Daysia Lashay Johnson v. Okie Fire Chicken, LLC

IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR CANADIAN COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA DAYSIA LASHAY JOHNSON, an individual, Plaintiff, vs. OKIE FIRE CHICKEN, LLC, a domestic for-profit corporation doing business as TOOTERS CHICKEN, Defendant. PETITION COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, Daysia Lashay Johnson, by and through her attorney of record, Charles T. Battle, of THE BATTLE LAW FIRM, PLLC, for her Petition against Defendant, Okie Fire Chicken, LLC, also doing business as Tooters Chicken, alleges and states as follows: I. THE PARTIES 1. Plaintiff, Daysia Lashay Johnson ("Miss Dunn" or "Plaintiff"), is an individual who resides in Canadian County, State of Oklahoma. 2. Defendant, Okie Fire Chicken, LLC ("Tooters Chicken" or "Defendant"), doing business as Tooters Chicken, is a domestic for-profit that conducts business in Canadian County, Oklahoma. Tooters Chicken can be served by and through its registered service agent, Ankit Patel at 1700 S. Morgan Road Unit D1, Oklahoma City, 73128, State of Oklahoma. Defendant, at all times relevant, is an employer within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq. II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. This Court has general subject matter jurisdiction as the actions arise out of harassment, adverse, and retaliatory employment decisions taken by Defendant against Ms. Dunn while she was employed by Tooters. The aforementioned adverse employment decisions are based upon sex discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. and in violation of Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act, OKLA. STAT. tit. 25, §§ 1101, et seq. 4. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Parties. 5. Venue is proper pursuant to OKLA. STAT. tit. 12, § 134 because a substantial part of the events, acts, and omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in and/or arose in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma and Defendant conducts business in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. 6. Plaintiff has exhausted her administrative remedies by submitting a timely Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (“EEOC”) in EEOC Charge No.: 564-2023-00817 on or about January 27, 2023. 7. Thereafter, the EEOC issued a Dismissal and Notice of Rights (“Right to Sue”) on or about December 10, 2025 2025. 8. Therefore, Plaintiff has exhausted her administrative remedies by filing this action within ninety (90) days of the aforementioned Right to Sue. III. STATEMENT OF FACTS 9. Miss Johnson is a citizen of the United States of America and is a female. 10. Miss Johnson began her my employment in 2020 as a cashier and left in May, 2022. 11. Thereafter, Miss Johnson was contacted by Mr. Rahul Punchell (“Mr. Punchell”), to return to work for Tooter’s in September, 2022. 12. Also, upon her return to work for Tooter’s, Tooter’s was under different ownership than when Miss Johnson previously left in May, 2022. 13. Upon her returning, Mr. Punchell was the manager and Miss Johnson’s immediate supervisor. 14. While Miss Johnosn was working, a co-worker named Nik, who was 26 years old, would frequently stare at Miss Johnson in a sexual manner. 15. Miss Johnson complained to Mr. Punchell regarding Nik’s behavior, however, no corrective action was taken. 16. Additionally, Mr. Punchell tried to hook Miss Johnson up with Nik in early November, 2022. At the time of trying to link the Nik and Miss Johnson, Mr. Punchell asked me how old Miss Johnson was. 17. In response, Miss Johnson informed Mr. Punchell that she was sixteen (16) years old. 18. Mr. Punchell said “hey Nik, she’s sixteen (16) [years old]” in a manner that indicated that Miss Johnson’s age made her more desirable. 19. Thereafter, Mr. Punchell would be more flirtatious with Miss Johnson and he attempted to isolate Miss Johnson and get her alone in his office multiple times. 20. Mr. Punchell’s advances towards Miss Johnson was unwanted and given Miss Johnson’s age, highly inappropriate and illegal. 21. Miss Johnson informed Mr. Punchell that his behavior was inappropriate, and on November 23-25, 2022, Mr. Punchell reduced Miss Johnson’s hours. 22. Additionally, Mr. Punchell also made inappropriate comments to other female staff members and told the female crew that he was “[their] Daddy”. 23. Furthermore, Mr. Punchell sent several flirtatious text messages to Kandi, who was one of my co-workers. 24. On or about November 21, 2022, ownership and upper management held a meeting to address the inappropriate behavior of Mr. Punchell with him, the owner Mr. Ankie Patel (“Mr. Patel”), and Mr. Blake Dewberry (“Mr. Dewberry”). 25. After the meeting was over, Kandi was the only employee who remained with Mr. Punchell. Mr. Patel, and Mr. Dewberry. 