PLAINTIFF, MOHAMMED ZAKARIA MEMON, and for cause of

action against DELOITTE CONSULTING LLP and WAL-MART STORES, INC. (collectively,
Defendants) alleges and shows to the Court as follows:
I.
INTRODUCTION
1.
This action seeks equitable relief, compensatory and punitive damages, liquidated
damages, attorneys fees, expert witness fees, taxable costs of court, and pre-judgment and postjudgment interest for discrimination based on national origin and religion, and for retaliation that
Plaintiff suffered regarding the terms and conditions of his employment.
II.
PARTIES
2.
Plaintiff, MOHAMMED ZAKARIA MEMON (hereinafter Plaintiff or Mr. Memon),
is a resident of Fort Bend County, Texas.

3.
Defendant, DELOITTE CONSULTING LLP (Deloitte Consulting) is a validly existing
limited liability partnership organized under the laws of the State of Delaware and has its
principal place of business in New York, New York.
Defendant Deloitte Consulting is a
subsidiary of Deloitte USA that provides consulting services. This Defendant may be serviced
with summons by serving its registered agent, Corporation Service Company d/b/a CSC-Lawyers
Incorporating Service Company, 701 Brazos, Suite 1050, Austin, Texas 78701.
4.
Defendant, WAL-MART STORES, INC. (Wal-Mart) is a validly existing corporation
organized under the laws of the State of Delaware and has its principal place of business in
Bentonville, Arkansas. This Defendant may be serviced with summons by serving its registered
agent, CT Corporation System, 350 North Saint Paul Street, Dallas, Texas 75201.
5.
Whenever in this complaint it is alleged that Defendants committed any act or omission,
it is meant that such Defendants officers, directors, vice-principals, agents, servants, and/or
employees committed such act or omission and that at the time such act or omission was
committed, it was done with the full authorization, ratification or approval of such Defendants or
was done in the routine course and scope of employment of Defendants partners, officers,
directors, vice-principals, managers, agents, servants, or employees.
III.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
6.
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction in this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331
(federal question) because Plaintiff brings his claims pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e, et seq., and 42 U.S.C. 1981.
7.
The Court has personal jurisdiction because each Defendant maintains sufficient
minimum contacts with the State of Texas and regularly conducts business in the district of this
court.
8.
Venue is proper in the Southern District of Texas under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b).
9.
This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over all pendant state claims (28 U.S.C. 1367).
IV.
PROCEDURAL REQUISITES
10.
Plaintiff filed a charge of national origin and religious discrimination, and retaliation,
against Deloitte Consulting under Charge Number 460-2008-03444 with the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Texas Commission on Human Rights (TCHR) on
May 13, 2008. On June 25, 2009, the EEOC issued a Dismissal and Notice of Rights letter
entitling Plaintiff to file an action in this Court for national origin and religious discrimination,
and for retaliation against Deloitte Consulting.
11.
Plaintiff filed a charge of national origin and religious discrimination against Wal-Mart
under Charge Number 460-2008-03450 with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC) and the Texas Commission on Human Rights (TCHR) on May 13, 2008. On June
25, 2009, the EEOC issued a Dismissal and Notice of Rights letter entitling Plaintiff to file an
action in this Court for national origin and religious discrimination against Wal-Mart.
12.
The filing of this lawsuit has been accomplished within ninety (90) days of Plaintiffs
receipt of the above referenced Notice of Right to Sue letters.

13.
All conditions precedent to filing this cause of action have been met.
V.
FACTS
14.
Mr. Mohammed Zakaria Memon is a fifty nine (59) year old Pakistani-American Muslim
male citizen of the United States.

15.
Deloitte Consulting employed Mr. Memon as a Lead Consultant beginning on August 13,
2007.
16.
On or about November 5, 2007, Mr. Memon was assigned to work on a consulting
project at Wal-Marts corporate offices located at 702 SW 8th Street, Bentonville, Arkansas
72716.
17.
During the course of this consulting project, the Defendants jointly exercised effective
control over Mr. Memons work duties, hours, and working conditions, and as such, they were
Plaintiffs joint employer.
18.
Mr. Memon follows the Islamic faith, and therefore his is Muslim. As part of the Islamic
religious practice, Mr. Memon must pray five times a day.

