Friday, May 13, 2022

Racial discrimination lawsuit filed against Joplin nursing home owner


A second discrimination lawsuit has been filed against the owners of the Joplin Gardens nursing home.

In the three-count lawsuit, which was filed today in U. S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, Ricardo Dailey, a U. S. citizen of Filipino descent, alleges racial discrimination and retaliation. Dailey worked at Joplin Gardens as a certified nursing assistant from October 12, 2015 to June 4, 2019.

Listed as the defendant in the action is N & R of Joplin, LLC.








Dailey's allegations were described in the petition:

Plaintiff applied for and was hired as a Transportation CNA but Defendant instead placed him as a night CNA not handling any transportation duties. Plaintiff requested to be moved to the transport position for which he applied and was hired but was continually denied the opportunity. 

Instead, the transport position was awarded to white individuals with less qualifications than Plaintiff. 

For example, in approximately summer 2018, Plaintiff noticed the transport position was posted as available. Plaintiff immediately spoke with his Administrator expressing interest in the position. 

The following day, Plaintiff received a text from the Administrator telling him the position was filled and he was not considered because he was not a certified medical technician (CMT). At that time Plaintiff was a CMT and his certification was contained in his personnel file. 







When Plaintiff told management that he was a CMT, he was then told he needed to have a Commercial Driver’s License (CDL). Plaintiff had his CDL which was also contained in his file 

During Plaintiff’s employment, four white individuals were awarded the transport position over Plaintiff. At least one of the individuals hired over Plaintiff held only a driver’s license and did not have a CMT or CDL. 

Plaintiff complained to his each of his Administrators and management staff throughout his employment yet was never awarded the transport position. Instead, Plaintiff was placed in a night CNA position responsible for 20 or more residents and denied any assistance even though some of the residents required two-person transport. 

Plaintiff complained repeatedly about this unfair treatment and safety concerns. He was never provided help even though other halls with less residents were staffed with two CNA’s. 

The day that Plaintiff was terminated from his employment, he was working by himself with a large number of residents. The other halls were staffed with two CNAs. Plaintiff’s requests for assistance with residents needing two-person transport were ignored throughout his shift. 

When Plaintiff complained to management about the discriminatory and unsafe behavior throughout his employment nothing was done and instead, Plaintiff was subjected to retaliatory actions by management and unjustly terminated. 

Plaintiff was held to different work standards than white employees. Plaintiff was given a significantly larger load of patients than other CNAs and was also disciplined for instances that other employees were not disciplined for. 

Despite Plaintiff’s complaints of discrimination and retaliation, Defendant failed to remedy or stop the ongoing discriminatory and retaliatory actions to which Plaintiff was being subjected. 

Defendant has engaged in an ongoing, pattern and practice of discrimination/harassment, and retaliation against Plaintiff based on his ancestry, ethnicity and race. Because of the discrimination and retaliation Plaintiff experienced has suffered, and may continue to suffer, lost wages and emotional distress. 

As a result of the discrimination and retaliation to which Defendant has subjected Plaintiff, Plaintiff has suffered and may continue to suffer damages, including but not limited to lost wages, lost benefits, loss of earning capacity, loss of career opportunity, costs of seeking alternate income, pain and suffering, emotional distress, humiliation, upset, damage to his reputation, diminished job opportunities, deprivation of civil rights, and in other respects.

Dailey, who is represented by Tiffany B. Klosener, of the Kansas City law firm Holman Schiavone LLC, is asking for damages, punitive damages, fees and costs.

The action follows a lawsuit filed April 15 by Lucinda Cox, a Pagan, who says she suffered religious discrimination and retaliation while working as a nurse at Joplin Gardens. She, like Dailey, worked at the facility from 2015 to 2019.

She is also represented by Klosener.

More information about the Cox lawsuit can be found at this link.

***

Readers,

Consider supporting the Turner Report, Inside Joplin and Inside Joplin Obituaries by taking a voluntary subscription or by making a contribution of any amount at the PayPal buttons below or by sending your subscription or contribution to Randy Turner, 2306 E. 8th, Apt. A, Joplin, MO 64801.

Payment options

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Please note that Item 10 (Ordinances - 8 Council Bill No 2022-512) is to increase both Real Property and Personal Property Taxes (For 150,000 assessed home increase $285 annually and 30,000 assessed Personal Property increase of $100 annually).

This is the second time property owners have been asked vote to increase taxes (the first being the FAILED Memorial Hall vote). Also, property owners were going to be asked to increase their property taxes again with Operation Launch Pad (the old public library) - but this fizzled out when Toby Teeter left.

Do you see a pattern here - keep hitting up property owner's - for tax increases (is this the new cash cow???)

When the City Manager - Nick Edwards - was asked if any other fund sources where considered - he said NO. Phil Stennet - said there is no Plan B for this funding - just like Memorial Hall.

Some of the funding options not considered:
x Using money from the use tax
x Asking for a Fire District Tax
x Take some of the money out of the General Fund
x Ask the legislature to change the sales tax law to permit Joplin to raise the sales tax - which is currently at 1/2 cent
x Reallocation of the existing Public Safety Tax

In summary, ALL possible sources of funding should be considered - before hitting up the "new cash cow" - property owners.