26. After the meeting, the work environment did not change, however, Kandi became more conciliatory towards Mr. Punchell. 27. On or about December 23, 2022, Miss Johnson was constructively discharged because of the hostile work environment. 28. As a direct and proximate result of Tooter’s unlawful conduct and discrimination, Miss Johnson has suffered injuries and incurred damages. 29. On January 27, 2023 Plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC in EEOC Charge No.: 564-2023-00817 30. On or about December 10, 2025, the EEOC issued a Right to Sue. 31. Therefore, Plaintiff has exhausted her administrative remedies by filing this action within ninety (90) days of the aforementioned Rights to Sue. IV. CAUSES OF ACTION A. FIRST CLAIM (TITLE VII- SEX AND RETALIATION) 32. Plaintiff incorporates all of her prior allegations and further alleges and states as follows: 33. The matters alleged above constitute violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 41 U.S.C. § 2000e., et seq. in the nature of sex discrimination and harassment. As a result of her sex, Plaintiff was discriminated against and harassed, and her experience in a sexually hostile work environment resulted in Plaintiff experiencing severe emotional distress. 34. Additionally, the matters alleged above constitute violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 41 U.S.C. § 2000e., et seq. as Defendant undertook wrongful adverse actions and additional harassment against Plaintiff in retaliation to her complaints of discrimination/harassment. 35. As damages, Plaintiff has suffered lost earnings, past and future, emotional distress, and other equitable and compensatory damages allowed by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 41 U.S.C. § 2000e., et seq. and as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991. 36. Because Defendant’s actions were willful, wanton, with malice or, at the least, in reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s rights, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages as provided by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 41 U.S.C. § 2000e., et seq. and as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991. B. SECOND CLAIM (OADA, OKLA. STAT. TIT. 25, §§ 1101, ET SEQ. - SEX DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION) 37. Plaintiff incorporates all of her prior allegations and further alleges and states as follows: 38. The matters alleged above constitute violations of Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act, OKLA. STAT. tit. 25, §§ 1101, et seq. in the nature of sex discrimination and harassment. As a result of her sex, Plaintiff was discriminated against and harassed, and her experience in a sexually hostile work environment resulted in Plaintiff experiencing severe emotional distress. 39. Additionally, the matters alleged above constitute violations of Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act, OKLA. STAT. tit. 25, §§ 1101, et seq. as Defendant undertook wrongful adverse actions and additional harassment against Plaintiff in retaliation to her complaints of discrimination/harassment. 40. As damages, Plaintiff has suffered lost earnings, past and future, emotional distress, and other equitable and compensatory damages allowed by Oklahoma Anti-Discrimination Act, OKLA. STAT. tit. 25, §§ 1101, et seq 41. Because Defendant’s actions were willful, wanton, with malice or, at the least, in reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s rights, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages and/or liquidated damages. V. DAMAGES 42. For her allegation of damages, Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference all of the allegations heretofore made, and further alleges and states as follows: 43. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful discrimination and harassment in violation of federal law, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer actual damages and losses and is entitled to a recovery for the same, including but not limited to: a. Actual Damages; b. Compensatory Damages; c. Back pay; d. Front pay; e. Equitable relief; f. Mental anguish; g. Emotional distress; h. Punitive damages; i. Attorneys’ fees; and j. Costs. VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Daysia Lashay Johnson, respectfully requests this Court enter judgment in her favor and against Defendant, for an award of damages in excess of $75,000.00, attorneys’ fees, costs and interest, and for an award of punitive damages, exclusive of attorneys’ fees, costs and interest, along with any and all other relief this Court deems just and proper. Respectfully submitted, [signature] Charles T. Battle, OBA #22486 THE BATTLE LAW FIRM, PLLC 1415 NW 43rd Street Oklahoma City, OK 73118 Telephone: (405) 420-0082 Facsimile: (405) 416-5492 Email: [email protected] ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF DAYSIA LASHAY JOHNSON JURY TRIAL DEMANDED! ATTORNEY LIEN CLAIMED!!