19.
Muslims observe five formal prayers each day. The timings of these prayers are spaced
fairly evenly throughout the day, so that one is constantly reminded of God and given
opportunities to seek His guidance and forgiveness.
20.
Muslims observe their formal prayers at the following times: a) Fajr (pre-dawn): This
prayer is performed before sunrise; b) Dhuhr (afternoon): After the days work has begun, one
breaks shortly after noon to again remember God and seek His guidance; c) Asr (evening): This
prayer is performed in the evening; d) Maghrib (sunset): Just after the sun goes down, Muslims
remember God again as the day begins to come to a close; and e) 'Isha (evening): Before retiring
for the night, Muslims again take time to remember God's presence, guidance, mercy, and
forgiveness.
21.
None of these prayers take particularly long, and each can be accomplished within five
(5) minutes.
22.
An additional requirement prior to each prayer is known as a Wazu, or washing certain
parts of the body. Wazu is the ablution made before each of the five prayers in accordance with
four rules. Thus, the following parts of the body are to be washed with water: a) The face, from
the top of the forehead to the chin, and as far as each ear; b) the hands and arms, up to the
elbows; c) a fourth part of the head is to be rubbed with wet hands (i.e., the hair from front to
back is generally rubbed once with wet hands); and d) the feet up to the ankles.
23.
The Wazu or washing ritual does not require much time, and it also does not require a
person to take off their clothes. To an outsider, it appears to be nothing more than a person
washing up in the restroom, assuming of course, that there is another person present at the time.
24.
In order to pray, Mr. Memon did his Wazu in Wal-Marts restroom during the day, and
despite the existence of ample empty offices and conference rooms in the building, Plaintiff was
instructed to pray either outside in the parking lot or in the hallways of the Wal-Mart building.
25.
After a few days of this, Wal-Mart employees began to take issue with Mr. Memon in the
restroom performing his Wazu.

26.
As a result, Mr. Memon was told to not perform the Wazu.
27.
Plaintiff explained that without the Wazu, he is unable to pray.
28.
In response, the on-site Deloitte Consulting project manager told Mr. Memon that he can
pray at the hotel.

29.
However, this was not a reasonable accommodation because it would take approximately
30 minutes to one hour (instead of the alternative of less then 5 minutes a day) out of Mr.
Memons work schedule or lunch break and would render him ineffective on the project.
30.
Furthermore, when Mr. Memon asked David Ferguson for an email (and Deloitte
Consultings headquarters for a letter) to this effect for Mr. Memon to present to Wal-Mart
management and on-site Deloitte Consulting persons who would need to know why Mr. Memon
is absent one to two times each day, no such email or letter was provided even though it was
promised.
31.
Shortly thereafter, Mr. Memon was taken off the Wal-Mart project, and was told by
Deloitte Consulting Project Manager, David Ferguson, that others would also be taken off
because of restructuring of the project.

32.
However, Mr. Memon was the only person taken off the project, and every other Deloitte
Consulting consultant remained on the Wal-Mart project.

33.
As such, it was essentially a re-structuring of one person Mr. Memon.
34.
When Mr. Memon inquired of Mr. Ferguson as to who prohibited Mr. Memon from
performing the Wazu and his noon prayers, Mr. Furgeson named two Wal-Mart employees as
well as a Deloitte Consulting partner, Mr. Paul McGovern.
35.
Mr. Furgeson also informed Mr. Memon that Americans do not deal with Islamic
practices and clients particularly in the South do not understand these religious practices, and as
such, discouraged Mr. Memon to pray during the day at Wal-Mart.
36.
Mr. Furgeson threatened Mr. Memon that he [Memon] is putting himself at risk by
continuing to engage in his Islamic religious practices.

