Courthouse News Service

Transcription

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK KIMBERLY A. CALVERASE, -1- -against- Plaintiff, CITY OF SYRACUSE; CITY OF SYRACUSE POLICE DEPARTMENT; SHANNON TRICE, in his individual and official capacity; GARY MIGUEL, in his individual and official capacity; DAVID BARRETTE, in his individual and official capacity; RONALD ROCKWOOD, in his individual capacity; JOSEPH SWEENY, in his individual and official capacity; and JOHN DOE(S) and/or JANE DOE(S), in their individual and official capacities, Defendants. COMPLAINT Jury Trial Demanded Plaintiff Kimberly A. Calverase, by and through her attorney, A.J. Bosman, Esq., for her complaint against Defendants, respectfully alleges as follows: 1. This is a complaint under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1983, the Constitution of the United States, the Human Rights Law of the State of New York, and the Constitution of the State of New York, to remedy violations of the rights of the Plaintiff Kimberly A. Calverase for injuries and harm caused by the Defendants in their individual and official capacities as the employer and as the agents of the City of Syracuse and the City of Syracuse Police Department. 5:09-cv-774 (DNH/DEP) Courthouse News Service

2 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2. This action is brought, in part, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, 42 U.S.C. 2000[e] et seq. and the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. This action is for monetary damages as well as for declaratory, injunctive and equitable relief to redress the deprivation of the Plaintiff s rights secured to her by the Constitution and laws of the United States and the State of New York. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1343 and 1367(a) and the aforementioned statutory and Constitutional provisions. 3. Plaintiff invokes the original and supplemental jurisdiction of this Court to decide claims arising under federal and New York State law including, but not limited to, claims that Defendants committed unlawful discriminatory and retaliatory practices relating to employment by denying Plaintiff equal terms, conditions and privileges of employment because of her sex and/or because she opposed discrimination; claims that Defendants violated Plaintiff s right to equal treatment and protection of the laws; claims that Defendants violated Plaintiff s free speech rights; and claims that Defendants violated Plaintiff s due process rights. 4. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff s New York State law claims including her claims under the New York State Constitution, the New York State Human Rights Law (Article 15, Executive Law of the State of New York), and under contract and common law. 5. Venue is proper in the Northern District of New York in that the unlawful employment practices alleged herein were committed in whole or part in the Northern District. -2-

3 CONDITIONS PRECEDENT 6. On or about July 15, 2008, Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination/retaliation with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ( EEOC ). Plaintiff s EEOC complaint was cross filed with the New York State Division of Human Rights pursuant to a work-share agreement enjoyed by the two agencies. 7. On or about April 9, 2009, the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division issued a Notice of Right to Sue letter to Plaintiff. 8. Plaintiff has commenced the instant action within the time limits allotted therefor. 9. On or about July 28, 2008, a verified Notice of Claim was served upon the Defendants. At least thirty (30) days have elapsed since service of such notice and payment thereof has been refused. PARTIES 10. Plaintiff Kimberly A. Calverase, at all times relevant to this complaint, is a female citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of New York, County of Onondaga. She was and is at all times relevant herein an employee of the City of Syracuse and the City of Syracuse Police Department. Plaintiff is an Employee within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 2000[e], et. seq., and the Human Rights Law of the State of New York. 11. Defendant City of Syracuse is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York and at all relevant times has its principal place of business at City Hall, Syracuse, New York. Defendant City of Syracuse is an Employer within the -3-

4 meaning of 42 U.S.C. 2000[e], et. seq., and the Human Rights Law of the State of New York. 12. Defendant City of Syracuse Police Department is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York and at all relevant times has its principal place of business at 511 South State Street, Syracuse, New York. Defendant City of Syracuse Police Department is an Employer within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 2000[e], et. seq., and the Human Rights Law of the State of New York. 13. At all times relevant hereto, the City of Syracuse and the City of Syracuse Police Department employed the named individual Defendants and the Plaintiff herein. Said City of Syracuse and the City of Syracuse Police Department are by law responsible for the wrongdoing of officers and employees of the City of Syracuse Police Department and by law responsible for the direct participation and endorsement of the unconstitutional and unlawful customs, policies, and practices of the individual Defendants including a hostile work environment. Said Defendants were also aware, through their officers, employees, legislators, and agents, of the long-standing unlawful customs, policies, and practices of the named Defendants, and deliberately and/or negligently failed to take action to correct the unlawful customs, policies, and practices of the Defendants. 14. Defendant Shannon Trice, at all times relevant to this complaint, is a Captain of the City of Syracuse Police Department. He is principally responsible for the creation and perpetration of a hostile work environment against Plaintiff. He is also responsible for, among other things, the training, supervision, discipline and conduct of the other named Defendants. He -4-

