Discrimination lawsuit against city of Bolivar and Bolivar PD (Chief Seibert now at Byrnes Mill)

7/29/2019 Discrimination lawsuit against city of Bolivar and Bolivar PD (Chief Seibert now at Byrnes Mill)

1/12

t), 03-15-' 12 09: 05 FROM -Polk C o Circuit Ct- . ( )41',1-326-4194 T-176 P0001/0020 F-2234-YIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF POLK COUNTY, MISSOuJ= iLED

AMANDA DARLENE BLAKEPlaintiff,vs.

THE CITY OF BOLl V A R,MISSOURI, A Missouri

I tJ ; l i : j W 1 i d p a l Corporation-,II. ~"1'.,-, "'iI. D " dN: elen ant..-' "". '..)~,} '>!io~1

~~ : '

P la in tif f a ll eges :

)))))))))))

2 f l iZ t J .A R I l j A 1 0 : 2 bV E S T A SEt~:f.RPOUI co. CIRCUiT C O U R T

Case No. I ';}.PD . . f!CJJ(j 015

PETITION

1. P rio r to th e filin g h ereo f, an d at all tim es m aterial h ereto, P lain tiff w as employ ed b yDefenda nt in its P olice Dep artmen t in November, 2 0 0 5 , th ro ug h an d in clu ding November 3 0,2010.?~. A t all tim es m aterial to th is action , P lain tiff w as th e o nly fem ale p olice o fficer employ edby Defendant .3. DUlin g th e co urse o f h er employmen t fo r D efend an t, P lain tiff w as sing led o ut an dsubject to disparate treatm ent by the Chief of Police of D efendant, C . M ichael Seibert, and am ajority ofthe other police officers of Defendant, in that:a. although a senior officer w ho w as m ale approved of m y arrest of four persons in a

d om estic v io len ce case in vo lv in g p hy sical v io len ce, in April 20 06 , P lain tiff w as th e o nly

officer d iscip lin ed after b ein g summon ed to C hief S eib ert's o ffice an d q uestion ed ab ou tth e fo ur a tT ests and durin g th is q ues tio nin g, C hief S eib ert ac cu se d P la in tiff o f b ein g

i 1 "badge heavy" and another officer w ho had been present w as told by the C hief that ifhe

I


2/12

w'_ 03-15-' 12 09: 05 FROM-Polk Co Circuit Ct /J T-176 P0002 /0 020 F -223C)would tell the C hief that P laintiff had told him to arrest the people, he could leave theoffice, which the officer refused so to do, and this incident resulted in Plaintiff beinggiven a three day suspension without pay and placed on an additional period ofprobation;and;

b. Chief S eib ert d iscip lin ed P lain tiff fo r m ak in g a p hy sical arrest o f a moto rist w ho had tw op rio r d riv in g o n su sp en ded/revo ked licen ses, th e arrest being fo r a felo ny , fo r th e th irdo ffe nse qua lify in g th e moto rist fo r clas sitlca tio n as a p ersis te nt o ffen de r; a nd

c. In A pril of2006 Plaintiff had been instructed to try to fit in m ore w ith the m ale officers,and to have a cam araderie w ith them and to socialize and joke around w ith them , thecomplaint apparently having been made that she had been too stiff and rigid in herco nd uct w hen sh e w as aro un d th e o th er o fficers, w ith ou t an y sp ecific sug gestio ns toPlaintiff as to how she w as supposed to accom plish this feat; and

d. Sho rtly after th at in stru ctio n, P la in tiffre ce iv ed doc umen te d w ritte n coun se lin g byL t.P ark s fo r jo kin g w ith ano th er o fficer an d as a resu lt of co nv ersatio ns sh e w as h av in gw ith other officers, w hile trying to "fit in" w ith them ; and

e, P laintiff w as b ein g accu sed o f in stru ctin g o fficers to w rite tick ets to p eo ple lik e p izzadelivery drivers (w ithout the needed class of driver's license to be able to drive as a pizzadelivery person) and people who were using dealer plates illegally; and she was requiredto au th or an d su bm it an Interdep artm en tal C ommun ication (tOC) to th e comman d staff

explaining the conversations that had taken place, in which she explained that since herp articu lar ex pertise w as in traffic m atters, sh e m erely h ad b een answ erin g q uestio ns o fother officers asto w hat she had done and that she w as not instructing anyone to do

?


