STATE OF MICHIGAN

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF GENESEE

KAREN DOMBROWSKI
Plaintiff,

Case No.:
Honorable:

CD

v.
GENESEE COUNTY,
GENESEE COUNTY ANIMAL CONTROL,
PAUL WALLACE, an individual, both
Individually and his role as Director of Genesee
County Animal Control;
Defendants.
_______________________________________________________________________/
BURGESS SHARP & GOLDEN, PLLC
Attorneys for Plaintiff
By: Heidi T. Sharp, P69641
43260 Garfield, Suite 280
Clinton Township, MI 48038
(586) 226-2627
Heidi@bsglawfirm.com
______________________________________________________________________ /

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

There is no other pending or resolved civil action arising out of the
transaction or occurrence alleged in the complaint.

________________________________
Heidi T. Sharp

NOW COMES Plaintiff, Karen Dombrowski, by and through her attorneys, Burgess
Sharp & Golden PLLC for her Complaint against Genesee County, Genesee County

Animal Control and Paul Wallace, an individual and in his role as Director of Genesee
County Animal Control states the following:

1.

Plaintiff is a resident of the City of St. Clair Shores, County of Macomb,

Michigan.

2.

Defendant Genesee County is a county organized under the laws of the

State of Michigan and governed by the Genesee County Board of
Commissioners.

3.

Defendant Genesee County Animal Control is a division of Genesee

County and is authorized and controlled by the Genesee County Board of
Commissioners.

4.

Defendant Paul Wallace, was appointed the Interim Director of the

Genesee County Animal Control by the Genesee County Board of
Commissioners on or about January 7, 2015.

5.

At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Wallace was employed by and an

appointed employee in a directorship position of Genesee County.

6.

Defendant Wallace is a resident of the State of Michigan and at all

material times was an agent of Defendant Genesee County within the
meaning of MCLA 15.361(b), MSA 17.428(1)(b) in that he had the power
to terminate Plaintiff.

7.

The events giving rise to this cause of action occurred in the City of Flint,
County of Genesee, Michigan.

8.

The amount in controversy exceeds $25,000, exclusive of interest, costs,

and attorney fees.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
9.

Plaintiff was hired by Genesee County on or about January 7, 2015 via

resolution passed by the Genesee County Board of Commissioners on or
about that same date.

10.

Plaintiff was hired to be the Deputy Animal Control Director, a newly

created position within the County.

11.

Plaintiffs role was to oversee the Animal Control Department, in

conjunction with Director Paul Wallace.

12.

Plaintiff has decades of experience in animal control and welfare and in

addition is a certified animal control officer (ACO), is certified in
euthanasia by injection by the American Humane Association, and FEMA
certified regarding animals in disaster.

13.

In her new role Plaintiff was tasked with assessing the needs of the animal
control department, managing employees, volunteers, ACOs and kennel
staff, and ensuring that all state and federal guidelines and applicable
policies are followed regarding animal control and welfare.

14.

Shortly after beginning in her position, within the first two weeks of her
employment, Plaintiff learned of various practices and actions within the
Animal Control department which were in violation of state and federal
law.

15.

Particularly, Plaintiff learned of an emaciated husky not being properly

cared for which was in the possession and control of the Genesee County
Animal Control (GCAC).

16.

Plaintiff learned of a black dog which had been kept in a cage for
approximately seven (7) months at the Genesee County Animal Control
without proper food, water and adequate exercise.

17.

Plaintiff observed a Shitzu dog left in a cage in the Animal Control facility
garage for several hours while the dog suffered in the cold environment
and from pain. Allowing the dog to suffer unattended was inhumane
treatment. The dog was later euthanized due to its condition.

18.

Plaintiff observed puppies of a mixed-breed dog, shortly after birth, in the

Animal Control facility repeatedly falling down a drain hole in the garage
floor of the facility shortly after their birth. Because the facility did not
have a box or other receptacle to contain the puppies, they repeatedly fell
down the drain. No arrangements were made to contain the puppies until
the Plaintiff requested and received a small childrens pool as a donation.
She placed the mother and puppies in the pool to contain them for their
safety.

19.

Plaintiff learned of a dog which had been euthanized by an ACO was

alive and alert in the morgue cooler 24 hours later. Because the dog had
not been properly euthanized according to state, federal and veterinary
guidelines it was discovered alive and suffering in the cold in the cooler
the next day.

20.

Plaintiff learned of a dog which had been accepted at the front intake
counter with a bone protruding and put into the ICU unit. No immediate
PTS was performed on the dog and it suffered unnoticed for several hours.

21.

Plaintiff learned of Ana, a dog which was inappropriately and not

according to state, federal and veterinary guidelines euthanized by an
ACO.

Because expired, improper narcotics were used to attempt the

euthanasia, Ana woke up several hours later in a small crate in pain and
shock. She thrashed about in the cage and injured herself further. Plaintiff
found the dog in the cage at 8:30 p.m. after the other ACOs had left the
facility without properly caring for Ana. Plaintiff stabilized her until she
could be transferred to a veterinary clinic in the morning via an ACO
truck.
22.