5 is also responsible, by law, for enforcing the rules and regulations of the State of New York and City of Syracuse and for insuring that employees of the Police Department obey the laws of the State of New York and the United States. 15. Defendant Gary Miguel, at all times relevant to this complaint, is the duly appointed Chief of Police of the City of Syracuse. He is responsible for, among other things, the training, supervision, discipline and conduct of the other named Defendants. He is also responsible, by law, for enforcing the rules and regulations of the State of New York and City of Syracuse and for insuring that employees of the Police Department obey the laws of the State of New York and the United States. Defendant Miguel is sued in his individual and official capacity. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Miguel had authority and control over the other named individual Defendants. 16. Defendant David Barrette, at all times relevant to this complaint, is a duly appointed Deputy Chief of Police of the City of Syracuse. He is responsible for, among other things, the training, supervision, discipline and conduct of the other named Defendants. He is also responsible, by law, for enforcing the rules and regulations of the State of New York and City of Syracuse and for insuring that employees of the Police Department obey the laws of the State of New York and the United States. Defendant Barrette is sued in his individual and official capacity. Defendant Barrette is the supervisor of Defendant Trice and as such has direct responsibility for his conduct and authority and control over his employment, including the ability to reprimand and discipline him or otherwise control his behavior. -5-

6 17. At all times relevant to this complaint, Defendant Ronald Rockwood was a lieutenant employed by the City of Syracuse Police Department and designated as an Equal Employment Opportunity Officer. Defendant Rockwood was allegedly responsible for the investigation and handling of complaints of discrimination and was purportedly responsible for referring and/or conducting impartial and unbiased investigations into alleged violations. He was also required to take corrective action and/or recommend corrective action be taken. 18. At all times relevant to this complaint, Defendant Joseph Sweeny was a lieutenant employed by the City of Syracuse Police Department who was recently elevated to Captain. At all times relevant to this complaint, Defendant Sweeny was Plaintiff s direct supervisor and had the authority and ability to make personnel decisions regarding Plaintiff s employment. Under his command, Defendant Sweeny allowed Plaintiff to be continually subjected to a hostile work environment and directly participated in retaliatory acts against her. Defendant Sweeny is sued in his individual and official capacity. 19. Defendants John Doe(s) and Jane Doe(s) are individuals not yet known to the Plaintiff. Once their identities are ascertained, the names of those individuals will be substituted in place of the John Doe(s) and/or Jane Doe(s) designation(s). 20. At all relevant times, each Defendant is responsible for the establishment and perpetuation of a hostile work environment and the discriminatory policies, customs, practices and habits of the Syracuse Police Department and also aided and abetted the unlawful conduct described herein. The Defendants all are equally responsible and legally accountable for the -6-

7 unlawful conduct of each other for failing to intercede and prevent the discriminatory and retaliatory conduct set forth herein. 21. During all times mentioned in this complaint, Defendants were acting under color of law, that is, under color of the Constitution, statutes, laws, charters, ordinances, rules, regulations, customs, and usages of the State of New York and the City of Syracuse. At all times mentioned in this complaint, Defendants acted either individually, jointly, and/or in concert with each other. FACTS 22. Plaintiff Kimberly A. Calverase is a female police officer with the City of Syracuse Police Department. 23. Throughout her employment with the City of Syracuse Police Department, Plaintiff s work performance has always been highly acceptable and satisfactory. 24. During the course of Plaintiff s employment with the City of Syracuse Police Department, as set forth in more detail below, Plaintiff has been subjected to a continuous series of illegal and discriminatory and retaliatory acts, unfair actions, policies, practices, and procedures because of Plaintiff s sex and because of her assertion of her contractual, civil and Constitutional rights. Said wrongs, acts, and violations are and were intentional and/or negligent and/or reckless, have caused Plaintiff harm, injury and damages including but not limited to: (a) Plaintiff has been deprived of income in the form of wages, promotional opportunities and job assignments which were made or denied because of Plaintiff s sex and Defendants discriminatory and retaliatory acts and policies; -7-

