Amended Complaint

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

WESTERN DIVISION
Civil Action No.: 5:19-cv-327
MANUEL TORRES, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
)
TRACY LYNN CARTER, in his ) FIRST AMENDED
official capacity as Lee County ) COMPLAINT
Sheriff; TOWN OF APEX, NORTH )
CAROLINA; TOWN OF SILER )
CITY, NORTH CAROLINA; and )
NIGHTHAWK COMPANY )
POLICE, LLC, )
)
Defendants. )
Plaintiff Manuel Torres, complaining of Defendants Tracy Lynn Carter in his
official capacity as Lee County Sheriff; Town of Siler City, North Carolina; Town
of Apex, North Carolina; and NightHawk Company Police, LLC, does hereby state
and allege the following:
ACTION
1. Plaintiff, Manuel A. Torres (“Plaintiff” or “Torres”), a law enforcement
officer employed by the Lee County Sheriff Office from October 2012 until his
September 11, 2017, termination, institutes this action to address religious-based
discrimination and retaliation committed by Defendants Tracy Lynn Carter in his
Case 5:19-cv-00327-FL Document 30 Filed 12/17/19 Page 1 of 20

official capacity as Lee County Sheriff (“Sheriff Carter” or “LCSO”), the Town of
Siler City, North Carolina (“Siler City”), the Town of Apex, North Carolina
(“Apex”), and NightHawk Company Police, LLC (“NightHawk”), against Plaintiff
as a result of his request for a religious accommodation from his employer from a
job duty that violated his sincerely held religious beliefs and in retaliation for his
religious accommodation requests and his filing charges of discrimination pursuant
to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Plaintiff seeks equitable and monetary
relief in the form of present and future lost wages and benefits, compensatory
damages for emotional distress and other injuries, and punitive and/or liquidated
damages, as provided by law.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-
5(f)(3) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. Plaintiff’s state law claim is properly before
this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) because that state law claim is so related
to the claims in the action that are within the Court’s original jurisdiction that they
form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States
Constitution. Each Defendant is an entity capable of being sued under both federal
and North Carolina law, and each further enjoys no immunity from the claims
alleged in this First Amended Complaint.
2
3. Venue is properly laid in this Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-
5(f)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), (b)(2), and (c), because it is a judicial district in
which a defendant resides as well as a judicial district in which a substantial part of
the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred.
PARTIES
4. Plaintiff Torres, is and was at all times pertinent to this action, a citizen
of the United States and a resident of Sanford, Lee County, North Carolina. At all
times pertinent to this action, Plaintiff was an “employee” of LCSO or an applicant
for employment with Defendant Siler City, Defendant Apex, and Defendant
NightHawk within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(f). At all times pertinent to
this action, Plaintiff was qualified for the positions he held and applied for.
5. Defendant Sheriff Tracy Lynn Carter holds the elected office of Sheriff
for Lee County, North Carolina, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. Chapter 162, with all
the duties and responsibilities established in N.C. Gen Stat. Chapter 162, Article 3,
including the hiring and dismissal of deputies and other employees that help perform
his official duties in accordance with N.C. Gen. Stat. § 162-24. At all times relevant
to this action, defendant Sheriff Carter was an “employer” within the meaning and
definition of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b).
6. Defendant Siler City is a municipal corporation established pursuant to
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A-1, et seq., as defined and described in N.C. Gen. Stat. §160A-
3
1(2). In the exercise of its statutory powers, Defendant Siler City has established and
operates Siler City Police Department as a department of the municipal government.
At all times relevant to this action, Siler City acted through its managers and
policymakers, including its Chief of Police and City Manager, and the acts, edicts,
and practices of these persons represent the official policies of Defendant Siler City.
At all times relevant to this action, Defendant Siler City was an “employer” within
the meaning and definition of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b).
7. Defendant Apex is a municipal corporation, established and existing
pursuant to Chapter 160A of the North Carolina General Statutes, as defined and
described in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A-1(2). In the exercise of its statutory powers,
Apex has established and operates the Apex Police Department (“APD”) as a
department of the municipal government. At all times relevant to this action, Apex
acted through its managers and policymakers, including its administrative chief of
police, town manager, and members of its town board; and the acts, edicts, and
practices of these persons represent the official policies of Defendant Apex. At all
times relevant to this action, Defendant Apex was an “employer” within the meaning
and definition of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b).
8. Defendant NightHawk is a limited liability company organized and
existing under the laws of the State of North Carolina at its principal place of
