Case 1:11-cv JTN Doc #1 Filed 10/04/11 Page 1 of 10 Page ID#1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

Transcription

1 Case 1:11-cv JTN Doc #1 Filed 10/04/11 Page 1 of 10 Page ID#1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN MARK LASTER, vs. Plaintiff, CITY OF KALAMAZOO, a municipal corporation, and Tom Hemmingway, Brian Uridge, Linda Wetmore, Vernon Coakley and Jeffrey Vanderwiere, In their individual capacities, Defendants. AMOS E. WILLIAMS (P39118) THOMAS E. KUHN (P37924) AMOS E. WILLIAMS, P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiff 615 Griswold, Suite 515 Detroit, Michigan (313) COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND NOW COMES the Plaintiff, Mark Laster, by his attorneys, Amos E. Williams and Thomas E. Kuhn, and for his Complaint against the Defendants says: PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. The Plaintiff was at all times pertinent an African American resident of Kalamazoo County, Michigan. 2. Defendant City of Kalamazoo is and at all times pertinent was a municipal corporation located in Kalamazoo County, Michigan, operating pursuant to and subject to the Laws of the State of Michigan and the United States. 1

2 Case 1:11-cv JTN Doc #1 Filed 10/04/11 Page 2 of 10 Page ID#2 3. Individual Defendants Tom Hemmingway, Brian Uridge, Linda Wetmore, Vernon Coakley and Jeffrey Vanderwiere were at all times employed by the City of Kalamazoo, and acting in their individual capacities as city employees. 4. Plaintiff s cause of action arises under federal law, specifically the Title VII of the Federal Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-3(a), 48 USC 1983, and state law, Elliott Larsen Civil Rights Act (CRA). 5. Plaintiff s cause of action arose on September 2, 2010, when he was discriminated against, retaliated against and constructively terminated from his employment. 6. The events giving rise to this complaint occurred within Kalamazoo County Michigan. 7. The Kalamazoo Public Safety Department has a long history of discrimination against minorities both on the department and in the community. 8. During , the Plaintiff filed several complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission complaining of racial discrimination, retaliation and discrimination in the terms of employment, arising out of actions taken against him by the City of Kalamazoo. 9. The EEOC determined in an investigation that here were reasons to believe Plaintiff s civil rights were violated. 10. The Defendant City of Kalamazoo refused to resolve the claims through the conciliation process compelling the Commission to forward the charges (numbers and ) to the Department of Justice, who in turn 2

3 Case 1:11-cv JTN Doc #1 Filed 10/04/11 Page 3 of 10 Page ID#3 issued the Plaintiff a Right to Sue letter. 11. The City of Kalamazoo Department of Public Safety, suspended the Plaintiff for two days because of a 2010 memorandum Jeffrey Vanderwiere wrote, accusing the Plaintiff of being rude in a meeting; however a white officer also accused of being rude in the same meeting was never disciplined in any way. 12. The Plaintiff filed a charge of racial discrimination and retaliation and the discipline was vacated because the disparate treatment could not be justified. 13. The Plaintiff was singled out by the department because of race and he was retaliated against because he had filed charges with the EEOC. 14. The Plaintiff also suffered racist slurs by the people for whom and with whom he worked and despite complaints, the Defendant City took no action to stop the racist conduct. 15. On May 26, 2010, the Plaintiff participated in a training exercise, which lasted several hours and forgot to service some equipment used during the training. 16. The Plaintiff was not aware of this equipment servicing issue until weeks later when the Plaintiff was informed that Defendant Hemmingway was pushing for discipline on this minor issue. 17. A co-worker reported the Plaintiff s oversight to supervision and the co-worker subsequently stated that he was told by Defendant Coakley to report anything he saw the plaintiff doing wrong to a supervisor immediately so that the Plaintiff could be written up. 18. The same co-worker was also involved in providing information in the above referenced 2-day suspension based on rudeness. 3