37.
Shortly thereafter, after not assigning Mr. Memon on any additional client projects, the
Deloitte Consulting partner decided to terminate Mr. Memons employment based on a bogus
allegation of poor performance.
38.
It is unlikely that Mr. Memon, who had only good reviews after each IT (information
technology) project he rolled off from during his approximate 11 months with Deloitte
Consulting as Lead Consultant, and who had a distinguished and lengthy IT consulting career
prior to working for Deloitte Consulting, could have suddenly failed in his performance just days
after his religious practice did not sit well with the Wal-Mart employees in Arkansas.
39.
Equally as unlikely is the presence of any good faith effort to make a reasonable
accommodation for Mr. Memon on the part of Wal-Mart and Deloitte Consulting, because it was
much easier to just let him go from his employment and from the Wal-Mart project.
40.
This type of discriminatory and closed-minded behavior is what the Civil Rights laws of
the U.S. intend to punish. Unjustifiably and with prejudicial motive, letting go of a high level
consultant with satisfactory performance who earns in excess of $140,000 per year, is not only
illegal, but also despicable.
41.
It is therefore obvious that on the project at Wal-Mart, Mr. Memon suffered national
origin and religious discrimination at the hands of his employer, Deloitte Consulting, and was
retaliated against when he complained that he was being discriminated against. Mr. Memon was
subjected to this discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 and 42 U.S.C. 1981.
42.
Similarly, while on the project at Wal-Mart, Mr. Memon suffered national origin and
religious discrimination at the hands of Wal-Mart. He was subjected to this discrimination in

violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. 1981.
43.
Neither Wal-Mart nor Deloitte Consulting suffered any undue hardship, nor did Mr.
Memons prayer disrupt Wal-Marts or his employers business operations or the work of its
employees.
44.
Wal-Mart made no reasonable accommodation as is required under the law.
45.
Furthermore, Deloitte Consultings Project Manager, David Ferguson, removed Mr.
Memon from the Wal-Mart project shortly after Plaintiffs daily prayers became an issue with
Wal-Mart, and within days thereafter, Mr. Memon was fired for poor performance.
46.
As a result of Defendants discriminatory and retaliatory conduct, Plaintiff was left
without a job, and he continues to be unemployed despite his diligent efforts to seek employment
elsewhere.
VI.
CAUSES OF ACTION
Count One National Origin and Religious Discrimination
in Violation of 42 U.S.C. 2000e, et seq.
(As to Deloitte Consulting and Wal-Mart)
47.
Each and every allegation contained in the foregoing paragraphs is re-alleged as if fully
rewritten herein.
48.
Plaintiff is a Pakistani-American male who follows the Muslim faith.
49.
Because of Plaintiffs national origin and religion, he belongs to a group of persons that
42 U.S.C. 2000e, et seq. (Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, as amended) intended to
protect against discrimination in the terms and conditions of employment.
50.
By the above-described acts, Defendants discriminated against Mr. Memon because of
his national origin and religion, by tolerating and failing to take affirmative action to correct
these unlawful employment practices, by discriminating against Plaintiff with respect to terms,
conditions and privileges of his employment because of his national origin and religion, through
denial of his employment rights and benefits, promotions and achievement, and by terminating
his employment, all in violation of 42 U.S.C. 2000e, et seq. (Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights
Act as amended).
51.
Further, Defendants acted with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of
the Plaintiff.
52.
At all relevant times, Plaintiff was qualified for his position with Defendants, and his job
performance was very good.

53.
Plaintiff was treated differently than others outside his protected class, and he suffered
discrimination because of his national origin and religion.

54.
Because of Defendants discriminatory actions, Plaintiff has suffered adverse
employment actions, including his inability to earn a living at Deloitte Consulting and the
unjustified termination of his employment as Lead Consultant, a position of relative seniority.
Plaintiff also suffered loss of wages, both in the past and in the future, as well as emotional pain,
mental anguish, suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life in the past, and in all
probability, in the future.
Count Two Race Discrimination in Violation of 42 U.S.C. 1981
55.
rewritten herein.
56.
Plaintiff belongs to a group that 42 U.S.C. 1981 intended to protect.
57.
By the above-described acts, Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff because of race
by tolerating and failing to take affirmative actions to correct unlawful employment practices, by
discriminating against him with respect to terms, conditions and privileges of his employment
because of his race, national origin and religion, through denial of his employment rights and
benefits, promotions and achievement, and by terminating him all in violation of 42 U.S.C.
1981.
58.
Further, each Defendant acted with malice or, in the alternative, with reckless
indifference to the federally protected rights of the Plaintiff.