8 (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) Plaintiff has suffered physical harm in the form of tension, headaches, stomach aches, medication side-effects, sleeplessness, nervousness, anxiety, fear and dread, extreme anxiety, embarrassment, humiliation, degradation, stress, loss of pay, loss of benefits, harm to reputation and good name, depression, insomnia, anger, fear, family discord and dysfunction, parental dysfunction, headaches, stomach upset, nervousness, weight gain, stress induced hives, and pain. Plaintiff has been forced to suffer severe emotional distress, mental anxiety, depression, and psychological trauma; Plaintiff has been denied equitable employment compensation, equitable employment terms and conditions and privileges of employment because of her sex and/or opposition to discrimination; Plaintiff has been subjected to damage to her good name, humiliation, indignity and shame; Plaintiff has suffered injury to her family and community relations amongst her peers and co-workers; Plaintiff has been caused to incur legal fees and expenses and will incur additional legal fees in the future, to protect Plaintiff s rights and interests from the wrongful and unlawful actions of the Defendants herein; Plaintiff has suffered deprivation of her liberty, invasion of her privacy and has otherwise suffered deprivation of her human, civil and Constitutional rights in violation of the laws and Constitutions of the United States and the State of New York; Plaintiff has been otherwise damaged. 25. This complaint is in all respects based on past and continuing and ongoing harm and injury caused by the Defendants in their discriminatory and retaliatory acts and policies. Such acts and polices are illegally imposed on the Plaintiff by the Defendants employing and endorsing practices and policy which subjects women to greater scrutiny in their employment and treats women as second class citizens and/or disparately excludes women from certain traditionally -8-

9 male assignments, positions of visibility, authority, and power, and denies women assignments or transfers which lead to equal supervisory and management opportunities. Denying women access to these assignments leads to lower regard, lower pay, and fewer benefits for all women. 26. The Defendants routinely subject women to stricter scrutiny and application of rules or guidelines in the use of sick time, workplace injury, performance evaluations, promotions and assignments, and on the job and off the job conduct. The Defendants unfairly and routinely endorse and believe the word of male employees over that of female employees. 27. The Defendants have notice of and have engaged in hostile patterns and practices of behavior which are notoriously sexist, retaliatory and discriminatory, yet have failed to put appropriate monitoring or review processes to insure that such treatment and discriminatory conduct is eliminated. 28. The Defendants subject females to higher standards of performance and adherence to rules and regulations while excusing men from the same standards of behavior. 29. Defendant Shannon Trice, Plaintiff s senior officer, fathered Plaintiff s child and when told of the pregnancy, he requested an abortion. When Plaintiff refused to abort the pregnancy, Trice threatened Plaintiff s employment, warning that her career was over and that she would never advance or go anywhere in the Department and that she would be another Kathy Lee, referring to a female officer in the Department who is notoriously ridiculed, disparaged, and maligned by members of the Syracuse Police Department. 30. Since rebuffing his threat, Defendant Trice has engaged in a continuous campaign of -9-

10 harassment and intimidation of the Plaintiff beginning on or about January 2002 and continuing to February 2009 when Plaintiff finally received her promotion to sergeant and transferred a shift different from his to the first platoon. 31. Defendants were told and/or were aware that Plaintiff was being harassed by Defendant Trice. Defendants failed to discipline or otherwise punish Defendant Trice or stop said treatment. 32. Additionally, Defendants were told and/or were aware that Plaintiff was denied transfers, assignments, overtime and promotions and otherwise subjected to discriminatory and retaliatory treatment. 33. Plaintiff applied for transfers on numerous occasions and she was repeatedly passed over in favor of male employees with less seniority and experience. Plaintiff also has been denied overtime when male officers enjoy greater opportunities and assignments of overtime. Defendants are aware and have been since on or about the year 2000 of disparate assignment and overtime allocation in the Department and said disparate assignments are disproportional on the basis of sex yet have failed to do anything about it. 34. Examples of the discriminatory and retaliatory treatment illegally imposed on Plaintiff include but are not limited to: A. Plaintiff was transferred to Third Platoon in February 2002 and denied overtime opportunities after she refused Trice s demand that she abort her pregnancy; B. Plaintiff was denied a hardship request to return to days because of child care issues while male employees were granted this accommodation; -10-

