COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

Transcription

1 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUFFOLK, SS. ) JACQUELINE CREAVEN, ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) CITY OF BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS, ) ED DAVIS, in his official capacity as Boston ) Police Commissioner and in his individual ) capacity, ALBERT GOSLIN, in his official ) capacity as Acting Police Commissioner and ) Superintendent, Chief of the Bureau of ) Investigations and his individual capacity, ) Defendants ) ) Superior Court Department Civil Action No. COMPLAINT, INJUNCTIVE AND COMPENSATORY RELIEF REQUESTED; AND JURY DEMAND I. INTRODUCTION. 1. The Plaintiff, Jacqueline Creaven, brings this action seeking redress for violations of the Massachusetts discrimination law, M.G.L. c 151B, 4, the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act, M.G.L. c. 12, 11, the Massachusetts Whistleblower Act, M.G.L. c. 149, 185, as well as violations of the common law and public policy. The Plaintiff, a 16-year veteran of the Boston Police Department ( Department ), has suffered severe discipline and has been denied promotional opportunities on several occasions because of activity which was protected by state laws. Specifically, the Plaintiff a) filed a sex discrimination claim with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination alleging that male officers in the Boston Police Department receive more favorable treatment than female officers; b) spoke to an agent of the Federal Bureau of

2 Investigation regarding complaints that the Internal Affairs Division of the Boston Police Department headed by then Superintendent Goslin was selectively enforcing disciplinary policies, and; c) exercised her rights at an appeals hearing at the Massachusetts Department of Workforce Development related to unemployment benefits and cross-examined several Department employees including Albert Goslin, and; d) filed numerous grievances and unfair labor charges with the Massachusetts Labor Relations Commission against the Department for retaliation and discrimination. As a result of engaging in such protected activity, the Plaintiff has been subjected to an unprecedented and harsh 90-day suspension, has been denied two promotions to the position of lieutenant in the Department, and was subjected to an unwarranted psychiatric evaluation as well as numerous meetings and interviews where she has been threatened, coerced and otherwise harassed and humiliated. All of these adverse actions are the direct result of Plaintiff s attempt to bring to light important concerns about sex discrimination, disparate treatment, and selective enforcement within the Department, and Defendants retaliation against Plaintiff for bringing these issues to light is blatantly unlawful. II. PARTIES. 2. The plaintiff Jacqueline Creaven is an adult resident of West Roxbury, Massachusetts. She has been employed with the Boston Police Department for 16 years and currently holds the rank of sergeant. 3. The defendant City of Boston is a duly incorporated municipality of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and it operates a police department. 2

3 4. The defendant Ed Davis is Police Commissioner for the Boston Police Department in the City of Boston. 5. The defendant Albert Goslin, now retired, served as the Acting Police Commissioner and Superindant for the Boston Police Department during the relevant time period of this complaint. II. FACTS. 6. Plaintiff has been employed with the Boston Police Department for 16 years and currently holds the rank of police sergeant. Prior to 2005, Plaintiff had a spotless disciplinary record and was a leader in the Department and in the community. 7. On or about August 4, 2004, a prisoner, who had been booked and arrested the previous midnight shift, was found unconscious in his cell, was rushed to the hospital, and subsequently died. Almost one year later, in December of 2005, the Department sought to discipline the Plaintiff solely on the grounds that she was the supervisor on duty that night. IAD s pending charges against Plaintiff were at most for her negligent supervision and were in no way related to willful or deliberate misconduct. 8. The Department informed Plaintiff that it was seeking to impose a 45-day unpaid suspension. The Plaintiff refused to accept this penalty because it was far harsher than any suspension ever given to a male officer for the same conduct. 9. In January of 2006, Plaintiff filed a sex discrimination claim with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination ( MCAD ) claiming that she was subjected to disparate treatment as male officers have received less discipline for the same conduct (described above). In March of 2006, Plaintiff filed a detailed written 3

4 submission with the MCAD detailing her disparate treatment and specifically challenging as discriminatory the actions of then Superintendent Albert Goslin of the Department s Bureau of Internal Investigations ( BII ). 10. On April 19, 2006, Superintendent Goslin ordered Plaintiff to attend an investigatory interview at the Department s Internal Affairs Department ( IAD ), which is overseen by BII. Plaintiff asked for union representation at said meeting which request was denied by Defendant Goslin. On information and belief, no male police officer had ever been denied this representation. The Plaintiff and her Union filed a complaint directly with then Police Commissioner Kathleen O Toole and the Massachusetts Labor Relations Commission, as well as filed a grievance. 11. At said investigatory interview in April of 2006 Plaintiff was asked questions regarding whether she had worked more paid details than allowed under Departmental rules. After the interview Plaintiff heard nothing more about the issue for more than one year and assumed that the matter had been dropped. 12. In approximately May of 2006, Plaintiff spoke to an agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation regarding complaints that the Department s IAD headed by Superintendent Goslin was selectively enforcing disciplinary policies. Specifically, she asserted that certain officers who had committed severe misconduct in the department were not being disciplined while others who were willing to challenge Department actions through lawful means were being singled out for disciplinary punishment. 13. Months later in March of 2007, the Plaintiff was ordered to come in and meet with officials of the Department regarding her complaints to the FBI. It soon became apparent to the Plaintiff that the purpose of such investigation was to threaten 4