59.
As a result of Defendants discriminatory actions, Plaintiff has suffered loss of wages,
both in the past and in the future, as well as emotional pain, mental anguish, suffering,
inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life in the past, and in all probability, in the future.
Count Three Racial Harassment
60.
rewritten herein.
61.
Plaintiffs race is Asian, a group that 42 U.S.C. 1981 intended to protect.
62.
As such, Plaintiff is a member of an ethnic group that is, and is commonly perceived as
being, ethnically and physiognomically distinct.

63.
Defendants harassment and ill-treatment of Plaintiff violates 42 U.S.C. 1981, for
which Plaintiff request compensatory and punitive damages.

64.
These circumstances were sufficient to create a hostile work environment for Plaintiff.
Count Four Retaliation
(As to Deloitte Consulting)
65.
rewritten herein.
66.
42 U.S.C. 2000e-3(a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees against
retaliation by their employer.

67.
In accordance with Deloitte Consultings employee policy, Mr. Memon complained to
his employer about what he felt was discrimination based on his religion and national origin, and
as such, he engaged in protected activities.
68.
After these complaints were lodged, Plaintiffs superiors, including a Deloitte Consulting
partner, engaged in retaliatory behavior.

69.
As a result, Mr. Memon suffered retaliation by his employer because he was not only
unjustifiably removed from a client project, but he was also terminated from his employment.
Count Five Negligence
70.
rewritten herein.
10
71.
Each Defendant facilitated the discrimination and retaliation suffered by Mr. Memon by
the negligent hiring, supervision, and training of its employees, as each such employee was
clearly incompetent to occupy the position bestowed upon him as a result of unsound judgment,
negligent hiring, and negligent promotion practices.
VII.
DAMAGES
72.
Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the foregoing allegations in each of the
paragraphs above as fully set forth herein.

73.
As a result of Defendants violations of the above-stated federal statutes, Plaintiff seeks
back pay, including wages and benefits, reinstatement or front pay, including benefits, equitable
relief, compensatory and punitive damages, liquidated damages, expert witness fees, taxable
costs of court, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and other and further relief as the court
deems appropriate under the circumstances.
VIII.
ATTORNEYS FEES
74.
As a further result of Defendants acts and omissions, as specifically set forth herein, it
was necessary for Plaintiff to secure counsel to present and prosecute this matter on his behalf.
75.
Plaintiff has retained the services of the undersigned counsel of record, and accordingly,
Plaintiff sues for reasonable attorneys fees as provided by Title VII and the other statutes.
IX.
JURY DEMAND
76.
Plaintiff makes a formal demand for a jury trial in this matter.

X.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, cause having been shown, Plaintiff
11
MOHAMMED ZAKARIA MEMON prays that the Court enter a judgment:

a.
Declaring that each Defendants actions were in violation of its legal duty to comply
with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e, et seq., and 42
U.S.C. 1981;
b.
For actual and liquidated damages for the period of time provided by law, including
appropriate back-pay and reimbursement for lost pension, insurance, severance and
all other benefits incident to her employment;
c.
For reinstatement, or for front pay including benefits, in lieu of reinstatement;
d.
For compensatory and punitive damages for the willful, wanton, malicious and
conscious disregard of Plaintiffs legal rights;
e.
For each Defendant to take affirmative steps as are necessary to ensure that the
effects of these unlawful employment practices are eliminated and do not continue to
affect Mr. Memons employment opportunities;
f.
For pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the highest rates allowed by law;
g.
For the costs of the action, together with reasonable attorneys fees; and
h.
For any further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
ALI S. AHMED, P.C.
By:
/s/ Salar Ali Ahmed