3/12

417--:326-4194 T-176 P0003/0020 F-22303-15-'12 09:05 FROM-Polk Co Circuit Cty, () r . }'\ J

an yth in g an d th at sh e w as m erely try in g to h elp o fficers w ith q uestio ns th ey h ad abo utcertain issu es w ith law , an d P lain tiff is info rn led an d b eliev es th at th e ev iden ce to b eadduced at the trial of this cause and in discovery will support a finding that nO maleofficers were questioned about statements they had made in answer to questions &omother officers about procedure or w hen they should or should not take action; and

Wh ile work in g a traffic g ran t P laintiff h ad sto pp ed a m ale su bject fo r failin g to sig nal o nth re e s ep ara te o cc as io ns while P lain tiff was in tra ffic b eh in d th is su bje ct. P la in tiff mad em y contact w ith the driver and gave him a w arning w hich w as usual in her traffic grantw ork. A fter she retnrned to the police dep3\1m ent to use the restroom , the Chief saw her,and asked her to step into the break room , w hereupon he asked her, "W hat have I told youabout m ickey m ouse stops?" and referenced "S topping people for not using a turn .

sig nal." E ven th ou gh sh e ex plain ed th at she w as o n a traffic g ran t th at req uired th reetraffic stops per hour [w here the C ity got additional m oney to pay for the grant and thegrant conditions had to be satisfied to keep the grant] and this w as the third m inim umstops in an hour, the Chief warned her, that she didn't need to be stopping people for sucha sim ple violation and to use her head. N o m ale officers during m y tenure w ereco un seled for d oin g th eir jo b o n traffic g ran ts an d sto pp in g p eo ple fo r m ov in g v iolatio ns;an d

g. In 2006 or 2007, Plaintiff had observed a black in color Ford M ustang w ith no licenseplates, and stopped the vehicle for the violation. Upon stopping the vehicle she learnedthat the lady driving the vehicle had received the vehicle as a gift that B ill G rant Ford hadgiven her and stated that she had just picked the vehicle up. Plaintiff explained to the


4/12

, 03-15-'12 09:06 FROM-Polk Co Circuit Ct() 41','-326-4194 T-176 P0004/0020 F-223\,J

woman that she needed to have some fornl oflicense 011her vehicle and explained hero ptio ns, an d issu ed a w arnin g. L ater w hen P laintiff w as at th e p olice statio n, C hiefSeibert w as com ing dow n the hall and he saw Plaintiff in the squad rO om and stopped andqu estio ned h er ab out th e traffic sto p. S om eo ne h ad ap paren tly called h im an dcomp lain ed . C hief S eib ert b eg an y ellin g at P lain tiff an d ask ed if sh e rem embered what h ehad told her about m aking "bullshit stops." Plaintiff explained that there was a violationand that I checked it out, and had only given the driver a w arning. T he next day P laintiffbrought in her video and handed it to C apt.V an T assell and explained w hat had occurredthe night before and asked him to review the video and w as told that he found no w rongdoing on her part; and

h. P lain tiff had b een d iscip lin ed fo r allowin g a ro okie th at she w as trainin g to u se th e rad io ,and the rookie w as taken from her and given to a m ale officer to train, and the m aleofficer allowed the rookie to use the radio the same as Plaintiff had done, but W aS n otdisciplined in any m anner; and

i. When Plaintiff was counseled and disciplined for the above m atter, during that session,she was blind-sided with allegations concerning other matters, of which she bad no noticeand about w bich she had never received any com plaints, or inform ation that there w assom e sort of a com plaint about her conduct and w ithout there being a form al w rittencomplain t w hich w as req uired u nd er th e po licy of th e D efen dan t's P olice D ep artm ent;

andJ. P lain tiff w as v erb ally co un seled fo r sittin g in the sq uad ro om an d d iscu ssin g oth er

o ffice rs, d ep artmen ts . d isp atc h etc., a nd a fte r s he ch alle ng ed th is c ounse lin g, b y b rin gin g4