On several occasions in her first two weeks of employment, Plaintiff

found that all of the animals in the building were not receiving minimal
care food, water and a clean crate on a daily basis. This minimal level
of care is mandated by state statute. Employees of Genesee County
Animal Control were leaving the building at the end of the day without
performing all of their duties for humane treatment of the animals at
GCAC.

23.

Approximately two weeks after she began her employment, Plaintiff

approached Defendant Paul Wallace in person and told him about each of
the following incidents above. She told him that the practices at GCAC
were inhumane, illegal and out of date practices which needed to end.

24.

Defendant Wallace diminished Plaintiffs concerns and took no action.

25.

During approximately the next two weeks Plaintiff observed or learned of

additional inhumane and illegal practices taking place at the GCAC.

26.

These included but are not limited to:

a. A blood sport dogs body being found and disposed of without
proper investigation into where it was found and the person(s) who
were fighting the dog - a violation of local and state law(s); when
Plaintiff showed the dogs body to Defendant Wallace he told her that
it had been hit by a car and no investigation was needed - despite the
dogs neck and front leg tissue being torn from the bone and bite
marks on the dog and Defendant Wallace having no training in
investigating criminal animal cases.
b. Dogs were removed from their owners possession during a police
investigation at a home. The owner of the dogs was not read their
rights regarding removal of the dogs and due process was not
followed.
c. An employee of the GCAC was promoted to Animal Control Officer,
despite not being certified by the State of Michigan as an Animal
Control Officer. Plaintiff made Defendant Wallace aware that the
employee was not certified and he promoted him anyway, ignoring the
certification requirement.
d. Dogs were being euthanized via heart stick method. This means that
an alert dog, without sedation, was being stuck directly in the heart
with a needle of narcotics. Often this procedure was conducted by an
employee of GCAC who was not certified as a Michigan ACO or
certified in humane practices for euthanasia by the American

Veterinary Medical Association and therefore not trained in proper

euthanasia methods.
e. Plaintiff observed GCAC failing to follow state and federal law
regarding narcotics, including expired narcotics being kept and used
on premises, narcotics not being locked up or secured, narcotics not
being properly labeled, narcotics located in open areas accessible to
any employees, and narcotics not being properly tracked or accounted
for.
f. Feral cats were being euthanized in a gas chamber. The use of a gas
chamber to euthanize animals is a prohibited practice. When Plaintiff
approached Defendant Wallace about this inhumane and illegal
practice, he simply responded whats wrong with that? and not put a
stop to it at GCAC.
27.

In addition, Plaintiff received repeated resistance from Defendant Wallace

in her management techniques.

28.

Defendant Wallace treated Plaintiff differently than other males within the
the GCAC and undermined her abilities and management style because
she was a woman.

29.

Defendant Wallace belittled Plaintiff in front of other staff members, by

stating to her in a loud, shouting voice Stand Down Officer or Dont
Speak when she was trying to give direction on animal care practices.

30.

Defendant Wallace told Plaintiff on an almost daily basis that he did not
trust her and allowed other male employees who were subordinate to the
Plaintiff to scream at her and to enter her personal space.

31.

On one occasion, Defendant Wallace told Plaintiff that he hazed her

because he wanted to add a little drama to a situation by screaming at
her in front of other staff members and demeaning her.

32.

During an interview of a potential employee, Defendant Wallace

demeaned and disrespected the Plaintiff by stating in front of the potential
employee, I dont believe yorre f***ing FEMA trained.

33.

When Defendant Wallace observed the GCAC break room was messy and
needed cleaning after employees had not cleaned up after themselves, in
referring to the Plaintiff, he said that it could use a womans touch to get
it back in order.

34.

Prior to interviews, Defendant Wallace also asked Plaintiff to make coffee

for him and potential job applicants.

35.

Plaintiff was repeatedly disrespected by Defendant Wallace because she

was a woman, despite her training and credentials in animal control and
care.

36.

After not receiving any response from Defendant Wallace on the many
inhumane and illegal practices Plaintiff had observed at the GCAC,
Plaintiff emailed Genesee County Commissioner Bryant BB Nolden on
or about February 1, 2015 and detailed the inhumane and illegal practices
taking place within the GCAC and Defendant Wallaces failure to respond

or change the practices. In particular, she stated to Commissioner Nolden

that she believed there were many illegal practices in the building
regarding the failure to properly store and secure narcotics and she
believed that the DEA should be called to the facility.

Further, she

detailed how Defendant Wallace had been disrespecting her and treating
her differently because she was a woman.
37.

On the morning of February 2, 2015, Plaintiff met with Commissioner

Nolden and Chairperson of the Genesee County Board of Commissioners
Jamie W. Curtis in person. During the meeting, Commissioner Nolden
had a printout of the email Plaintiff had sent the prior day.

38.

The Commissioners told the Plaintiff that they would speak to Defendant
Wallace about the issues she had raised.

39.

