Case 3:16-cv MO Document 1 Filed 09/29/16 Page 1 of 13

Transcription

1 Case 3:16-cv MO Document 1 Filed 09/29/16 Page 1 of 13 Daniel Snyder, OSB No dansnyder@lawofficeofdanielsnyder.com Carl Post, OSB No carlpost@lawofficeofdanielsnyder.com John Burgess, OSB No johnburgess@lawofficeofdanielsnyder.com LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL SNYDER Telephone: (503) Facsimile: (503) Of Attorneys for the plaintiff UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION RICH SNEATH, Plaintiff, v. CLACKAMAS COUNTY, Defendants. Case No. 3:16-cv-1907 COMPLAINT UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT ACTION Title VII Discrimination, Retaliation and supplemental state law claims JURY TRIAL DEMANDED I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. This action is an action for equitable relief and damages, including compensatory damages, back pay, front pay, and attorneys fees and costs, brought under ORS 659A.030 and 42 U.S.C. 2000e et. seq. to redress discrimination, harassment, and retaliation by Defendant PAGE 1 COMPLAINT

2 Case 3:16-cv MO Document 1 Filed 09/29/16 Page 2 of 13 against Plaintiff in terms and conditions of employment on the basis of religion and under 42 U.S.C. 2000e-3(a), ORS 659A.199, ORS 659A.203, and ORS 659A.230, to redress discrimination, harassment, and retaliation by Defendant against Plaintiff because Plaintiff opposed discrimination and retaliation based upon his religion and filed complaints against Defendant with BOLI, the EEOC, and a prior lawsuit against Defendant. II. JURISDICTION 2. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court by 28 U.S.C. 1331, federal question jurisdiction, and 28 U.S.C. 1343, civil rights jurisdiction. 3. Plaintiff requests this Court invoke its supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C with respect to all causes of action based on Oregon statutory provisions or common law as the state claims arise from the same nucleus of operative facts as the federal claims. 4. On August 21, 2015, Plaintiff filed a charge of employment discrimination and retaliation with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI), case number 38D C, for discrimination, harassment, and retaliation because of Plaintiff s religion; making good faith reports of information Plaintiff believed was evidence of a violation of a state or federal law, rule, or regulation; and for initiating and participating in the filing of BOLI and EEOC complaints and a lawsuit against Clackamas County. 5. BOLI co-filed Plaintiff s charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), charge number EEEMRG C. 6. On July 6, 2016, BOLI issued Plaintiff a right to sue letter for case number 38D- 7. Plaintiff has requested that the attorney general issue Plaintiff a right to sue letter PAGE 2 COMPLAINT

3 Case 3:16-cv MO Document 1 Filed 09/29/16 Page 3 of 13 for charge number EEEMRG Venue is in the District of Oregon pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) because the claim arose in this Judicial District. III. PARTIES 9. Plaintiff Rich Sneath is a citizen of the United States. At all times material, Plaintiff worked for defendant in Clackamas County, Oregon. 10. Defendant Clackamas County is a political subdivision of the State of Oregon. The County, through the Clackamas County Sheriff s Office, owns and operates correctional facilities or jails in Clackamas County, Oregon. 11. At all times material, defendant has employed more than 100 people. 12. At all times relevant, defendant s employees and supervisors as their conduct is alleged herein were acting within the course and scope of their employment with the defendant. IV. GENERAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 13. Since approximately September 2007, Mr. Sneath has been employed by Clackamas County Sheriff s Office as a deputy sheriff. 14. Mr. Sneath is Jewish. 15. Starting in or about December, 2011, Plaintiff s co-workers and supervisors began harassing and retaliating against Plaintiff, including but not limited to: a. Posting threatening and derogatory comments on a group Facebook page, members of which were other co-workers and supervisors. These posts were made both on and off the clock. These posts included anti-semitic comments directed at Plaintiff such as looks like Hitler missed one. b. Making similar comments as the Facebook comments verbally in PAGE 3 COMPLAINT