business at 3901 Barrett Drive, Suite 100, Raleigh, North Carolina. At all times
4
relevant to this action, Defendant Apex was an “employer” within the meaning and
definition of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b).
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES
9. On or about November 9, 2017, Torres filed a Charge of Discrimination
with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) in its Raleigh Area
Office in Raleigh, North Carolina. The plaintiff’s EEOC Charge No. 433-2018-
00419 alleged that the LCSO had engaged in unlawful religious discrimination and
retaliation against him in the denial of his requests for religious accommodations.
10. On April 29, 2019, the EEOC issued its Notice of Right to Sue
concerning Plaintiff’s EEOC Charge No. 433-2018-00419, which Plaintiff received
thereafter.
11. On or about July 16, 2018, Torres filed a Charge of Discrimination with
the EEOC in its Raleigh Area Office in Raleigh, North Carolina. The plaintiff’s
EEOC Charge No. 433-2018-02466 alleged that Defendant Siler City had engaged
in unlawful religious discrimination, national origin discrimination, age
discrimination, and retaliation against him.
thereafter.
5
the EEOC in its Raleigh Area Office in Raleigh, North Carolina. Plaintiff’s EEOC
Charge No. 433-2018-02999 alleged that the Defendant LCSO had engaged in
unlawful retaliation against him for his participation in an activity protected by Title
VII.
thereafter.
Charge No. 433-2018-03011 alleged that the Town of Apex Police Department had
retaliated against him for his filing his original charges against Defendant LCSO.
16. On April 29, 2019, the EEOC issued its Notice or Right to Sue
concerning Plaintiff’s EEOC Charge No. 433-2018-003011, which Plaintiff
received thereafter.
Charge No. 433-2018-03012 alleged that NightHawk had retaliated against him for
his filing his original charges against the LCSO.
6
18. On August 29, 2019, EEOC issued its Dismissal and Notice of Suit
Rights concerning Plaintiff’s EEOC Charge No. 433-2018-003012, which Plaintiff
received thereafter.
19. Plaintiff has exhausted all his administrative remedies prior to bringing
this action and this First Amended Complaint has been timely filed with this Court.
20. Plaintiff has complied with all conditions precedent prior to bringing
this action.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
21. Plaintiff Manuel A. Torres is a 51-year-old Hispanic male.
22. Torres has been certified as a sworn law enforcement officer by the
State of North Carolina, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 17C-2, since 2010.
23. Torres holds to Christian religious beliefs and regularly attends and
serves as a deacon at East Sanford Baptist Church in Sanford, North Carolina.
24. Torres holds the strong and sincere religious belief that the Holy Bible
prohibits him, as a married man, from being alone for extended periods with a female
who is not his wife.
Defendant LCSO (EEOC Charge Nos. 433-2018-00419 and -02999)
25. Plaintiff began his employment with Defendant LCSO in October 2012
and most recently held the position of County Deputy (Corporal) until on or around
September 11, 2017.
7
26. During the course of his employment with the LCSO, Plaintiff was
ordered to train a female deputy, which would include the requirement that he spend
significant periods of time alone in his patrol car with the female officer trainee.
27. The job duty of training female deputies, in such a manner, violates
Plaintiff’s religious beliefs against being alone for periods of time with female(s)
who is/are not his wife and leaving the appearance of sinful conduct on his part.
28. On or around July 19, 2017, Torres verbally requested of Sgt. Oldham
a religious accommodation from his assigned job duty of training a female deputy
alone.
29. Through the next few weeks, Sgt. Oldham alternately granted and
denied Deputy Torres’s accommodation requests.
30. Deputy Torres discussed Sgt. Oldham’s denial of his reasonable
accommodation request with his superiors, Lt. Smith and Capt. Estes, who each
assured Deputy Torres that he would take care of it.
31. Because Deputy Torres took his request for religious accommodation
up the established chain of command, Sgt. Oldham failed to respond Torres’s call
for backup during Torres’s covering a multi-vehicle accident in an unsafe area in
which Torres had to tase two fighting suspects, and a gun was present on the scene.
An officer from a neighboring jurisdiction finally offered backup for Torres when
the LCSO refused or neglected to do so for almost a half hour.
8
32. On September 6, 2017, Chief Butler, one of Torres’s superior officers,
talked to Deputy Torres about his religious accommodation request and expressed
his anger over Torres’s religious accommodation requests and his religious beliefs
against being alone with a female who was not his wife.
33. On or about September 11, 2017, and without an explanation, Chief
Butler informed Plaintiff that his services were no longer needed by LCSO, thus
terminating his employment.
34. Torres filed charges of religious discrimination and retaliation against
Defendant LCSO on November 9, 2017.
35. Since the date Plaintiff requested a religious accommodation and filed
his EEOC charges of discrimination and retaliation against LCSO, LCSO has
provided false and negative referrals to prospective employers, Defendants Siler
City, Apex, and NightHawk.
36. On July 23, 2018, Plaintiff filed a second EEOC Charge of
Discrimination (433-2018-02999) against Defendant LSCO based on its retaliation