5/12

03-15-'12 09:06 FROM -Polk Co Circuit Ct 4:17-:326-4194 T-176 P0005 /0 020 F -223. , ( )()

up the fact that everyone did thc same and that none of the male officers involved in thediscussions were counseled on this, or cautioned not to do it, and after she asked why shewas the only one being questioned and w ritten up for this conduct, the issue w as dropped;and

k. In 2 00 7, th e comman d staff d ecid ed to g iv e o fficers, of th eir ch oo sing , sen io r o fficerstatus, w ithout there being any established criteria or guidelines for the choice, which wasleft so lely to th e u nb ridled d iscretio n o f th e sen io r o fficers. T he p urpo se o f th is w as sothat when a corporal or above is not present there is someone there with supervisoryauthority. Plaintiff had been passed over for this title several tim es by officers that havemuch less experience than she had, i.e., approximately 10 years in law enforcement at thetim e and an instrnctor w ith the M issouri Sheriffs A cadem y, Even though she had m oreexperience, she had never been offered to be a senior officer with this department andofficers w ere prom oted w ho had less than 3 to 4 years of experience and all w ere m aleoff icer s; and

I. A fter P lain tiff w as n ot n am ed to th e sen io r o fticer statu s, th e p olicies w ere ch an ged sothat noone can be promoted to corporal without first being a senior officer and Plaintiff isinformed and believes that the evidence to be adduced at the trial of this case and ind isco very w ill su pp ort a fin din g th at th is chan ge h ap pen ed to p rev en t m e from attain in gany further rank, due to her sex, fem ale; and

m. In O ctober of 2009, Plaintiff and a m ale officer had been asked in the fall of2009, if shewanted to go into investigations. Plaintiff turned it down stating that she liked being onthe road and that investigations is not w here she w anted her career path to go. In O ctober

5


6/12

. 03-15-'12 09:07 FROM -Polk Co Circuit Ct 4:.7-:'2:6-4194 T-176 P0006/0020 F-223() ; J

of2009, a m ale subject by the nam e of C harles M ashburn had com e. to the policedepartm ent and m ade several com plaints about officers m istreating him . Plaintiff was Onh olid aywhen th is in cid en t su pp osed ly h ad occU lT ed a nd sh e cou ld n ot h av e b een p resen tas she w as not at w ork. W hen Plaintiff cam e back to w ork feliow co-w orkers told herthat M ashbUlll went to the police department and infonned her that her name was broughtup and that he had complained to the Chief about Plaintif( That following MondayPlaintiff was called into Chief Seibert's oftlce and told that she was being placed intoinvestigations. Chief Seibert stated that the transfer would take place in 2 weeks. Plaintiff

asked w hy she w as being m ade to go into investigations w hen she had turned it dow n.C hief Seibert stated, "B ecause I said so and that's the w ay it's going to be." C hief S eibertalso m ad e several referen ces th at "this is n ot a pu nishmen t." C hief S eib ert nev er ask edPlaintiff about the M ashburn incident or gave her an opportunity to give m y side of w hathappened w ith the contact. Plaintiff did however tell Capt.Van Tassell and Lt.Parks thatPlaintiff! had heard about M ashburn com plaining about her and that she didn't knowwhy he would because it had been at least a year to a year and a half since I had stoppedhim . N othing else w as ever said or asked about it; and

n. In O ctober of201O , P laintiff had a Ineeting w ith C hief Seibert and explained to him thatshe was unhappy in investigations and that she wanted to return to the road. Chief Seihertstated that everyone is in their positions because it is what is best for the department. He

stated that he needed a woman in investigations so that someone could relate to femalevictims. Chief Seibert stated that he was not going to move anyone anywhere. A fewweeks later Lt.P arks asked m e ifC apt.V an Tassell or L t.Sharp had spoken w ith m e.