11 C. Upon returning to work in December 2002, Plaintiff was subjected to harassment and ridicule by Captain Mike Rathbun including him making statements about Plaintiff s weight, such as Kim, you re looking pretty buff - [you ve] been working out? ; D. In December 2002, a 10.1 memorandum was widely distributed around the Department. The subject of this 10.1 memorandum was titled new lettering system for days off and ridicules and maligns Plaintiff as a person who gets pregnant and is not sure who the Dad is and refuses to come back to work until they get a day job. This is a Kim Calverse Day. E. Plaintiff made a complaint to the Internal Affairs Division about said 10.1 memorandum. Therein December 2002, Plaintiff called the Internal Affairs Division and spoke with Lt. Russell Gates who stated he and Captain Galvin saw the memo. Plaintiff asked if there was an investigation into the author(s) of the memo and Lt. Gates stated he was unaware of any investigation. Plaintiff told him she was making a complaint and wanted an investigation to be conducted. Subsequently, Plaintiff spoke with Lt. Culeton at IAD who stated nothing can be done. Plaintiff s complaint was ignored and no investigation and/or corrective action was taken; F. In August 2003 while at work, Plaintiff was threatened by Defendant Captain Trice regarding a pending child support matter when he told Plaintiff that she f d up now and would definitely regret this ; G. In August 2003, Plaintiff was subject to repeated harassment and intimidation at work by Captain Trice. Plaintiff complained to Sgt. Knittel and the Internal Affairs Division about this but nothing was done to address the problem; H. In November 2003 through January 2004, Defendant Trice unlawfully obtained and checked Plaintiff s time sheets to reduce his child support payments. Though Plaintiff complained about the unauthorized use of Departmental information, Captain Trice was not disciplined. Instead, Plaintiff was subjected to retaliation for complaining about it; I. Plaintiff s certification as a Child Passenger Safety Technician was allowed to expire under the direction of Defendant Trice in or about May, 2005; J. In July, 2005, Plaintiff was excluded from the personnel Order for Marine Patrol Training; K. Plaintiff has been repeatedly ignored and passed over for the Instructor Development Schools, Hostage Negotiation/Crisis Response Team, most recently in February, 2008; L. Transfers have consistently been denied and male officers with less seniority than Plaintiff have received transfers that Plaintiff requested and applied for including Family -11-

12 Services; M. Plaintiff has been required to perform clerical and/or menial tasks not expected of male officers, including making labels, taking messages, providing information, and obtaining items for Defendant Trice; N. Defendant Trice repeatedly and with intent to harass the Plaintiff, has, on occasions too numerous to mention, sneered, laughed, smirked, stared at, intimidated, touched, injected himself into situations with the Plaintiff, glared at, and crowded the Plaintiff in a hostile manner; O. Plaintiff complained to Lt. Sweeney, Deputy Chief Barrette, Sgt. Knittel, Captain Kerwin, and Lt. Rockwood (who was presented to the Plaintiff and others as the Equal Employment Officer for the SPD). These men in fact acted in a manner to protect the offender Defendant Trice, the SPD, and supervisory employees by failing to take her complaints seriously, and they conduct investigations or allow others to conduct investigations in a manner designed to avoid responsibility and protect offending male officers; P. Following her complaints, the Defendants treated Plaintiff in a belittling manner and began whispering in the presence of the Plaintiff and otherwise treated her in a discriminatory manner; Q. Defendant Trice and other agents of the SPD subjected the Plaintiff and others in the class to a hostile work environment, humiliation, and shame when on April 3, 2008, he used a video for training purposes to make fun of a female motorist who was crying because she was late for an abortion; R. The Defendants and agents have complained when Plaintiff is assigned overtime even though Plaintiff has received far less overtime opportunities in her career than most male officers receive. Male Officers are given overtime in preference due to their assignments and relative power in the department. This is a continuing problem and Plaintiff has lost overtime opportunities to male officers on or about May, 2008; S. Plaintiff has been subjected to humiliation and discrimination when on February 18, 2008, her name was crossed off a list of candidates for eligible Sergeants, Lieutenants and Captains posted at the SPD on a large bulletin board. When Plaintiff complained, a Sergeant laughed at Plaintiff and told her to add it to [her] lawsuit. T. Defendants deliberately, negligently, and with reckless disregard, subjected the Plaintiff to extreme and baseless allegations, scrutiny and criticism of her performance and abilities. Similar actions are not taken toward male employees. Defendants also subjected the Plaintiff to a work environment that is hostile to women and such hostile work environment continues to this date; -12-