4 Case 1:11-cv JTN Doc #1 Filed 10/04/11 Page 4 of 10 Page ID#4 19. Defendant Coakley was the Inspector of Professional Standards and was in a position to subject the Plaintiff to unwarranted discipline. 20. Defendant Coakley s campaign against the Plaintiff involved another incident where he improperly lowered the Plaintiff s performance evaluation (8 months after the fact) but was forced to change it back after the Plaintiff filed a complaint. 21. Kalamazoo Central High School entered and won an on-line contest, to have the President of the United States Barack Obama speak at their June 7, 2010 commencement. Prior to the event, a Secret Service agent gave the Plaintiff four complementary tickets to the commencement. 22. Prior to attending the event, the Plaintiff ascertained from a Western Michigan Public Safety Officer a permissible parking location. 23. On June 7, 2010 the Plaintiff attended the commencement along with his wife and two daughters on the campus of Western Michigan University and parked in the location previously indicated by the Public Safety Officer. 24. Although the Plaintiff observed and spoke to Defendant Hemmingway when he parked his car, there was no conversation of any substance but the defendant later wrote a false report stating that when challenged over parking in that area the plaintiff responded with profanity and refused to move his car. 25. Two weeks after the commencement, Defendant Wetmore had an accident report prepared claiming that the Plaintiff while parking his vehicle damaged a police car in a hit & run accident. 26. The Defendant City later published and leaked false memoranda to the press claiming that at this presidential event, the Plaintiff went to the wrong entrance at 4

5 Case 1:11-cv JTN Doc #1 Filed 10/04/11 Page 5 of 10 Page ID#5 the commencement so drunk that he could barely stand, presumably while armed, and that he crashed his vehicle into a police car, and that he tried to make an unauthorized entry. 27. Two months after the commencement the Plaintiff was notified of a pretermination hearing. 28. The Plaintiff retired only because he was told by the City of Kalamazoo Department of Human Resources, that he would not get a pension, and he would not have any health insurance if he were terminated. 29. Months after his last day worked, information regarding the Plaintiff s termination was released to the press by the City of Kalamazoo along with false and defamatory comments claiming that the plaintiff violated federal law, was intoxicated, that he left the scene of an accident and that he had been disciplined 20 times. 30. The Defendant City also released to the press (which published it) personal information like the Plaintiff s home address, his wife s name, and his mother-inlaw s name. 31. This campaign of hyper-scrutiny and retaliation was a result of racial discrimination and the Plaintiff filing charges with the EEOC because of that racial discrimination and retaliation. 32. The Plaintiff seeks damages in excess of Twenty-five Thousand Dollars ($25,000). 5

6 Case 1:11-cv JTN Doc #1 Filed 10/04/11 Page 6 of 10 Page ID#6 COUNT I VIOLATION OF ELLIOTT LARSEN CIVIL RIGHTS ACT 33. Plaintiff re-alleges all prior paragraphs. 34. On or about 1987, Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant. 35. In June through September, 2010, Plaintiff was discriminated against by his employer based on race and because of retaliation for prior complaints of racial discrimination. 36. Plaintiff had performed his duties without problems for years before being terminated. 37. The Plaintiff is an African-American male and was deliberately treated differently and worse than similarly situated white males for the same or similar conduct. 38. The Plaintiff s constructive discharge and other adverse job actions by the Defendant, based upon racial discrimination and retaliation constitute unlawful employment practices under the Michigan Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act. 39. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant s wrongful conduct, the Plaintiff suffered injury and damages including, but not limited to: a. loss of earnings and earning potential, past and future; b. fringe and seniority benefits, past and future; c. the right to pursue gainful employment without discrimination; d. humiliation, anxiety and embarrassment. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendant for whatever amount a jury shall determine based upon the evidence, together with interest, costs, attorney fees and all other remedies available under the statute. 6