6


7/12

. 03-15-' 1 2 0 9 : 0 8 F R O ~ I - P o lk C o Circuit C t 4 2 7 - 3 2 6 - 4 1 9 4 T - 1 7 6 P 0 0 0 7 /0 0 2 0 F - 2 2 3(') ; J

P lain tiff stated n o. L t.P ark s to ld her th at C pl.R oss, w ho w as o nce in in vestig atio ns, h adgone to the captain and lieutenant and expressed that he w as unhappy being on the road asa co rp oral an d th at h e w ish ed to retu rn to in vestig atio ns. L t.P ark s to ld P lain tiff thatCpl.Ross had told them that he would resign his position as corporal and even give up thesupervisor pay to return to investigations. L t.Parks then inform ed Plaintiff that "they"w ere talking of putting her on the road tw o days a w eek, one day of adm in, and tw o daysin in ves tig atio ns . P la in tiff was in fo lT ne d th at th is p ro bab ly wou ld n't ta ke p lac e till th efirst of the year. L t.Parks also stated that he felt that "they" should give her a chance. H edid not elaborate on w hat he m eant by that statem ent; and

0, Plaintiff w as told on one occasion by other staff that C hiefhad taken the phone call fromthe female who had been a passenger in a car Plaintiff had stopped, and that he had comeout of his office yelling about Plaintiff, that he was going to fire her and that this was it,as he w as tired of her enforcing the traffic law s, This w as all said and done before theC hief had talked to P laintiff about the conversation from the w om an w ho called him , orasked any questions as to w hat w as going on; and

p. In Septem ber or O ctober of2010, Cpl Ross had bought a new phone, and he, ChiefSeibel1, C p l Ros s, L t.Sha rp , Cap t.Van Tas se ll, O fc .Hend ric kson , L t.Park s and P la in tif fw ere present in a restaurant eating lunch.. C pl.R oss w as looking up nam es of people on'the phone w ith urban dictionary. H e w as reading the definitions out loud in a very audiblevoice and they were quite profane and vulgar in nature. No one counseled with Cpl. Rossor tried to stop him from continuing his vulgar tirade, and no one ever m entioned thatPlaintiff, a woman, was present and that it m ight be inappropriate to utter such verbage in

7

,.~':,


8/12

. 03-15-'12 09:08 FROM -Polk Co Circuit Ct()

".

417--326-4194 T-176 P0008/0020 F-223

her presence. There w ere other patrons in the restaurant and were within hearing distancefo r th e p ro fanity an d v ulg ar lan gu age; an d

q. P lain tiff w as term in ated alleg edly o n accou nt o f m y lan gu ag e, n ot co op eratin g w ith th ein vestig atio n an d sex ual h arassm en t, an d fo r co nd uct u nb ecomin g an o fficer, o ver m ylan gu ag e an d co nd uct; an d

r. In the fall of2010, after P laintiff w as m ade aw are ofC pl.R oss's intentions to com e backto investigations Plaintiff was called into the office and told by Cpl. Ross and Cpl. Barronand to ld th at sh e h ad a fO lm al comp lain t w ritten ag ain st m e fo r h arassm en t. P lain tiff w asnot to ld th e p articu lar a lleg atio ns e ven th ough P la in tiff ask ed what th ey were . P la in tiffasked w ho the com plainant w as and w as told that they w ere not going to discnss it that itw as und er in ves tig atio n; an d

s, Plaintiff was called into the office of 11-17 -10 by USharp, who gave her paperwork witha summary o f th e alleg atio ns an d in fO lm ed h er th at sh e w as o n admin istrativ e leav e, w ithpay, until further notice, and after she twice asked who the complainant was. Lt.Sharp didt el l her ; and

t. In N ovem ber, 2010 w hile at lunch C hief Seibert had com e in after interview s for theanim al control offi,er position and he w as asked by som e of the officers, how thein terv iew s w ere gQ in g an d if an yo ne lo ok ed h ireab le, w hereu po n C hief S eib ert m ade th ecomment that he w as hesitant to hire a fem ale for the position because fem ales have beensuch a problem in the past; and

u. In Nov ember, 2 010 O fc.P alm er an d P lain tiff h ad retriev ed som e B usch b eer to d estroy .A s she w as w alking out of the squad room Plaintiff m ade the comment that sheI hated to