Salar Ali Ahmed
Federal Id. No. 32323
State Bar No. 24000342
One Arena Place
7322 Southwest Freeway, Suite 1920
Houston, Texas 77074
Telephone:
(713) 223-1300
Facsimile:
(713) 255-0013
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
12

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
Plaintiff,
v.
DELOITTE CONSULTING LLP, and
WAL-MART STORES, INC.
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CIVIL ACTION
FILE NO. 4:09-CV-02766
JURY DEMANDED
JOINT STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

______________________________________________________________________________
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
Plaintiff, Mohammed Zakaria Memon (Plaintiff), and Defendant, Deloitte Consulting LLP
(Deloitte), file their Joint Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice, and respectfully show the Court
as follows:1
1.
Plaintiff and Deloitte have reached a settlement of all claims, defenses, and disputes
between them in this cause.

2.
Accordingly, the parties respectfully request that this Court dismiss all claims filed in
this cause against Deloitte with prejudice to their being re-filed.

3.
The parties agree to each bear their own attorneys fees, costs and other expenses
incurred because of this lawsuit or because of the claims involved in this lawsuit.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff and Deloitte respectfully request this
Court to dismiss this cause with prejudice to it being re-filed, with each party to bear its own costs
and attorneys fees.
1
On Plaintiffs request, the Court dismissed Defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., with prejudice, on October 13, 2010
(Document No. 41) from these proceedings.
Respectfully submitted,
Ali S. Ahmed, P.C.
By:
/s/ Salar Ali Ahmed

Salar Ali Ahmed
One Arena Place
7322 Southwest Frwy., Suite 1920
Telephone: (713) 223-1300
Facsimile: (713) 255-0013
Attorney-in-Charge for Plaintiff,
Mohammed Zakaria Memon
Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell LLP

By:
/s/ William John Bux

William John Bux
600 Travis Street, Suite 2800
Telephone: (713) 226-1275
Facsimile: (713) 229-2527
Attorney-in-Charge for Defendant,
Deloitte Consulting LLP
OF COUNSEL:
LOCKE LORD BISSELL & LIDDELL LLP
SARA C. LONGTAIN
S. D. Tex. ID No. 891047
600 Travis Street, Suite 3400
Telephone: (713) 226-1275
Facsimile: (713) 229-2527
slongtain@lockelord.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was forwarded
to Plaintiffs counsel on August 19, 2011, in the following manner:
(Via ECF system of the District Court for the Southern District of Texas)
Salar Ali Ahmed

One Arena Place
7322 Southwest Frwy., Suite 1920
/s/ William John Bux

Attorney for Defendant
Case 1:07-cv-11606-PBS Document 1 Filed 08/29/07 Page 1 of 12

DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Civil Action
No: 07-11606-PBS
JEAN LECKENBY,
Plaintiff,
v.
DELOITTE CONSULTING, LLP, ET AL,
Defendants.
SETTLEMENT ORDER OF DISMISSAL

SARIS, D.J.
The Court having been advised that the above captioned action settled:
It is hereby ORDERED that this action is hereby dismissed without costs and without
prejudice to the right of any party, upon good cause shown, to reopen the action within 30 days if
settlement is not consummated.
By the Court,
/s/ Robert C. Alba

Deputy Clerk
September 11, 2008

To: All Counsel

Deloitte Title VII Violations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Deloitte Title VII Violations

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Deloitte Title VII Violations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 3:12-cv-01271-FAB-BJM Document 1 Filed 04/20/12 Page 1 of 28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:12-cv-01271-FAB-BJM Document 1 Filed 04/20/12 Page 2 of 28

Supplemental jurisdiction is invoked under 28 U.S.C. 1367 with regard to all

EEOC FILING AND RIGHT TO SUE

A timely charge of employment discrimination on the basis of sex and age

Case 3:12-cv-01271-FAB-BJM Document 1 Filed 04/20/12 Page 3 of 28

On January 12, 2012, plaintiff requested a Right to Sue letter.