13 U. Following the Defendants receipt of Plaintiff s EEOC complaint and notice of claim, Plaintiff was immediately temporarily transferred and then returned to her position. Plaintiff s workstation was deliberately switched to a smaller desk in front of an open door where everyone could see her and she would again be exposed to Defendant Trice s harassment. Further, her dedicated phone line was taken; her computer was changed to an older one with fewer programs; the filing cabinet was left remote to her desk; the partitions in the office were taken down; her cell phone was taken away; and her desk was moved. Defendant Sweeny told Plaintiff she was moved because he did not want her outside of his office eavesdropping on his conversations and otherwise conveyed to her that he was upset with Plaintiff because of her complaint and notice of claim; and V. Further, after receipt by Defendants of Plaintiff s EEOC complaint and notice of claim, Defendant Sweeny made Plaintiff s work environment virtually intolerable, creating and maintaining an atmosphere of tension and hostility, shunning Plaintiff, making her feel as though she committed some wrong and giving the impression that Plaintiff was unwelcome and unwanted and untrustworthy. 35. Plaintiff s employment has also been adversely affected by the continuous hostile work environment conditions imposed on female employees of the Department and its discriminatory and retaliatory treatment of them. Example of such discriminatory and retaliatory treatment include but are not limited to: (a) subjecting female employees to a work environment where male employees are encouraged and/or permitted to display and/or watch pornographic material while on duty; (b) subjecting female employees to a work environment that each of the Defendants knew or should have known permits and condones the retaliation (including disciplinary actions/memos, harassment, threats, transfers, restrictions, etc.) against women and minorities for complaining about discriminatory treatment; (c) subjecting Plaintiff and other female employees to a work environment that each of the Defendants knew or should have known is without complete support of victims of discriminatory treatment as demonstrated by their failure to fairly and impartially investigate complaints of discrimination or mistreatment, maintain and support an equal employment complaint process without intimidation, or impose appropriate discipline; (d) subjecting female employees to discriminatory and retaliatory discipline in that each of the Defendants knew or should have known that the disciplinary sanctions imposed against female employees are not used against male employees for similar or worse performance -13-

14 and bad acts; (e) subjecting Plaintiff and other female employees to a work environment that each of the Defendants knew or should have known is discriminatory in that the Plaintiff and other female employees were arbitrarily reassigned and given less desirable work assignments than their male counterparts under same or similar circumstances; (f) excusing, ignoring, or concealing misconduct of male employees while subjecting female and minority employees to strict scrutiny and discipline; (g) failing or refusing to investigate EEO and/or female officers complaints of mistreatment while vigorously investigating male officer s complaints; and (h) subjecting employees who act as witnesses to discrimination and/or retaliation, including Plaintiff, to unequal and retaliatory treatment, most recently in the months of May and June The City of Syracuse and the City of Syracuse Police Department are aware through complaints and reports of the Defendants discriminatory treatment of women and have been deliberately indifferent, grossly negligent, and/or recklessly failed and refused to address or, in any substantive manner, correct such unlawful acts and treatment. 37. The Defendants entered into a Consent Order to correct discriminatory policies against women and minorities in or around 1980 in the matters of Alexander v. Bahou, Civ. No. 78-CV-392 and United States v. City of Syracuse, Civ. No. 80-CV-53. Defendants have failed to implement and have recklessly disregarded the Consent Order, perpetuating a discriminatory environment in the Syracuse Police Department under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 1991 (42 U.S.C. Section 2000[e] et. seq.), and the Constitutions and the laws of the United States and State of New York. -14-