4 Case 3:16-cv MO Document 1 Filed 09/29/16 Page 4 of 13 the workplace. 16. On or about January 9, 2013, Mr. Sneath informed some co-workers of his knowledge of the Facebook posts and workplace comments. 17. On or about January 22, 2013, Undersheriff Kirby, Mr. Sneath s supervisor, informed him that he was aware of the Facebook posts, but Defendant failed to take effective remedial measures to address the Facebook posts and workplace comments. 18. On or about April 7, 2013, Mr. Sneath learned that a co-worker had made anti- Semitic comments in the workplace directed at Mr. Sneath, including but not limited to: a. Hitler missed one ; b. Saying Happy Holocaust Appreciation Day in reference to Holocaust Remembrance Day; Sneath. c. Substituting the word Jew for you when referring to Mr. 19. Despite reports of the discrimination and harassment towards Mr. Sneath, Defendant failed to take remedial actions to allow Mr. Sneath to work in an environment free from discrimination and harassment. Instead Mr. Sneath was threatened with discipline, up to and including termination of employment, in retaliation. 20. On or about October 13, 2013, Mr. Sneath provided Clackamas County with a tort claim notice for discrimination, harassment and retaliation because of his religion. 21. In October 2013, Mr. Sneath filed a BOLI complaint against Clackamas County for discrimination, harassment, and retaliation because of his religion and because he was subjected to discrimination, harassment and retaliation for making a good faith report of information he believed was evidence of a violation of a state or federal law, rule, or regulation. PAGE 4 COMPLAINT

5 Case 3:16-cv MO Document 1 Filed 09/29/16 Page 5 of 13 The complaint was co-filed with the EEOC. 22. In June 2014, Mr. Sneath filed a lawsuit, USDC Case No. 3:14-cv BR, regarding discrimination and retaliation against him by Clackamas County. 23. Mr. Sneath was further discriminated against, retaliated against, and harassed by defendant for filing the BOLI and EEOC complaints and his lawsuit. 24. In July 2014, Mr. Sneath filed complaints against Clackamas County with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Bureau of Labor and Industries for discrimination and retaliation because Mr. Sneath made good faith reports of violations of the law and because he filed complaints against defendant with the EEOC, BOLI, and in federal court. 25. On October 31, 2014, Mr. Sneath amended his lawsuit to also include claims for retaliation for filing his administrative complaints. 26. In December 2014, the parties agreed to settle all of Mr. Sneath s claims against Clackamas County through November 3, The County failed to comply with the terms of the settlement agreement. 27. Regrettably, Mr. Sneath continues to experience discrimination, retaliation and harassment because of his religion and retaliation for good faith reports of violations of the law and for filing his administrative complaints and lawsuit against Clackamas County. 28. On or about October 25, 2014, Mr. Sneath applied for an open Sergeant position. At first, there was one open position. Later a second position was announced and eventually a third. Mr. Sneath s application was for all three and for any additional positions that open over the next two years. 29. On November 24, 2014, Mr. Sneath received an saying that he passed the PAGE 5 COMPLAINT

6 Case 3:16-cv MO Document 1 Filed 09/29/16 Page 6 of 13 written test in the Sergeant selection process. 30. On December 29, 2014, Mr. Sneath was notified that he would not be moving into the final group of applicants to be interviewed despite scoring higher in the oral board testing process than at least four of the other candidates that moved forward and being a more qualified candidate. 31. In December of 2014 Mr. Sneath was told that management did not want to work with Mr. Sneath because of the lawsuit he filed and on January 4, 2015, Mr. Sneath ed Chief Deputy Layng and reported retaliation. 32. In January of 2015 was Sneath was again told that management did not want to work with him because of the lawsuit. 33. On January 7, 2015, Mr. Sneath met with Chief Deputy Layng regarding the retaliation in the selection process. Chief Deputy Layng asked who told Mr. Sneath about Lieutenant Thies s comments. Mr. Sneath did not have permission to share the identity of the person who told him. Chief Deputy Layng asked Mr. Sneath to ask the person that had provided Mr. Sneath this information if it was ok if Mr. Sneath passed his name along. The two continued to discuss the prior lawsuit and Mr. Sneath s concerns. After a while, Chief Deputy Layng told Mr. Sneath that he was getting a red flag and a feeling that Mr. Sneath was going to sue the county and he ordered Mr. Sneath to tell him who told Mr. Sneath about Thies s comments. Mr. Sneath requested union representation. Chief Deputy Layng told Mr. Sneath he was being insubordinate by not answering his question despite the fact that Mr. Sneath s job duties did not require disclosure and there was no business necessity for Mr. Sneath to disclose the name without the informant s permission. Mr. Sneath responded that he would like time to check in with his legal counsel/union representatives and confirm that this was a lawful order if the PAGE 6 COMPLAINT