against Plaintiff by informing Defendants Siler City, Apex, and NightHawk of
Plaintiff’s engaging in the protected activities of requesting a religious
accommodation and filing EEOC charges.
9
Defendant Siler City (EEOC Charge No. 433-2018-02466)
37. On September 22, 2017, Deputy Torres was interviewed by three
individuals for the position of Patrolman with the Siler City Police Department.
38. When asked by the interviewers why he had been dismissed from the
LCSO, Torres explained to Siler City interviewers that he had requested from LCSO
a religious accommodation not to be alone with female deputies in violation of his
sincere religious beliefs, that the accommodation had been granted and revoked, and
that, after he had complained about the denial of the accommodation, he was
terminated with the sole explanation that his services were no longer needed.
39. Two of the interviewers indicated to Torres that Siler City would not
have a problem granting the accommodation.
40. Siler City conditionally offered Torres the patrolman position pending
his background check.
41. Between October 2017 and January 2018 Deputy Torres completed
physical, TB test, pre-hire requirements, was given and qualified on his duty
weapon, received several boxes of ammunition, and completed his background
check.
42. On, January 30, 2018, after Plaintiff filed his first EEOC Charges
against LCSO, Siler City rescinded the already extended job offer because of
10
information about Plaintiff’s requests for religious accommodation and
discrimination charges relayed to Defendant Siler City by Defendant LCSO.
43. Defendant Siler City then hired a patrolman, a white male under the age
of 40.
Defendant Town of Apex (EEOC Charge No. 433-2018-03011)
44. On October 25, 2017, Plaintiff interviewed with the Town of Apex
Police Department for the position of Police Officer.
45. Plaintiff successfully completed his background investigation and
personal references.
46. Plaintiff passed the required polygraph.
47. APD Officer English met with Defendant LCSO at which time, upon
information and belief, LCSO gave Officer English false information about
Plaintiff’s job performance at the LCSO.
48. In addition, Defendant LCSO gave Officer English information about
Plaintiff’s requests for a religious accommodation under Title VII and about
information contained in a letter Plaintiff wrote to Sheriff Carter regarding Plaintiff’s
religious accommodation requests.
49. After Defendant Apex learned of, and because of, Plaintiff’s religious
accommodation requests to LCSO, Apex never responded to Plaintiff’s telephone
call or email request about the job position.
11
Defendant NightHawk (EEOC Charge No. 433-2018-03012)
50. On July 2, 2018, Plaintiff interviewed with the Hiring Manager of
Defendant NightHawk for a NightHawk private police officer position.
51. When Defendant NightHawk’s Hiring Manager asked Plaintiff why he
was no longer employed by Defendant LCSO, Plaintiff replied that he had requested
a religious accommodation from Defendant LCSO and that LCSO had thereafter
terminated him.
52. When asked if Plaintiff had any legal actions pending against LCSO,
Plaintiff informed Defendant NightHawk’s Hiring Manager that Plaintiff had filed
an employment discrimination complaint with EEOC against LSCO.
53. Defendant NightHawk then informed Plaintiff that NightHawk policy
prohibited the company from hiring anyone with pending litigation, but that he
would hire Plaintiff as soon as his charges against LSCO were resolved.
COUNT I:
Title VII Claim for Religious Discrimination
(Against Defendant LCSO)
54. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set
forth herein.
55. Plaintiff has a sincerely held religious belief against working alone in
his patrol car in isolated areas with a female who is not his wife.
12
56. LCSO’s job requirement that Plaintiff train and be alone for significant
periods with a female deputy violates Plaintiff’s sincerely held religious belief.
57. Plaintiff repeatedly informed Sgt. Oldham, Lt. Smith, and Capt. Estes
of his religious belief and asked those supervisors and superiors for a religious
accommodation of the belief with regard the job duty of training and being alone
with female deputies in violation of his religious beliefs.
58. Defendant LCSO did grant the accommodation request on several of
Plaintiff’s work days, but then, without demonstrating any reason for doing so,
revoked the accommodation.
59. LCSO ultimately refused to accommodate Plaintiff’s reasonable
request for religious accommodation and continued to mandate his training a female
deputy alone in violation of his sincerely held religious beliefs.
60. Defendant LSCO fired Plaintiff because of his religious beliefs and
because he continued to request a reasonable religious accommodation from a job
duty that violated his sincerely held religious beliefs.
61. As a proximate result of Defendant LCSO’s violations of Plaintiff’s
civil rights, Plaintiff has suffered damages, including loss of income and benefits;
loss of quality and enjoyment of life; loss of reputation; and other damages to be
proven at trial. Plaintiff is entitled to recover his compensatory damages pursuant to
42 U.S.C. §§ 1981a and 2000e-5.
13
COUNT II:
Retaliation Under Title VII
(Against All Defendants)
62. Plaintiff hereby incorporates the paragraphs 1 through 53 as if fully set
forth herein.
63. Plaintiff repeatedly requested of Defendant LCSO a religious
accommodation from being required to train and ride alone with a female deputy in
violation of his religious beliefs.
64. When Plaintiff continued to request a reasonable religious