7 Case 1:11-cv JTN Doc #1 Filed 10/04/11 Page 7 of 10 Page ID#7 COUNT II VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. 2000e-3(a) ET. SEQ. 40. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all prior paragraphs as though fully again set forth herein. 41. Plaintiff has and had rights under 42 U.S.C. 2000e-3(a) et. seq. commonly known as Title VII. 42. In June through September, 2010, Plaintiff was discriminated against by his employer because of retaliation for prior complaints and because of racial discrimination. 43. Plaintiff had performed his duties without problems for years before being terminated. 44. The Plaintiff is an African-American male and he was treated differently and worse than similarly situated white males for the same or similar conduct. 45. The Plaintiff s termination and other adverse job actions by the Defendants, based upon racial discrimination and retaliation constitute unlawful employment practices under Title VII. 46. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants wrongful conduct, the Plaintiff suffered injury and damages including, but no limited to: a. loss of earnings and earning potential, past and future; b. fringe and seniority benefits, past and future; 7

8 Case 1:11-cv JTN Doc #1 Filed 10/04/11 Page 8 of 10 Page ID#8 c. the right to pursue gainful employment without discrimination; d. humiliation, anxiety and embarrassment. 47. The Plaintiff had the following clearly established rights under that federal law: a. to be free from racial discrimination; b. to be free from retaliation, discharge, or any other manner of discrimination for opposing any practice made unlawful by Title VII; c. to be free from interference with the exercise of employee rights under the Title VII. 48. The Defendants individual conduct violated each of these rights. 49. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Defendants, Plaintiff suffered injuries and damages as set forth hereinabove. 50. The Plaintiff has completed all prerequisites necessary to maintain this action. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendants for whatever amount a jury shall find them entitled including punitive damages, together with interest, costs, and attorney fees and any other remedy allowable under all applicable provisions of law including 42 U.S.C. 2000e-3(a). COUNT III VIOLATION OF 42 USC Plaintiff incorporates all prior paragraphs as though fully again set forth herein. 52. The Defendants conduct, in their individual capacity, was objectively unreasonable. 53. The Plaintiff had the following clearly established rights under the U.S. Constitution and laws of the United States:

9 Case 1:11-cv JTN Doc #1 Filed 10/04/11 Page 9 of 10 Page ID#9 a. To be free from retaliation for protected speech; b. To due process of law, and c. To equal protection of the law. 54. The Defendants individual conduct violated each of these rights. 55. The Defendants' individual conduct was pursuant to a practice of the Defendant CITY which turns a blind eye towards the retaliation for protected speech and other unconstitutional conduct by its officers. 56. The Defendant CITY, with actual knowledge of the injuries to the plaintiff, refused to investigate this matter or to punish the individual Defendants for their unlawful conduct. 57. The Defendant CITY on other occasions, and as a long standing practice, fails to investigate, train and punish discrimination and retaliation for protected speech by its officers. 58. The Defendant City failed to train supervisors to recognize protected speech and retaliation for protected speech. 59. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Defendants, in their individual and official capacities, Plaintiff suffered injuries and damages as set forth hereinabove. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendants for whatever amount a jury shall find them entitled including punitive damages, together with interest, costs, and attorney fees under all applicable provisions of law including 42 USC 1988.

10 Case 1:11-cv JTN Doc #1 Filed 10/04/11 Page 10 of 10 Page ID#10 COUNT IV PUNITIVE DAMAGES 60. Plaintiff incorporates all prior paragraphs as though fully again set forth herein. 61. The conduct of the individual Defendants was at all times deliberate, willful and malicious. 62. The individual Defendants misused the authority of their respective offices for the purpose of causing injury to the Plaintiff. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands a judgment of punitive damages against the individual defendants, and each of them. JURY DEMAND NOW COMES Plaintiff, by and through his attorneys, AMOS E. WILLIAMS, P.C., and demands trial of his cause by jury. AMOS E. WILLIAMS, P.C. _/s Amos E. Williams /_ Amos E. Williams (P39118) Thomas E. Kuhn (P37924) Attorneys for Plaintiff 615 Griswold, Suite 515 Detroit, Michigan (313) Dated: October 3, 2011