7 Case 3:16-cv MO Document 1 Filed 09/29/16 Page 7 of 13 meeting was going to become disciplinary in nature. Mr. Sneath informed Chief Deputy Layng that Mr. Sneath had a right to union representation and Chief Deputy Layng said that he did not, which is in violation of Mr. Sneath s Weingarten rights. Chief Deputy Layng told Mr. Sneath that he had to mend fences prior to being selected for promotion and gave examples of other employees that mended fences prior to promotion. Mr. Sneath pointed out the clear violation of county policy related to this statement and that it was retaliation. 34. On January 7, 2015, at 7:22 PM, Chief Deputy Layng ed Mr. Sneath and told him that he must disclose the informant s name. Mr. Sneath obtained permission from the witness to disclose the name and Mr. Sneath provided the name to Chief Deputy Layng. 35. On January 8, 2015, Mr. Sneath received notice of intent to discipline Mr. Sneath. 36. On January 13, 2015, Mr. Sneath asked for a review of the selection results from DES due defendant not following appropriate procedures and policies. 37. On January 21, 2015, the Sergeant selection was made for two positions and Mr. Sneath was not selected. 38. On January 27, 2015, Mr. Sneath received a letter from the Department of Employee Services Nancy Drury saying that she had completed the review and there were no problems with the Sergeant selection process. 39. In February of 2015 Mr. Sneath was informed of new comments made by his coworkers related to his Jewish affiliation. These comments were made while at work and by some of the same bad actors involved in the original lawsuit. The comments brought up Mr. Sneath being Jewish, and repeated some statements from the original investigation. Mr. Sneath reported this conduct to his supervisor. 40. On February 4, 2015, Mr. Sneath was disciplined with a 40 hour unpaid PAGE 7 COMPLAINT

8 Case 3:16-cv MO Document 1 Filed 09/29/16 Page 8 of 13 suspension in retaliation for his opposition to unlawful activity and for his prior lawsuit and administrative complaints. Mr. Sneath served the suspension on February 18, 19, 25, and 26, Additionally, Mr. Sneath was disciplined in violation of the settlement agreement reached with the county. 41. In March of 2015 Mr. Sneath was informed that the Sergeant selection process was not correctly conducted and selections were put on hold or withdrawn for the time being On April 7, 2015 Chief Deputy Layng sent out an saying that the Sergeant selection was completed. Mr. Sneath was not selected. 43. On May 7, 2015 Mr. Sneath received his evaluation from the period of September 2013 to September Mr. Sneath s performance review stated that he meets standard instead of exceeds standard as his score would indicate. The low performance review was retaliation. 44. On May 12, 2015, Mr. Layng sent an saying there were actually three open Sergeant positions. Mr. Sneath was not interviewed. 45. On June 11, 2015, Chief Deputy Layng ed that the third Sergeant position was filed. Mr. Sneath was not selected. 46. In December of 2015, management directed a nurse to file a complaint against Mr. Sneath in retaliation for Mr. Sneath s protected activity. 47. On February 10, 2016, Mr. Sneath received a performance review that stated Mr. Sneath Does Not Meet Expectations The poor review was retaliation and made Mr. Sneath ineligible to apply for new positions. 48. The county modified its selection process for the three Sergeant positions in a way to exclude Mr. Sneath from being selected for the positions. Additionally, throughout the PAGE 8 COMPLAINT