accommodation from this mandatory job duty, following the LSCO chain of
command for making his accommodation requests, Defendant LSCO fired him.
65. Defendant LSCO fired Plaintiff because he continued to request a
religious accommodation from a job duty that violated his sincerely held religious
beliefs and complained about religious discrimination.
66. After Defendant LSCO fired Plaintiff, Plaintiff filed religious
discrimination and retaliation charges with the EEOC.
67. After Plaintiff told Defendant Siler City that LCSO terminated him
because of his religious accommodation requests, Siler City extended to Plaintiff a
position as patrolman.
68. During the period Plaintiff was completing the job and background
check requirements for the job that Siler City had offered him, Plaintiff filed his Title
14
VII discrimination and retaliation charge 433-2018-00419 against LCSO with the
EEOC.
69. Once Defendant Siler City learned that Plaintiff had filed
discrimination and retaliation charges against LCSO, Defendant Siler City told
Plaintiff his job offer had been rescinded.
70. Plaintiff also applied for a law enforcement position with Defendant
Apex’s Police Department.
71. After Plaintiff applied for a position with Defendant Apex and had
successfully completed the required background check and lie detector test, an APD
employee then met privately with an LCSO employee who relayed to Defendant
Apex Plaintiff’s requests for religious accommodation and EEOC charges.
72. Defendant Apex never responded to Plaintiff’s employment
application, despite his being qualified for the position applied for, because
Defendant Apex had been informed by Defendant LSCO that Plaintiff had exercised
his rights to request a religious accommodation and file EEOC discrimination
charges.
73. Plaintiff applied for a private police officer position with Defendant
NightHawk.
74. Once Defendant NightHawk learned that Plaintiff had filed religious
discrimination and retaliation charges against LCSO, Defendant NightHawk
15
informed Plaintiff that it would not hire him while his Title VII religious
discrimination and retaliation charges against LCSO were still unresolved.
75. As a proximate result of the violations of Plaintiff’s civil rights by
Defendants LCSO, Siler City, Apex, and NightHawk, Plaintiff has suffered
damages, including loss of income and benefits; loss of quality and enjoyment of
life; loss of reputation; and other damages to be proven at trial. Plaintiff is entitled
to recover his compensatory damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981a and 2000e-5.
COUNT III:
Termination in Violation of North Carolina Public Policy
(Against Defendant LCSO)
76. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 53 as if fully set
forth herein.
77. It is the public policy of the State of North Carolina that all persons
shall be able to seek, obtain, and hold employment without discrimination or
abridgment on account of race, religion, color, national origin, age, sex, or handicap
by employers which regularly employ 15 or more employees.
78. Defendant LSCO regularly employs more than 15 employees, is an
employer within the meaning of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-422.2 et seq., and enjoys no
lawful immunity from suit for violation of the protections expressed in this Act.
79. Plaintiff’s religion is a protected category within the meaning of N.C.
Gen. Stat. § 143-422.2.
16
80. In contravention of the North Carolina Equal Employment Practices
Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143.422.2, and North Carolina common Law, Defendant
LCSO terminated Plaintiff’s employment on account of his religion.
81. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to compensatory damages and other
appropriate relief provided by North Carolina law.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff hereby respectfully requests this Court to:
1. Declare that the termination and other adverse actions against Plaintiff
by Defendants were in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 (42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq.) and also (as to Defendant LCSO)
state law;
2. Reinstate Plaintiff to his respective position with the Defendant LCSO;
3. Order Defendants, jointly and severally, to make Plaintiff whole by
providing him with equitable and compensatory damages in an amount
in excess of Three Hundred Thousand Dollars ($300,000.00) for the
loss of past, present, and future lost wages and other benefits, as well
as for his emotional distress, anxiety, loss of reputation, and humiliation
caused by the acts of Defendants;
17
4. Order Defendants to pay to the Plaintiff punitive damages as provided
by federal law in amounts to be provided at trial exceeding Fifteen
Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00);
5. Order Defendants to pay to Plaintiff pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest on all amounts recovered herein;
6. Award Plaintiff the costs of this action, including reasonable attorneys’
fees for their representation herein as provided in § 706(k) of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k), and any other applicable
law;
7. Grant declaratory and injunctive relief, as provided by law; and
8. Grant such additional and further relief to the Plaintiff as the Court
deems just and appropriate.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff
demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable presented herein.
Dated: December 27, 2019. Respectfully submitted,
LAW OFFICE OF B. TYLER BROOKS, PLLC
BY: /s/ B. Tyler Brooks