15 AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 37 with the same force and effect as if fully set forth herein. 39. The Defendants, City of Syracuse and City of Syracuse Police Department have, through their agents, promulgated a custom, policy, and practice of discrimination against women in conditions, terms, pay, assignments, promotions, benefits, evaluations, expectations, and discipline. Defendants have also adopted, maintained and endorsed a custom, policy, and practice of retaliation against female and minority employees who complain of discrimination. 40. The Plaintiff has been denied wages, benefits, and privileges afforded to male employees in same or similar circumstances because of her sex and/or opposition to discrimination in violation of Plaintiff s Constitutional, statutory, and contractual rights. 41. Defendants are or should be aware of the mistreatment and discriminatory and retaliatory actions of each of the other Defendants. Likewise, the City of Syracuse is or should have been made aware of the actions, practices and customs of the Defendants and other employees in the Department and they each individually and collectively failed to act to prevent the hostile and discriminatory and retaliatory actions of the Defendants. 42. The acts and omissions of the Defendants and the longstanding customs, policies and practices have subjected the Plaintiff and female employees to a work environment that is unfair and hostile to women, including, but not limited to, restricting assignments, transfers, and -15-

16 overtime work, allowing and/or ignoring the disrespect and mistreatment of women, minorities, unequal benefits, and terms and conditions of employment. 43. The Defendants have fostered an atmosphere of discrimination, retaliation, and harassment based on sex. Such treatment was and has been known to occur for years and the Defendants have deliberately, recklessly, and/or negligently participated in such acts and/or failed to cease or eliminate such practices. Despite knowledge of such practices and treatment, the Defendants have deliberately and/or recklessly failed to correct or cease such practices or seek elimination or solutions to said practices. 44. The Defendants have encouraged, approved, continued and expanded, concealed and perpetuated a hostile work environment and committed illegal and unconstitutional discriminatory and retaliatory practices to the detriment and injury of the Plaintiff. 45. By the actions and omissions as described above, the Defendants have violated Plaintiff s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to equal protection and free speech. Such acts by the Defendants have injured the Plaintiff and subjected her to harm and she is entitled to compensation therefor. AS AND FOR A SECOND AND THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION PURSUANT TO TITLE VII AND THE NYS HUMAN RIGHTS LAW 46. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 45 above. 47. By engaging in the foregoing conduct, Defendants have violated rights guaranteed to the -16-

17 Plaintiff under Title VII and the Human Rights Law of the State of New York in that Plaintiff was harassed and subjected to a hostile work environment because of her gender. 48. As aforementioned, Plaintiff has sustained damages by reason of the Defendants wrongful actions and omissions and is entitled to compensation therefor. AS AND FOR A FOURTH AND FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION TITLE VII AND THE NYS HUMAN RIGHTS LAW 49. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 48 above. 50. By engaging in the foregoing conduct, Defendants have violated rights guaranteed to the Plaintiff under Title VII and the Human Rights Law of the State of New York in that Plaintiff was subjected to disparate treatment and otherwise discriminated against because of her gender. 51. As aforementioned, Plaintiff has sustained damages by reason of the Defendants wrongful actions and omissions and is entitled to compensation therefor. AS AND FOR A SIXTH AND SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION TITLE VII AND THE NYS HUMAN RIGHTS LAW 52. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 51 above. 53. By engaging in the foregoing conduct, Defendants have violated rights guaranteed to the Plaintiff under Title VII and the Human Rights Law of the State of New York in that Plaintiff -17-

18 was retaliated against for opposing discrimination. 54. As aforementioned, Plaintiff has sustained damages by reason of the Defendants wrongful actions and omissions and is entitled to compensation therefor. AS AND FOR AN EIGHTH AND NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 54 above. 56. By engaging in the foregoing conduct, Defendants have violated rights guaranteed to the Plaintiff under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in that Plaintiff was subjected to a hostile work environment and discriminated against because of her gender. 57. With respect to the named municipal Defendants, the actions and omissions as aforementioned constitute unlawful municipal custom, practice or policy since they are the actions and omissions of policy making officials of the City of Syracuse Police Department. In addition, said municipal Defendants created, maintained and/or fostered a custom, policy or practice of intimidation and discrimination thereby causing Plaintiff injury and harm. Finally, said municipal Defendants failed to adequately train or discipline officers and supervisors on the rights of employees to be free from hostile work environment, discrimination, and/or retaliation. 58. As aforementioned, Plaintiff has sustained damages by reason of the Defendants wrongful actions and omissions and is entitled to compensation therefor. -18-