8


9/12

T-176 P0009/0020 F-2233-15-' 12 09: 09 FROM-Polk C o Circuit ;~t()

pour out beer, but that it was Busch and she didn't like Busch. Ofc.Coots looked up ftomhis com puter and stated, "T hat's not w hat I heard" and began laughing. T his w as a sexualcommen t, w hich w as d irected to P lain tiff, d ue to her Jess th an "classic" fem inin e loo ks.D uring her em ploym ent for D efendant, she had been "ribbed" by the g u y s in the pastab ou t h omosex uality , an d they m ad e commen ts in sin uating th at sh e w as a lesb ian o r h avelesbian desires. Despite the fact that Plaintiff is a heterosexual fem ale, and that it isknown that she is, Plaintiff took the "ribbing" and just joked back with them despite thathaving hurt feelings and despite the knowledge On the pat'! of the male officers that that it

bothers and upset her; andv. T he C hief and adm inistrators knew of this conduct and did nothing to prevent this

c onduct; a ndw. Male officers have been allow ed to break policy and the law w ithout being term inated or

w ith out an y co nseq uen ces at all, to w it: 1,.~.. in 2 00 4/2 00 5 S gt,M ag ill w as in vo lv ed in a domestic v io len ce in cid en t w ith h is.w ife. Charges were dropped, but the domestic was physical in nature and there arep ho to s o f th e in cid en t; an d

ii. In 2009/2010 Ofc.Hendricksol1 pulled his duty weapon from his holster andpointed it at another officer, and he was only given a suspension without pay; and

iii. In 2 00 8 O fC ,C oats h ad an activ e ex p aJ'!e o rd er o f pro tectio n ag ainst him , and p er

SOG he w as supposed to tnrn his duty w eapon in every night and not beinpossession of it unless on duty. W hile O fc.Coats w as under suspension forv io latio n o f ano th er p olicy P lain tiff saw h im at a g am e in B uffalo , M isso uri

9


10/12

03-15-'12 09:09 FROM-Polk Co C ircuit Ct T-176 P0010/0020 F-2231'7--32:}-4194()

wearing his duty w eapon and badge. L t.Parks w as also at this gam e and. c ould nothave helped but see Ofc,Coats in possession of his weapon; and

lV . altho ug h it is a vio latio n o f p olicy fo r comman d staff to fratern ize w ithsub ord in ates, O fc.C oats w as liv in g w ith C ap t.V an T assell w hile emplo yed at thepolice department.

x. Even though Plaintiff was tenninated allegedly for sexual harassm ent and conductunbecom ing an officer, the Chief of Police, the adm inistrative officers and m ale policeo fficers all v iew ed n ak ed p ictu res th at w ere p assed aro und b y th e o fficers, o f a fem aleemployee of Defendant who took photos of herse1f on her cell phone.and sent themaround to various persons, and none of the police personnel were in any mannerdisciplined for dissem inating the nude photos; and

y. The tennin atio n o f th e P la in tiff fo r h er la nguag e, a ctio ns and a lle ged se xu al h ara ssmen to ccu rred after sh e h ad b een in stru cted b y L t.(C ap tain )V an T assell and C hief S eib ert thatshe needed to socialize and joke m ore w ith the "guys" and have a cam araderie w ith them ,however, when she did, her conversations and opinions would be brought into the spot.lig ht an d th en sh e wou ld re-,eiv e a w rite u p, verb al co un seling or some k in d o f d iscip lin e,Her commanded attempts to "just be one of the guys" to fit in and to develop acama rad erie w ith male o ffice rs led to th e d isp ara te re aso n fo r h er ten nin atio n.