B. Tyler Brooks
N.C. Bar No. 37604
4050 Yellowfield Way
Cary, North Carolina 27518
18
Telephone: (336) 707-8855
Fax: (919) 584-8373
[email protected]
GIBBS & ASSOCIATES LAW FIRM, LLC
BY: /s/ Jonathan D. Gibbs

Jonathan D. Gibbs*
Ohio Bar No. 0094455
6398 Thornberry Ct.
Mason, Ohio 45040
Telephone: (513) 234-5545
Fax: (888) 500-4638
[email protected]
*Appearing pursuant to Local Rule 83.1
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that on December 17, 2019, the First Amended
Complaint was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court, using the Court’s
CM/ECF electronic service system, which will send notification of such filing as
follows:
Paul S. Holscher
Janean B. Dunn
Jackson Lewis P.C.
3737 Glenwood Avenue, Suite 450
Raleigh, NC 27612
[email protected]
[email protected]
Attorneys for Defendant Town of Apex
Katie Weaver Hartzog

Katherine Barber-Jones
Hartzog Law Group, LLP
1903 N. Harrison Avenue, Suite 200
Cary, NC 27513
[email protected]
19
[email protected]
Attorneys for Defendant Town of Siler City
Bradley O. Wood
Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP
One West Fourth Street
Winston-Salem, NC 27101
[email protected]
Attorney for Defendant Tracy Lynn Carter
GIBBS & ASSOCIATES LAW FIRM, LLC
BY: /s/ Jonathan D. Gibbs

