Case 5:15-cv SAC-KGS Document 1 Filed 08/06/15 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

Transcription

1 Case 5:15-cv SAC-KGS Document 1 Filed 08/06/15 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS COURTNEY L. CANFIELD, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE ) Case No. FOR THE STATE OF KANSAS, and ) ) WITH JURY DEMAND ERIC K. RUCKER, in his official capacity, ) ) Defendants. ) ) COMPLAINT COMES NOW the plaintiff, Courtney L. Canfield, and for her cause of action against the defendants, alleges and states as follows: PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Plaintiff, Courtney L. Canfield, is an individual residing in Topeka, Shawnee County, Kansas. Plaintiff was formerly employed by the Office of the Secretary of State of the State of Kansas as a part-time Account Clerk and ultimately a Business Filing Specialist. 2. The defendant, Office of the Secretary of State of the State of Kansas, may be served with process by serving the Kansas Attorney General, 120 S.W. 10 th Ave., 2 nd Floor, Topeka, Kansas The defendant, Eric K. Rucker, is the Assistant Secretary of State of the State of Kansas. This action is brought against Mr. Rucker in his official capacity. He may be served with process in his official capacity by serving the Kansas Attorney General, 120 S.W. 10 th Ave., 2 nd Floor, Topeka, Kansas

2 Case 5:15-cv SAC-KGS Document 1 Filed 08/06/15 Page 2 of 8 4. This action arises under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq., as amended and 42 U.S.C As such, this Court has jurisdiction over the claims enumerated herein pursuant to 28 U.S.C as such claims arise under federal law. 5. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff s claims under the Kansas Acts Against Discrimination ( KAAD ) at K.S.A et seq. pursuant to 28 U.S.C because all of Plaintiff s claims are part of the same case or controversy. 6. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b), as all defendants reside in Topeka, Shawnee County, Kansas. 7. Plaintiff was issued a Notice of Right to Sue by the United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division on or about May 12, Such Notice was provided with respect to her charge of discrimination filed with the EEOC styled Courtney L. Canfield v. State of Kansas/Kansas Secretary of State, Charge No. 28D A complaint of discrimination filed with the Kansas Human Rights Commission was administratively dismissed pursuant to K.S.A (i) on or about July 23, Such complaint was styled Canfield v. State of Kansas/Kansas Secretary of State, Case No Plaintiff has fully complied with any and all prerequisites to jurisdiction in this Court. ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS 10. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every paragraph of her Petition as if fully set forth herein. 11. At all times material to this action, Plaintiff was employed by the State of Kansas, Kansas Secretary of State. 2

3 Case 5:15-cv SAC-KGS Document 1 Filed 08/06/15 Page 3 of On or about January 31, 2013, Plaintiff began working part-time for the Secretary of State s Office in the Election Division as an Accounts Clerk. 13. Sometime in February of 2013, Plaintiff received an invitation to a religious service from Debra Bannister, who was then the administrative assistant to Secretary of State, Kris Kobach. The service was to be held in the Secretary of State s Office and officiated by David DePew, pastor at the Kansas State Capitol. 14. Participation in these religious services was by invitation only. 15. These invitations were distributed during normal business hours and included a prayer guide to be utilized at that week s service. 16. Despite the repeated invitations, Plaintiff never attended such a service. 17. While Plaintiff was a Methodist, she did not regularly attend church services or otherwise practice any particular religious beliefs in any way. 18. Assistant Secretary Rucker had actual knowledge of Plaintiff s lack of religious expression and participation. 19. Plaintiff had a positive and productive work history with the Secretary of State s Office culminating in a promotion to a full-time position as a Filing Specialist with the Business Division in June Throughout her time as Filing Specialist, Plaintiff was never issued any disciplinary action. 21. On or about November 15, 2013, one of Plaintiff s co-workers complained to Administrative Assistant Jackie Carlson that Plaintiff was using Deputy Secretary Kathy Sachs office and telephone to make a personal call. 3

4 Case 5:15-cv SAC-KGS Document 1 Filed 08/06/15 Page 4 of Plaintiff explained to Ms. Carlson that because she had witnessed another coworker utilizing Ms. Sachs office and telephone in the very same way, she thought it would be acceptable for her to have a brief confidential conversation with her physician to ensure the privacy of her medical information. 23. After Ms. Carlson discussed the complaint with Plaintiff, Plaintiff asked the coworker she witnessed using the office the day prior whether she had actually used the telephone while in Ms. Sachs office. 24. Later that morning, Ms. Sachs called Plaintiff into her office and told her she was to go home for the day for causing a ruckus with Tori (Plaintiff s co-worker). 25. The action of being sent home by Ms. Sachs shocked Plaintiff, as the incident that morning was a trivial and minor. 26. In the evening on November 15, 2015, Plaintiff s grandmother Margie Canfield (for clarity, hereafter Margie ) returned to her home from her job with the Kansas Republican Party to find a voice message on her answering machine from Assistant Secretary Rucker indicating that he needed to speak with Margie regarding Plaintiff immediately. 27. Margie returned the call to Mr. Rucker, who indicated he would come by Margie s residence later that evening. 28. Around 5:30 p.m. on November 15, 2013, Mr. Rucker arrived as Margie s home. 29. Mr. Rucker proceeded to tell Margie that she needed terminate Plaintiff despite the fact that she had no direct authority over her employment. 30. Mr. Rucker repeatedly and emphatically indicated a basis for her termination as the fact that, She just doesn t go to church. 4