Plaintiff Wanda G. Miranda (also referred to as "Mrs. Miranda"), is a female citizen

Defendant Deloitte LLP is a Delaware entity authorized to do business within the

Defendant Deloitte LLP is engaged in an "industry affecting commerce" within the

Defendant Deloitte Tax LLP is engaged in an "industry affecting commerce" within

Case 3:12-cv-01271-FAB-BJM Document 1 Filed 04/20/12 Page 4 of 28

Defendant Deloitte Services LLP is an employer within the meaning of 29 U.S.C.

Defendant Deloitte Services LLP is engaged in an "industry affecting commerce"

Defendant Michelle Corretjer Cataln was plaintiffs supervisor since September

Codefendants ABC and DEF Insurance Companies, designated under fictitious

Case 3:12-cv-01271-FAB-BJM Document 1 Filed 04/20/12 Page 5 of 28

On or about September of 1992, Mrs. Miranda was promoted to Senior Tax

Wanda G. Miranda provided her services under her employment relationship

Case 3:12-cv-01271-FAB-BJM Document 1 Filed 04/20/12 Page 6 of 28

Deloitte's employees are evaluated twice a year: at mid-year (November) and at

Pursuant to Deloittes evaluation procedures, Deloittes employees in Deloitte San

As part of Deloittes performance evaluation process and policies, Deloitte San

Through the Great Performance System, Deloitte used Great Performance

Case 3:12-cv-01271-FAB-BJM Document 1 Filed 04/20/12 Page 7 of 28

Case 3:12-cv-01271-FAB-BJM Document 1 Filed 04/20/12 Page 8 of 28

On the 2011 Goals, on the Deloitte Performance Management (DPM) Form

When a Deloittes employee received a MCC status of accelerated, it meant that

Wanda G. Miranda was never assigned a MCC profile status of "accelerated".

Case 3:12-cv-01271-FAB-BJM Document 1 Filed 04/20/12 Page 9 of 28

Case 3:12-cv-01271-FAB-BJM Document 1 Filed 04/20/12 Page 10 of 28

e. Submission of Incident Report on Sexual Harassment against codefendant

The flu shot is administered in the employee's arm.

Case 3:12-cv-01271-FAB-BJM Document 1 Filed 04/20/12 Page 11 of 28

Case 3:12-cv-01271-FAB-BJM Document 1 Filed 04/20/12 Page 12 of 28

No warnings or negative memos regarding Mrs. Mirandas performance prior

Mrs. Mirandas supervisors as of October 5, 2010

As of October 5, 2010, Mrs. Mirandas supervisors were codefendants Francisco

Case 3:12-cv-01271-FAB-BJM Document 1 Filed 04/20/12 Page 13 of 28

Case 3:12-cv-01271-FAB-BJM Document 1 Filed 04/20/12 Page 14 of 28

Mrs. Miranda did not accept Mr. Castillo's apology.

In accordance with Deloittes performance evaluation guidance, on November 1,

Based on Deloittes established procedures, the feedback providers should have

Based on Deloittes established procedures, the secondary feedback providers should

Case 3:12-cv-01271-FAB-BJM Document 1 Filed 04/20/12 Page 15 of 28

Based on Deloittes policies, Deloitte's Performance Improvement Plan is a

Deloittes Performance Improvement Plan model which is obtained in Deloittes

On Deloittes Website, it is established that an employee should be given 6 to 9

Case 3:12-cv-01271-FAB-BJM Document 1 Filed 04/20/12 Page 16 of 28

Contrary to Deloittes Performance Improvement Plan model, the PIP handed to

Case 3:12-cv-01271-FAB-BJM Document 1 Filed 04/20/12 Page 17 of 28

Clients feedback for Mrs. Mirandas work was excellent.

Mrs. Miranda also complied with the e-filing requirements.

Case 3:12-cv-01271-FAB-BJM Document 1 Filed 04/20/12 Page 18 of 28

Case 3:12-cv-01271-FAB-BJM Document 1 Filed 04/20/12 Page 19 of 28

In reaction to Mr. Castillo's demand, Mrs. Miranda worked 75 hours of chargeable

Case 3:12-cv-01271-FAB-BJM Document 1 Filed 04/20/12 Page 20 of 28

No one discussed the 2011 year-end evaluation with Mrs. Miranda.