4. The co nd uct d escrib ed h erein befo re co nstituted a h ostile w ork en viro nm en t an d w asdesigned by C hief S eibert, and the supervisory personnel of the D efendant to m ake the w orkenviro nmen t fo r P la in tiff so unp le as an t, th at P la in tiff wou ld volu ntarily re sig n h er emp loymen t.5. On Nov ember 3 0, 2 01 0, D efen dan t, th ro ug h its C hief o f P olice tenn in ated .,'1',

10


11/12

.W"~i '

-"~

03-15-'12 09:10 FROM-Polk Co Circuit Ct 41'1-326-4194 T-176 P0011/0020 F-223C)

P laintiff as th e d irect resu lt o f th e d iscrim in ato ry an im us h e an d it h eld fo r P lain tiff d ue to h ersex.6. Plaintiff is informed and believes that the evidence that will be produced at the trial ofth is cau se w ill d emon strate b y a p rep ond eran ce o f th e ev id ence th at th e alleg ed reaso ns fo rP laintiffs term in atio n as a P olice O fficer fo r D efen dan t are w ith ou t m erit an d are u ntrue an d th atth e sam e were m an ufactu red b y said C hief S eib rt, and th e su pervisO lY p erso nn el o f th eD efen dan t's P olice D ep artm en t to ten uinate P lain tiffs em plo ym en t w ith it, o n acco unt o f h ers ex , i.e ., a female .7. Defendant has thereby discrim inated against Plaintiff on account of her sex, i.e" female,8. P lain tiff h as a righ t to action u nd er R SMo. S ectio n 2 13 .1 11 .9. On Or about May 13, 2011, Plaintiff timely filed with the M issouri Commission onHuman Rights, a Charge of Discrim ination, a true copy of which is attached as Exhibit I.

10. On January 12, 2012, the M issouri C ommission on H um an R ights issned its N oticc ofRight to Sue, a true copy of w hich is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.11. As th e direct an d p ro xim ate result o f th e con du ct of D efend an t referred to herein , P lain tiffw as dam aged by the loss of her em ploym ent, loss of w ages, loss of seniority in her em ploym ent,lo ss o f h ealth in su ran ce b en efits, an d is en titled to fro nt p ay an d w ill su ffer th e in ab ility to workin the future due to the actions of the D efendant, in that D efendant w ill provide infonnation inreferen ce fo rm to p ro sp ectiv e emplo yers th at th e P lain tiff w as term in ated du e to th e v iolatio n o fth e work rules and reg ulation s o f th e D efen dant, an d P lain tiff h as also su ffered ex trem e m en talan gu ish , p ain an d su fferin g an d emotio nal d istress from the treatm en t sh e h as receiv ed as

II

i


12/12

03-15-'12 09:10 FROM -Polk Co Circuit Ct T-176 P0012/0020 F-223: l 7 - : ~ : : 2 e - 4 1 9 4.. , (1d es cr ib ed h er ein .

12. P lain tiffh as in cu rred th e serv ices o f an atto rn ey in th is action an d is en titled to reco ver

h er rea so nab le a tto rn ey fe es in conn ectio n w ith th e p ro sec utio n o f th is a ctio n.WHEREFORE, P lain tiff p ray s ju dgmen t in h er fav or and ag ain st D efen dan t as fo llows:

a, That Plaintiff be reinstated in her em ploym ent w ith D efendant, retroactive toNovembe r 30,2010;

b. In a just and reasonable amount as and for compensatory datnages she hassuffered as a result of her term ination of her em ploym ent w ith D efendant on N ovem ber 3D , 2010;

c. That Plaintiff be aw arded her reasonable attorney fees incurred herein and thatco sts o f ac tio n b e ta xed a gain st Defendan t;

d. For such other and further relief as the Court deem s appropriate under thesepremises.

R ichard D . C lites A ttorney at L aw , LLC302 9B E ast S un shin e S t.Spr ingf ie ld , M is sour i 65804417-887-8351

" .i _11:11,By R ich ard D . C rites

At torney for P la in ti ffM isso uri B arN o. 2 86 19

.'.,

12

Discrimination lawsuit against city of Bolivar and Bolivar PD (Chief Seibert now at Byrnes Mill)

Documents

Transcript of Discrimination lawsuit against city of Bolivar and Bolivar PD (Chief Seibert now at Byrnes Mill)