5 Case 5:15-cv SAC-KGS Document 1 Filed 08/06/15 Page 5 of On November 18, 2013, Plaintiff was informed by Mr. Rucker that her employment was terminated and that she should contact Human Resources to assist her in filing for unemployment insurance benefits. COUNT I REVERSE RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION UNDER TITLE VII AND KAAD 32. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every paragraph of her Petition as if fully set forth herein. 33. Plaintiff s lack of religious participation and expression clearly conflicted with Defendants religious preferences. 34. Plaintiff is protected under state and federal law from adverse employment actions because of her choice to refrain from religious participation and/or expression. 35. Plaintiff s lack of religious participation and expression was a motivating factor in Defendants decision to terminate her employment in violation of 42. U.S.C. 2000e et seq. and K.S.A et seq. 36. Any alleged non-discriminatory reasons for Plaintiff s discharge are merely pretext, as Plaintiff was never issued once issued any disciplinary actions or warnings. 37. Defendants discriminatory termination of the Plaintiff were intentional and/or with a reckless disregard to Plaintiff s rights under Kansas and federal law. 38. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants discriminatory termination, Plaintiff has been caused to suffer pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, including lost past and future wages and benefits, cost of living increases, mental and emotional distress and anguish, embarrassment, inconvenience and humiliation in excess of $75, WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays the Court enter judgment in her favor against Defendant, Office of the Secretary of State, State of Kansas on Count I of her Complaint, finding that she 5

6 Case 5:15-cv SAC-KGS Document 1 Filed 08/06/15 Page 6 of 8 was subjected to a prohibited personnel practice in violation of 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. and K.S.A et seq., for an award of back pay and benefits including interest, an award of front pay and benefits including interest, an award of compensatory and punitive damages, the costs of this action, reasonable attorneys fees and for other such relief as the Court deems equitable and just. COUNT II VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every paragraph of her Petition as if fully set forth herein. 40. Plaintiff s rights under the United States Constitution are protected by 42 U.S.C. 1983, which imposes liability on any person acting under color of state law who deprives Plaintiff of her federal constitutional rights. Defendant Assistant Secretary Rucker is a person within the meaning of 42 U.S.C where declaratory and injunctive relief are sought. 41. Plaintiff is protected from discriminatory employment actions based on the perception of her lack of religious zeal under Title VII and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 42. Defendant Rucker was acting under color of the law as contemplated by 42 U.S.C when he deprived Plaintiff of her federally protected rights to religious expression and/or participation, or more accurately, her intentional choice to abstain from religious expression and/or participation. 43. In order to ensure the supremacy of the United States Constitution and federal law under 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. remains the supreme law of the land, declaratory and injunctive relief is necessary to protect Plaintiff from Defendant Rucker s discriminatory conduct. 6

7 Case 5:15-cv SAC-KGS Document 1 Filed 08/06/15 Page 7 of 8 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays the Court enter judgment for her un for judgment under 42 U.S.C against Assistant Secretary of State Eric Rucker, and requests this court provide injunctive and declaratory relief consisting of the following: (a) an order declaring that Plaintiff was deprived of her federal constitutional right to equal protection of the law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment and her rights under 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.; (b) an order requiring Assistant Secretary Rucker to reinstate Plaintiff to her former position or order appropriate front-pay should the court find reinstatement would not be appropriate under the circumstances; and (c) an award of attorney fees and litigation expenses pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988, and other such relief as the Court deems equitable and just. Respectfully submitted, _s/ Timothy R. Sipe TIMOTHY R. SIPE #25861 DAVID A. BROCK #26333 GARY E. LAUGHLIN #7118 HAMILTON, LAUGHLIN, BARKER, JOHNSON & JONES 3649 SW Burlingame Rd. Topeka, KS (785) (785) (FAX) tsipe@hamiltonlaughlin.com brock@hamiltonlaughlin.com glaughlin@hamiltonlaughlin.com Attorneys for Plaintiff 7

8 Case 5:15-cv SAC-KGS Document 1 Filed 08/06/15 Page 8 of 8 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL COMES NOW the plaintiff and demands a trial by jury on all of the issues in the abovecaptioned case. _s/ Timothy R. Sipe TIMOTHY R. SIPE #25861 DAVID A. BROCK #26333 GARY E. LAUGHLIN #7118 HAMILTON, LAUGHLIN, BARKER, JOHNSON & JONES 3649 SW Burlingame Rd. Topeka, KS (785) (785) (FAX) tsipe@hamiltonlaughlin.com brock@hamiltonlaughlin.com glaughlin@hamiltonlaughlin.com Attorneys for Plaintiff 8