9 Case 3:16-cv MO Document 1 Filed 09/29/16 Page 9 of 13 process Mr. Sneath was treated unfavorably and defendant failed to promote Mr. Sneath in retaliation for his protected activity. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF (ORS Chapter 659A.030) 49. Plaintiff re-alleges all relevant paragraphs as though fully restated herein. 50. In violation of ORS 659A.030, Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff because of religion, Plaintiff was subjected to a hostile work environment because of his religion, and Plaintiff was retaliated against for reporting violations of ORS 659A As a result, Plaintiff suffered damage and is entitled to the damages and other relief set forth below. 52. Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that the conduct of the Defendant violated ORS 659A.030. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF (42 U.S.C. 2000e et. seq) 53. Plaintiff re-alleges all relevant paragraphs as though fully restated herein. 54. In violation of 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff because of religion, Plaintiff was subjected to a hostile work environment because of his religion, and Plaintiff was retaliated against for reporting violations of 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. 55. As a result, Plaintiff suffered damage and is entitled to the damages and other relief set forth below. 56. As a result of Defendant s unlawful employment actions, Plaintiff suffered and continues to suffer humiliation, anxiety, distress, and impairment of his personal dignity and right to be free from discrimination or interference with his statutory rights. Plaintiff has also PAGE 9 COMPLAINT

10 Case 3:16-cv MO Document 1 Filed 09/29/16 Page 10 of 13 suffered, and continues to suffer, economic damages, including, but not limited to, past and future wages, past and future benefits, and other expenses. 57. Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that the conduct of the Defendant violated 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF (ORS 659A.203 Whistleblower) 58. Plaintiff re-alleges all relevant paragraphs as though fully restated herein. 59. Plaintiff disclosed information that Plaintiff believed was a violation of federal or state laws, rules, or regulations. 60. Defendant discriminated and retaliated against Plaintiffs because of the disclosures made by Plaintiffs. Defendant s actions violated ORS 659A As a result, Plaintiff suffered damage and is entitled to the damages and other relief set forth below. 62. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that defendant s conduct violated ORS 659A.203. FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (ORS Chapter 659A.199 Whistleblower) 63. Plaintiff re-alleges all relevant paragraphs as though fully restated herein. 64. Plaintiff reported to Defendant conduct that Plaintiff believed was evidence of a violation of state or federal law, rule, or regulation. 65. Defendant discriminated and retaliated against Plaintiff because of the report made by Plaintiff. Defendant s actions violated ORS 659A.199. PAGE 10 COMPLAINT

11 Case 3:16-cv MO Document 1 Filed 09/29/16 Page 11 of As a result, Plaintiff suffered damage and is entitled to the damages and other relief set forth below. 67. Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that the conduct of the Defendant violated ORS 659A.199. FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (42 U.S.C. 2000e-3(a) Whistleblower) 68. Plaintiff re-alleges all relevant paragraphs as though fully restated herein. 69. Plaintiff opposed conduct that Plaintiff believed was evidence of a violation of 42 U.S.C. 2000e, or because he made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this subchapter. 70. Defendant s actions violated 42 U.S.C. 2000e-3, are an unlawful employment practice, and caused Plaintiff economic and noneconomic damages. 71. As a result, Plaintiff suffered damage and is entitled to the damages and other relief set forth below. 72. Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that the conduct of the Defendant violated 42 U.S.C. 2000e-3. defendant. SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (ORS Chapter 659A.230 Whistleblower) 73. Plaintiff re-alleges all relevant paragraphs as though fully restated herein. 74. Plaintiff initiated several BOLI and EEOC complaints and a lawsuit against 75. Defendant discriminated and retaliated against Plaintiff because of the complaints made by Plaintiff. Defendant s actions violated ORS 659A.230. PAGE 11 COMPLAINT

