IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Transcription

1 Case :-cv-00-dgc Document Filed 0// Page of PIEKARSKI & BRELSFORD, P.C. E Indian School Rd., Ste. 0 Phoenix AZ 0 Phone: (0 - Fax: (0 - Christopher J. Piekarski, AB# 0 Nathan J. Brelsford, AB# 0 Attorneys for Plaintiffs IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA JENNIFER M. MELLO, a married woman, vs. Plaintiff, BUCKEYE UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, a governmental entity located within the State of Arizona; DR. BEVERLY HURLEY, Superintendent of the Buckeye Union High School District; MARY ANN SPHAR, Principal of Buckeye Union High School; TAWN ARGERIS, Assistant Principal of the Buckeye Union High School; JOHN DOES -; JANE DOES -, Defendants. Case No.: :-cv- COMPLAINT (DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff, by and through her undersigned counsel, submits the following claims: I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE. Plaintiff is a resident of Maricopa County, Arizona.. Defendant BUCKEYE UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT (hereinafter the School District is a governmental unit located within Maricopa County, Arizona.. Defendant DR. BEVERLY HURLEY (hereinafter Hurley, upon information and belief, is a resident of Maricopa County, Arizona. --

2 Case :-cv-00-dgc Document Filed 0// Page of. Defendant MARY ANN SPHAR (hereinafter Sphar, upon information and belief, is a resident of Maricopa County Arizona.. Defendant TAWN ARGERIS (hereinafter Argeris, upon information and belief, is a resident of Maricopa County Arizona.. Defendants JOHN DOES - and JANE DOES - are persons or entities that may be liable to Plaintiff whose true identities are presently not known to Plaintiff. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend her complaint to set forth the true names of these entities whey they become known to her.. All relevant activities took place within Maricopa County, Arizona.. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to U.S.C. and U.S.C. (a(. II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND. Plaintiff was hired by the School District in June, 0.. Plaintiff began work on July, 0 as an administrative assistant/disciplinarian for Assistant Principal Matthew Conover (hereinafter Conover and Defendant, Assistant Principal Argeris.. During her employment, the Plaintiff received positive job performance reviews and awards including the Town of Buckeye s Outstanding Education Support Staff of the Year Award for 0 and the Hawks Grams appreciation letter.. During the end of the fall semester and beginning of the spring semester, Plaintiff observed what she believed to be inappropriate behavior between Conover and an under-aged student.. Plaintiff voiced her concerns to Principal Sphar on January, 0.. Plaintiff was given an unexpected performance review by Conover on January, 0. --

3 Case :-cv-00-dgc Document Filed 0// Page of. The results of the review conducted by Conover were negative. Additionally, Conover verbally warned Plaintiff to keep things to herself and to follow the chain of command.. On February, 0, Plaintiff observed school-prohibited text messaging during school hours by a student. This student happened to be the same student Plaintiff suspected of having inappropriate contact with Conover, which was previously reported to Sphar.. Plaintiff confiscated the student s cellular phone and discovered sexually explicit text messages and photos between the student and Conover.. Plaintiff turned over the phone to Sphar. Law enforcement was subsequently notified and Conover was arrested and taken into police custody later that day.. Plaintiff received an annual review on May, 0 by Assistant Principal Argeris and was informed that her employment was going to be terminated.. Plaintiff was in fact terminated on May, 0.. Plaintiff alleges that if she had not exposed the illegal conduct of Conover her employment with the District would not have ended. III. COUNT ONE Violation of First Amendment Rights as to the School District. All of the preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference.. Plaintiff s actions to report and exposed illegal conduct by Conover involved a public concern.. Because her speech involved a public concern, the plaintiff s speech was protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.. Plaintiff s speech did not undermine an effective work environment.. Due to her protected activities, the Defendant(s took adverse employment action against her.. Plaintiff s speech was a substantial and motivating factor in the adverse employment action. --

4 Case :-cv-00-dgc Document Filed 0// Page of IV. COUNT TWO U.S.C. as to Defendant Hurley. All of the preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference.. Due to her authority as the District Superintendent, Hurley was in position to adversely affect Plaintiff s employment status. 0. Hurley terminated Plaintiff s employment as a result of the Plaintiff s protected speech.. As a result of the Hurley s actions, Plaintiff has suffered injury.. The actions of this Defendant were done intentionally and deliberately which entitle the Plaintiff to an award of punitive damages.. Plaintiff is entitled to an award of her attorney s fees and costs in bringing this action pursuant to U.S.C.. V. COUNT THREE U.S.C. as to Defendant Sphar. All of the preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference.. Due to her authority as School Principal, Sphar was in position to adversely affect Plaintiff s employment status.. Sphar terminated Plaintiff s employment as a result of the Plaintiff s protected speech.. As a result of the Sphar s actions, Plaintiff has suffered injury.. The actions of this Defendant were done intentionally and deliberately which entitle the Plaintiff to an award of punitive damages.. Plaintiff is entitled to an award of her attorney s fees and costs in brining this action pursuant to U.S.C.. --

5 Case :-cv-00-dgc Document Filed 0// Page of V. COUNT FOUR U.S.C. as to Defendant Argeris 0. All of the preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference.. Due to his position as the School Assistant Principal, Argeris was in position to adversely affect Plaintiff s employment status.. Argeris terminated Plaintiff s employment as a result of the Plaintiff s protected speech.. As a result of the Sphar s actions, Plaintiff has suffered injury.. The actions of this Defendant were done intentionally and deliberately which entitle the Plaintiff to an award of punitive damages.. Plaintiff is entitled to an award of her attorney s fees and costs in bringing this action pursuant to U.S.C.. VI. COUNT FIVE Retaliatory Discharge Claim by the School District (Pursuant to A.R.S. -0. All of the preceding paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference.. This Court has jurisdiction to hear the Plaintiff s state law claims pursuant to U.S.C... Plaintiff disclosed the existence of a violation of the laws of the State of Arizona.. Plaintiff disclosed this information to a supervisor or superior who she reasonably believed was in a position to investigate the wrongful behavior. 0. Plaintiff was retaliated against and subsequently terminated from her employment for exposing violations of state law. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants as follows: --

6 Case :-cv-00-dgc Document Filed 0// Page of. For a finding that the actions of the Defendants violated Plaintiff s First Amendment Rights;. For a finding that the actions of the Defendants violated Plaintiff s rights as protected by U.S.C. ;. For a finding that the actions of the Defendants violated Plaintiffs rights as protected by A.R.S. -0;. For actual damages suffered by the Plaintiff in an amount to be proven at trial;. For exemplary and punitive damages against the Defendant(s to deter this type of conduct in the future;. For the Plaintiff s reasonable attorney s fees and costs in bringing this matter; and. For such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper. RESPECTFULLY Submitted this th day of April,. PIEKARSKI & BRELSFORD, P.C. By: /s/ Christopher J. Piekarski Christopher J. Piekarski E Indian School Road Suite 0 Phoenix, AZ 0 Attorney for Plaintiff --