5 and intimidate her as a result of her having made such complaints to the FBI and departmental officials questioned her in a hostile and aggressive manner. 14. As of September of 2006, Defendant Goslin had been promoted to Acting Police Commissioner of the Boston Police Department. During that month Plaintiff s name along with two other officers were ranked at the top of the civil service promotional list for lieutenant in the Department. Each candidate had the same score on the civil service exam, and at the time the Department had no female lieutenants. 15. Nevertheless, Defendant Acting Police Commissioner Goslin selected one of the male candidates for lieutenant, even though, on information and belief, Plaintiff s qualifications and disciplinary record were superior to that of the selected candidate. 16. Plaintiff, with the assistance of her Union, challenged Defendant Acting Police Commissioner Goslin s failure to promote Plaintiff as constituting discrimination based on sex and retaliation for having filed a previous complaint of discrimination. 17. Shortly thereafter in October of 2006 Defendant Acting Police Commissioner Goslin formally imposed a suspension on the Plaintiff relating to the 2004 incident regarding the prisoner who died in custody as described in paragraph 8. However, shockingly, Defendant Goslin increased the penalty from the 45 days proposed in 2005 to nearly 90 days. Promptly, the Plaintiff and her Union challenged this discipline both on the merits and as being discriminatorily harsh. 18. As a result of her lengthy suspension the Plaintiff applied for and was granted unemployment benefits. The Boston Police Department appealed that award. 19. In December of 2006, upon returning to work from her suspension Defendant Acting Police Commissioner Goslin ordered Plaintiff to undergo a medical 5

6 examination and a psychiatric evaluation prior to her returning to work, even though such a medical and a psychiatric examination had never before been required of any officer returning from a disciplinary suspension for non-violent and non-willful misconduct. 20. Later in March of 2007 during the Department s appeal of Plaintiff s unemployment benefits Plaintiff was permitted at such unemployment hearing to crossexamine Defendant Goslin and other Department officials. The cross-examination became quite heated. 21. As of May of 2007, Plaintiff was ranked first on the promotional list for lieutenant and the Department was in the process of filling several vacancies. The new Boston Police Commissioner, Ed Davis, again bypassed Plaintiff for promotion. In the history of the Boston Police Department there have been virtually no promotional bypasses except where an individual has been charged with serious misconduct. Yet Plaintiff was bypassed notwithstanding the fact that she had an outstanding employment record and only one disciplinary action on record (which was still the subject of an appeal). Numerous male police officers have been promoted with far more serious disciplinary records. 22. When Plaintiff with the assistance of her union challenged the Defendant s bypass of the Plaintiff they were informed that the reason for bypass was because Plaintiff allegedly had outstanding charges relating to her having worked paid details in When Plaintiff, through her attorneys, promptly disputed the fact that she had any outstanding charges relating to the working of paid details, the Defendants 6

7 presented to the Plaintiff a complaint, dated more than one year ago, that neither Plaintiff nor her union had ever seen or been given notice of. 23. In August of 2007, the Defendant purported to sustain these charges, even though identical complaints lodged against male officers were not sustained at that time. Additionally, on August 17, 2007, the Department placed the Plaintiff on administrative duty purportedly based on these charges. The Department then released Plaintiff s discipline to the media prior to informing Plaintiff or her union. 24. As set forth above, the Defendants acting individually and in concert have a) discriminated against the Plaintiff with respect to her terms and conditions of employment based on her sex, and; b) retaliated against the Plaintiff because of her protected activity of asserting claims of discrimination against the Defendants with the MCAD, and; c) retaliated against the Plaintiff for her having brought complaints of improper conduct to the attention of the FBI, and; d) retaliated against by reason of her lawfully pursuing avenues of legal redress including filing grievances, unfair labor practices, and unemployment appeals. COUNT I (Retaliation M.G.L. ch.151b, 4) 25. The actions of the defendants, as set forth herein, constitute unlawful retaliation in violation of M.G.L. ch.151b, 4. 7

8 COUNT II (Discrimination M.G.L. ch.151b, 4) 26. The actions of the defendants, as set forth herein, constitute unlawful sex discrimination in violation of M.G.L. ch.151b, 4. COUNT III (Massachusetts Whistleblower Act) 27. The actions of the defendants as set forth above constitute a violation of the Massachusetts Whistleblower Act, Mass. Gen. L. c This claim is asserted pursuant to Mass. Gen. L. c (d). COUNT IV (M.G.L. ch.12, 11 and 12) 28. The actions of the defendants, as set forth herein, constitute a violation of the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act, M.G.L. ch.12, 11 and 12, in that the Defendants acting with threats, intimidation and coercion have deprived Plaintiff to rights of freedom of speech and freedom to redress grievances under the First Amendment of the US Constitution and Article XXI of the Constitution of the Commonwealth. COUNT V (Tortious Interference) 29. The actions of Defendant Goslin constitute tortious interference with the business relations of Plaintiff. 8

9 COUNT VI (Public Policy) 30. The actions of the Defendants as set forth above constitute unlawful adverse action in violation of public policy in that Plaintiff has been retaliated against for engaging in lawful activity to pursue her right to unemployment benefits. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies Plaintiff has filed her complaints of discrimination with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination and more than 90 days have elapsed JURY DEMAND The Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all of her claims. WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays this Honorable Court grant her back pay, front pay, lost benefits, lost overtime, lost details, emotional distress damages, punitive damages, compensatory and consequential damages, as well as attorney s fees and costs, and interest. 9

10 Respectfully submitted, JACQUELINE CREAVEN By her attorneys, Dated: August 21, 2007 Harold Lichten, BBO # Leah M. Barrault, BBO # Pyle, Rome, Lichten, Ehrenberg & Liss-Riordan, P.C. 18 Tremont St., Ste. 500 Boston, MA (617)