Jonathan D. Gibbs*
Ohio Bar No. 0094455
6398 Thornberry Ct.
Mason, Ohio 45040
Telephone: (513) 234-5545
Fax: (888) 500-4638
[email protected]
*Appearing pursuant to Local Rule 83.1
20

Amended Complaint

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

Amended Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

Plaintiff Manuel Torres, complaining of Defendants Tracy Lynn Carter in his

and allege the following:

1. Plaintiff, Manuel A. Torres (“Plaintiff” or “Torres”), a law enforcement

September 11, 2017, termination, institutes this action to address religious-based

discrimination and retaliation committed by Defendants Tracy Lynn Carter in his

Case 5:19-cv-00327-FL Document 30 Filed 12/17/19 Page 1 of 20

(“Apex”), and NightHawk Company Police, LLC (“NightHawk”), against Plaintiff

religious accommodation requests and his filing charges of discrimination pursuant

damages, as provided by law.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-

alleged in this First Amended Complaint.

which a defendant resides as well as a judicial district in which a substantial part of

the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred.

times pertinent to this action, Plaintiff was an “employee” of LCSO or an applicant

NightHawk within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(f). At all times pertinent to

definition of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b).

6. Defendant Siler City is a municipal corporation established pursuant to

operates Siler City Police Department as a department of the municipal government.

the meaning and definition of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b).

7. Defendant Apex is a municipal corporation, established and existing

and definition of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b).

8. Defendant NightHawk is a limited liability company organized and

definition of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b).

9. On or about November 9, 2017, Torres filed a Charge of Discrimination

concerning Plaintiff’s EEOC Charge No. 433-2018-00419, which Plaintiff received

in unlawful religious discrimination, national origin discrimination, age

discrimination, and retaliation against him.

concerning Plaintiff’s EEOC Charge No. 433-2018-02466, which Plaintiff received

concerning Plaintiff’s EEOC Charge No. 433-2018-02999, which Plaintiff received

concerning Plaintiff’s EEOC Charge No. 433-2018-003011, which Plaintiff

his filing his original charges against the LCSO.

Rights concerning Plaintiff’s EEOC Charge No. 433-2018-003012, which Plaintiff

21. Plaintiff Manuel A. Torres is a 51-year-old Hispanic male.

serves as a deacon at East Sanford Baptist Church in Sanford, North Carolina.

who is not his wife.

Defendant LCSO (EEOC Charge Nos. 433-2018-00419 and -02999)

September 11, 2017.

denied Deputy Torres’s accommodation requests.

30. Deputy Torres discussed Sgt. Oldham’s denial of his reasonable

assured Deputy Torres that he would take care of it.

for backup during Torres’s covering a multi-vehicle accident in an unsafe area in

the LCSO refused or neglected to do so for almost a half hour.

33. On or about September 11, 2017, and without an explanation, Chief

terminating his employment.

34. Torres filed charges of religious discrimination and retaliation against

Defendant LCSO on November 9, 2017.

provided false and negative referrals to prospective employers, Defendants Siler

City, Apex, and NightHawk.

36. On July 23, 2018, Plaintiff filed a second EEOC Charge of

Discrimination (433-2018-02999) against Defendant LSCO based on its retaliation

against Plaintiff by informing Defendants Siler City, Apex, and NightHawk of

Plaintiff’s engaging in the protected activities of requesting a religious

accommodation and filing EEOC charges.

37. On September 22, 2017, Deputy Torres was interviewed by three

a religious accommodation not to be alone with female deputies in violation of his

have a problem granting the accommodation.

his background check.

weapon, received several boxes of ammunition, and completed his background

discrimination charges relayed to Defendant Siler City by Defendant LCSO.

Defendant Town of Apex (EEOC Charge No. 433-2018-03011)