Case 3:14-cv-01013-BR Document 1 Filed 06/24/14 Page 1 of 7 Page ID#: 1 David J. Hollander, OSB #782452 Jovanna L. Patrick, OSB #111339 Hollander, Lebenbaum & Gannicott 1500 SW First Avenue, Suite 700 Portland, Oregon 97201-5825 Telephone: (503) 222-2408 Facsimile: (503) 222-0659 E-mail:david@hollanderlaw.com jovanna@hollanderlaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION RICH SNEATH, Case No.: 3:14-cv-1013 Plaintiff, v. CLACKAMAS COUNTY, Defendant. COMPLAINT (Unlawful Employment Practices) Jury Trial Demanded Prayer: $500,000.00 NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. This is an action brought under ORS 659A.030 and 42 U.S.C. 2000e et. seq. to redress discrimination, harassment and retaliation by Defendant against Plaintiff in terms and conditions of employment on the basis of religion. This is also an action brought under ORS 659A.199 to 1 -COMPLAINT
Case 3:14-cv-01013-BR Document 1 Filed 06/24/14 Page 2 of 7 Page ID#: 2 redress discrimination, harassment and retaliation by Defendant against Plaintiff in terms and conditions of employment for making a good faith report of information Plaintiff believed to be evidence of a violation of a state or federal law, rule or regulation. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2. This Court has jurisdiction over the federal law claims in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, which provides that the district courts shall have original jurisdiction in all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367, which provides that the district court shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy. 3. Venue is appropriate in this District because Defendant maintains a business in this District in, Plaintiff resides in this District and the acts complained of occurred in this District. PARTIES 4. Plaintiff, Rich Sneath, is an individual residing in the City of Sherwood, County of Washington, State of Oregon. At all material times, Plaintiff was a natural person within the class of persons to be protected under the various Federal and State laws at issue in this case. 2 -COMPLAINT
Case 3:14-cv-01013-BR Document 1 Filed 06/24/14 Page 3 of 7 Page ID#: 3 5. At all material times, Defendant, Clackamas County, was a municipal body in the State of Oregon and employed more than the minimum number of employees required under each of the laws at issue in this case. FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS 6. At all materials times, Plaintiff was been employed by Defendant in its Sheriffs Office as a deputy. 7. Plaintiff is Jewish. 8. In or about November 2012, Plaintiff made a good faith report of information he believed to be evidence of a violation of a state or federal law, rule or regulation. 9. Starting in or about December, 2012, Plaintiffs 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 the workplace. 3 -COMPLAINT
Case 3:14-cv-01013-BR Document 1 Filed 06/24/14 Page 4 of 7 Page ID#: 4 10. Plaintiff did not confirm the existence of the Facebook posts and workplace comments until on or about January 3, 2013. 11. On or about January 9, 2013, Plaintiff informed some co-workers of his knowledge of the Facebook posts and workplace comments. 12. On or about January 22, 2013, Undersheriff Kirby, Plaintiffs supervisor, informed him that he was aware of the Facebook posts, but Defendant failed to initiate an investigation and failed to take prompt effective remedial measures to address the Facebook posts and workplace comments. 13. On or about February 5, 2013, Plaintiff was threatened with discipline for discussing the Facebook posts in the workplace. 14. On or about April 17, 2013, Plaintiff learned that a co-worker had made anti-semitic comments in the workplace directed at Plaintiff, including but not limited to: a. "Hitler missed one"; b. Saying "Happy Holocaust Appreciation Day" in reference to Holocaust Remembrance Day; c. Substituting the word "Jew" for "you" when referring to Plaintiff. 4 -COMPLAINT
Case 3:14-cv-01013-BR Document 1 Filed 06/24/14 Page 5 of 7 Page ID#: 5 15. In or about April, 2013, Defendant initiated an investigation into the Facebook posts and workplace comments. Defendant failed to undertake the investigation in good faith and failed to take prompt effective remedial measures to remedy the discrimination and harassment. 16. During interviews for the investigation, Plaintiff was threatened with discipline up to and including termination. 17. On or about August 13, 2013, Defendant concluded its investigation and found that no violations were substantiated, despite the fact that the offending co-workers admitted to the Facebook posts and/or racial slurs. Defendant took no prompt effective remedial measures. 18. As a result of the forgoing, Plaintiff in entitled to compensatory damages in an amount that the jury will find to be fair but no more than $500,000.00. 19. Plaintiff is entitled to recover his reasonable attorneys' fees, expert witness fees and other costs of litigation. 20. To the extent applicable, Plaintiff has filed timely claims with BOLI and the EEOC and files this action within 90 days of Right to Sue Notices from each agency. 21. With regard to the state law claims, Plaintiff filed a timely Notice of Tort Claim with Defendant. 5 -COMPLAINT
Case 3:14-cv-01013-BR Document 1 Filed 06/24/14 Page 6 of 7 Page ID#: 6 22. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury. FIRST CLAIM (ORS 659A.030) 23. Some or all of the acts set forth above were in violation of ORS 659A.030, which, among other things, makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer, because of an individual's religion, to discriminate against the individual in compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges of employment. SECOND CLAIM (42 U.S.C. 2000e et. seq.) 24. Some or all of the acts set forth above were in violation of 42 U.S.C. 2000e, et. seq., which, among other things, makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against or to limit, segregate, or classify employees in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's religion. 6 -COMPLAINT
Case 3:14-cv-01013-BR Document 1 Filed 06/24/14 Page 7 of 7 Page ID#: 7 THIRD CLAIM (ORS 659A.199) 25. Some or all of the acts set forth above were in violation of ORS 659A.199, which prohibits discrimination against Plaintiff because he in good faith reported information that he believed was evidence of a violation of a state or federal law, rule or regulation. Wherefore, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendant consistent with the above claims for relief including: 1. Compensatory damages to be determined at trial but no more than $500,000.00; 2. Reasonable attorneys' fees; 3. Expert witness fees; 4. Costs and disbursements; and 5. Such other and further relief that the Court may award. Dated this 23rd day of June, 2014. Respectfully Submitted, HOLLANDER, LEBENBAUM & GANNICOTT /s/ David J. Hollander David J. Hollander, OSB #782452 Of Attorneys for Plaintiff 7 -COMPLAINT