12 Case 3:16-cv MO Document 1 Filed 09/29/16 Page 12 of As a result, Plaintiff suffered damage and is entitled to the damages and other relief set forth below. 77. Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that the conduct of the Defendant violated ORS 659A.230. DAMAGES 78. Plaintiff is entitled to equitable relief, including, an injunction prohibiting further discrimination and retaliation. 79. Plaintiff is entitled to an award for past lost wages and benefits and future lost earnings, benefits, and lost earning capacity, and other compensatory damages for past and future pecuniary losses. Plaintiff should be awarded economic damages in an amount determined fair by a jury. 80. Plaintiff is entitled to non-economic damages sufficient to compensate Plaintiff for emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other nonpecuniary losses in an amount to be proved at trial. Plaintiff should be awarded noneconomic damages in an amount determined fair by a jury. 81. To the extent any amount awarded to Plaintiff is for damages occurring prior to the entry of judgment, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of prejudgment interest at the legal rate from the date the damage occurred until the date of judgment. 82. Pursuant to ORS Chapter 659A and ORS , the Plaintiff is entitled to recover his reasonable attorney fees and costs, including expert witness fees. 83. Plaintiff is entitled to post judgment interest on all damages, costs, expenses, and fees from the date of judgment until the date paid. PAGE 12 COMPLAINT PRAYER FOR RELIEF

13 Case 3:16-cv MO Document 1 Filed 09/29/16 Page 13 of 13 Plaintiff prays for the following judgment against defendant: 1. A sum which will fully compensate Plaintiff for Plaintiff s non-economic damages in a sum that is just as determined by a jury; 2. A sum which will fully compensate Plaintiff for Plaintiff s economic damages in a sum that is just as determined by a jury; 3. Equitable relief, including but not limited to, injunctive relief; 4. Plaintiff s costs and disbursements incurred herein; 5. Plaintiff s attorney fees; and 6. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and equitable. Plaintiff demands a trial by Jury. Dated: September 29, 2016 /s/ Carl Post Daniel Snyder, OSB No dansnyder@lawofficeofdanielsnyder.com Carl Post, OSB No carlpost@lawofficeofdanielsnyder.com John Burgess, OSB No johnburgess@lawofficeofdanielsnyder.com Telephone: (503) Facsimile: (503) Of Attorneys for Plaintiff PAGE 13 COMPLAINT

14 Case 3:16-cv MO Document 1-1 Filed 09/29/16 Page 1 of 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.) I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS Sneath, Rich Clackamas County (b) Clackamas (EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (c) (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) See attached. (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY) (If Known) II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an X in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an X in One Box for Plaintiff (For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant) PTF DEF PTF DEF (U.S. Government Not a Party) or and (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an X in One Box Only) CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY PROPERTY RIGHTS LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY PERSONAL PROPERTY REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS FEDERAL TAX SUITS Habeas Corpus: IMMIGRATION Other: V. ORIGIN (Place an X in One Box Only) VI. CAUSE OF ACTION VII. REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT: VIII. RELATED CASE(S) IF ANY FOR OFFICE USE ONLY (specify) (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity) 42 U.S.C. 2000e et. seq. discrimination/retaliation based on religion and filing administrative complaints and prior lawsuit CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ 500, JURY DEMAND: (See instructions): 09/29/2016 /s/ Carl Post

15 Case 3:16-cv MO Document 1-1 Filed 09/29/16 Page 2 of 2 The following attorneys will be representing the Plaintiffs. Daniel Snyder, Oregon State Bar #78385 dansnyder@lawofficeofdanielsnyder.com Carl Post, OSB No carlpost@lawofficeofdanielsnyder.com John Burgess, OSB No johnburgess@lawofficeofdanielsnyder.com LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL SNYDER Telephone: (503) Facsimile: (503) Attachment to Civil Cover Sheet

16 Case 3:16-cv MO Document 1-2 Filed 09/29/16 Page 1 of 1 AO 440 (Rev. 04/08) Civil Summons UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the District District of Oregon of RICH SNEATH Plaintiff v. ) ) ) Civil Action No. Clackamas County Defendant ) ) 3:16-cv-1907 Summons in a Civil Action To: (Defendant s name and address) Clackamas County Clackamas County Counsel 2051 Kaen Rd Oregon City OR A lawsuit has been filed against you. Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it), you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff s attorney, whose name and address are: Carl Post Law Office of Daniel Snyder 1000 SW Broadway, Suite 2400 If you fail to do so, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also must file your answer or motion with the court. Name of clerk of court Date: Deputy clerk s signature (Use 60 days if the defendant is the United States or a United States agency, or is an officer or employee of the United States allowed 60 days by Rule 12(a)(3).)