22. During all relevant times herein, Defendant was and is an employer as defined by Title VII.  23. During all relevant times herein, Representative Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class are/were applicants of Defendant as defined by Title VII.  24.  Plaintiff is a female.   25. Plaintiff was an applicant for employment of Defendant commencing her application process on or around August 4, 2016.  26. On or about August 4, 2016, the Plaintiff responded to an employment advertisement Defendant had placed on Craig’s List for prospective employees.    27.  Plaintiff was informed by the Defendant that jobs were available, but that the Defendant hired for construction sites and did not have jobs for women.  29. Plaintiff was a qualified, competent, and dedicated applicant that was discriminated against on the basis of her gender, female.  30. Upon information and belief, during this time period numerous males were hired instead of the Plaintiff.   31. Plaintiff and others similarly situated were not hired by Defendant.  32. Plaintiff and others similarly situated were as qualified or more qualified than the male applicants that were eventually hired by Defendant.  33. The failure to hire Plaintiff and other similarly situated applicants was based on the unlawful consideration of gender. 34. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs, as if fully set forth herein.  35. All conditions precedent to the institution of Plaintiff’s claims under Count I have been satisfied.  36. Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class are/were applicants of the Defendant.  38. Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class have suffered adverse job actions, in that they have been denied employment opportunities and hire because of their gender [female].  39. Defendant treated similarly situated male employees more favorably than the Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class were treated, as alleged herein. Defendant intended to, knowingly engaged in, condoned and/or ratified severe gender discrimination and failure to hire, as alleged herein.  40. The actions of Defendant as perpetrated by its agents and as described and complained of above, are unlawful employment practices in that they likely have the effect of discriminating against, depriving and tending to deprive equal employment to, and otherwise adversely affecting Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class because of their gender [female] in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e), et seq.  41. At all times relevant to this cause of action, Defendant had a duty under Title VII to refrain from discriminating against Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class based on their gender [female].  43. The discriminatory actions by Defendant, through their management, agents and employees, were intentional and willful, and in deliberate disregard of and with reckless indifference to, the federal laws, state laws, and the rights and sensibilities of Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class.  44. Defendant, by and through its agents, engaged in the foregoing acts and conduct when it knew or should have known that the same were in violation of Title VII and any alleged reasons to the contrary are pretextual.  45. The actions of Defendant in intentionally engaging in and condoning gender discrimination against Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class have caused Plaintiff and the Rule 23 Class consequential damage.  46. There is a causal connection between the Plaintiff's and the Rule 23 Class’ gender, and the dissimilar treatment suffered by Plaintiffs at the hands of the Defendant. COUNT I (DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VII CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000e, et seq. – DISPARATE TREATMENT) 