19 AS AND FOR A TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 58 above. 60. By engaging in the foregoing conduct, Defendants have violated rights guaranteed to the Plaintiff under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution in that Plaintiff was retaliated against for exercising her free speech rights to oppose discrimination. 61. With respect to the named municipal Defendants, the actions and omissions as aforementioned constitute municipal policy of retaliation since they are the actions and omissions of final policy making officials of the City of Syracuse Police Department. In addition, said municipal Defendants created, maintained and/or fostered a custom, policy or practice of retaliation thereby causing Plaintiff injury and harm. 62. Said municipal Defendants failed to adequately train and/or supervise officers and supervisors in the preservation and enforcement of rights of employees to be free from discrimination and retaliation. 63. As aforementioned, Plaintiff has sustained damages by reason of the Defendants wrongful actions and omissions and is entitled to compensation therefor. AS AND FOR AN ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 63 with the same force and effect as if -19-

20 fully set forth herein. 65. The Defendants were at all times relevant herein acting under the color of state law. The discriminatory hiring, discipline, lack of promotion, retaliation, and disparate treatment of women employees of the City of Syracuse Police Department is so pervasive and widespread that it has the effect of a custom, practice and/or policy. 66. The Defendant Miguel has final policymaking authority in which he failed to enforce and/or insure the enforcement of laws prohibiting such discriminatory and retaliatory treatment. Additionally, Defendant Barrette has authority and control over the individual Defendants, including the authority to supervise and discipline them. 67. Defendants Miguel and Barrette and other policy making officials knew of the past and present discriminatory practices and policies of the City of Syracuse Police Department and did not and have not acted to correct same. Further, these supervisory Defendants knew of the acts of the other Defendants in creating and subjecting Plaintiff to a hostile work environment and retaliation and did not act to prevent or correct same, thus violating the Plaintiff s rights. 68. As aforementioned, Plaintiff has sustained damages by reason of the Defendants wrongful actions and omissions and is entitled to compensation therefor. AS AND FOR A TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION BREACH OF CONTRACT 69. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 68 with the same force and effect as if -20-

21 fully set forth herein. 70. Plaintiff is a civil service employee and a member of the Union and employees as such are protected by the contract in effect entered into by the City of Syracuse with its employees. Such contract provides for the fair and equal treatment in matters of pay and terms of employment including the terms, conditions, and privileges of employment without regard to gender, race, age, or other classification. 71. The Defendants have discriminated and retaliated against the Plaintiff and subjected her to unequal treatment on account of her gender and/or opposition to discrimination in breach of the contract. Despite complaints, the Plaintiff s Union has failed to adequately represent her interests. 72. As aforementioned, Plaintiff has sustained damages and is entitled to compensation therefor. PUNITIVE DAMAGES 73. The acts and/or omissions of the Defendants herein were outrageous; were done in a deliberate, callous, malicious, wanton and oppressive manner intended to injure plaintiff; were done with an improper and evil motive, amounting to malice and spite; and were done in conscious disregard of Plaintiff s rights. Plaintiff is therefore also entitled to an award of punitive damages. -21-

22 follows: WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests judgment against the Defendants as (a) (b) (c) judgment awarding Plaintiff compensatory damages in an amount not less than $5,000, (Five Million Dollars); judgment awarding Plaintiff punitive damages in an amount not less than $5,000, (Five Million Dollars); for each Cause of Action, granting the following injunctive relief: 1. Restraining the Defendants from engaging in further discriminatory and/or retaliatory treatment; 2. Require the Defendants to review and correct all unconstitutional and discriminatory treatment and conduct within the Syracuse Police Department; 3. Provide equal opportunities, terms, benefits, and pay to women employees in the Syracuse Police Department; 4. Mandate training and educational programs for employees about discrimination; 5. Require annual reports demonstrating efforts and success at compliance in providing a discrimination-free workplace; (d) interest on all amounts due; (e) attorney s fees under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. Section 1988; law; (f) declaratory relief that the Defendants have violated the Plaintiff s rights under the (g) granting such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper. JURY DEMAND Plaintiff demands a jury trial of all claims herein. -22-

23 Dated: July 6, 2009 s/a.j. Bosman A.J. Bosman, Attorney at Law Office and Post Office Address: 6599 Martin Street Rome, New York Telephone: (315) Attorney for Plaintiff -23-