On or about February 3, 2015, a representative of one of the narcotics

distributors (drug rep.) which works with the GCAC visited the facility.
The Plaintiff spoke with the drug rep. and showed her the condition the
narcotics were kept in and explained that the sodium pentothal was
expired and not being properly administered to the animals. Plaintiff and
the drug rep. agreed that both the DEA and pharmaceutical board should
be alerted about the conditions of the narcotics at the GCAC. That same
day the Plaintiff told Defendant Wallace about her discussion with the
drug rep. and that the DEA should be immediately contacted regarding the
conditions and that she intended to do so; Defendant Wallace responded
dont worry, I used to work in narcotics; I got this covered with DEA.

40.

The following day, on February 4, 2015 the Plaintiff was terminated by

Defendant Wallace.

41.

A letter was sitting on a chair in front of the Plaintiff. Defendant Wallace

directed her to read the letter stating: [t]his letter is to advise you that
your at-will appointment as Deputy Director of Animal Control ends
effective February 4, 2015 at 4 p.m..

The letter was executed by

Defendant Wallace.
42.

When the Plaintiff asked Defendant Wallace whats this about upon
receiving the letter, he simply shrugged his shoulders and said I have no
comment.

Plaintiff asked Defendant Wallace if the Board of

Commissioners was aware of her termination, and he again shrugged his

shoulders.
43.

The following week, Commissioner Curtis was asked by a reporter why

the Plaintiff was terminated and he stated that there was not harmony
between the Plaintiff and Defendant Wallace.

44.

Since the Plaintiffs termination she has learned of other inhumane and
illegal practices taking place within the GCAC facility which have harmed
or put the animals being cared for there at risk.

45.

On or about February 10, 2015, just six days after the Plaintiffs
termination, Defendant Wallace was appointed permanent Genesee
County Chief Animal Control Officer and Director of the Genesee County
Animal Control Shelter by the Genesee County Board of Commissioners.

10

COUNT I
VIOLATION OF THE MICHIGAN WHISTLEBLOWERS PROTECTION
ACT
46.

Plaintiff incorporates all preceding paragraphs by reference.

47.

This is an action for violation of the Michigan Whistleblowers Protection

Act, MCLA 15.361 et seq., MSA 17.428(1).

48.

At all material times, Plaintiff was an employee and Defendant GCAC

was her employer, covered by and within the meaning of the
Whistleblowers Protection Act, MCLA 15.361 et seq., MSA 17.428(1).

49.

Defendants Genesee County, GCAC and Wallace violated the

Whistleblowers Protection Act when they discriminated against Plaintiff
as described above regarding the terms, benefits, conditions and
privileges of her employment because she threatened, and did report a
violation of law, regulation, or rule of the State of Michigan, federal
government, DEA, and opposed practices made illegal by the laws,
regulations, or rules of the State of Michigan and the federal government
of the United States.

50.

The actions of Defendants were intentional.

51.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants unlawful actions against

Plaintiff as described, Plaintiff has sustained injuries and damages,
including but not limited to, loss of earnings, loss of career opportunities,
mental and emotional distress; loss of reputation and esteem in the

11

community, and loss of the ordinary pleasures of everyday life, including

the opportunity to pursue gainful occupation of choice.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Honorable Court grant her whatever legal
or equitable relief to which she is entitled that the court finds equitable to compensate her
for her lost wages, front pay, back pay, interest, loss of future employment opportunities,
damages as a result of embarrassment, humiliation and punitive damages as a result of
violations of the Michigan Whistleblowers Protection Act and attorneys fees and court
costs.

COUNT II
WRONGFUL DISCHARGE AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY
OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
30.

Plaintiff incorporates all preceding paragraphs by reference.

31.

It is the public policy of the State of Michigan that employees be able to

report violations of law committed by their employer and make complaints to
outside agencies about violations committed against them or which they are a
witness to.

32.

Plaintiff threatened to and did report Defendant GCAC to its governing body,
the Genesee County Board of Commissioners and/or the DEA for its ongoing
inhumane and illegal acts regarding animal control and lack of care.

33.

It is the public policy of the State of Michigan that all employees be able to
report violations of the laws of the State of Michigan, federal government,

12

DEA and/or violations of veterinary practice to the governing body of the

organization.
34.

Defendants GCAC and Wallace intentionally discharged Plaintiff for

threatening to and reporting their illegal action to the Genesee County
Commission and/or the DEA,

35.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants unlawful actions against

Plaintiff as described, Plaintiff has sustained injuries and damages, including
but not limited to, loss of earnings, loss of career opportunities, mental and
emotional distress; loss of reputation and esteem in the community, and loss
of the ordinary pleasures of everyday life, including the opportunity to pursue
gainful occupation of choice.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Honorable Court grant her whatever legal
or equitable relief to which he is entitled that the court finds equitable to compensate her
for her lost wages, front pay, back pay, interest, loss of future employment opportunities,
damages as a result of embarrassment, humiliation and punitive damages as a result of
violations of Michigan public policy and attorneys fees and court costs.

COUNT III
HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT/DISCRIMINATION BASED ON SEX IN
VIOLATION OF THE ELLIOT-LARSEN CIVIL RIGHTS ACT (ELCRA)
36. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs by reference.
37. Defendant Wallace was an agent of Defendant Genesee County.

13

38. Plaintiff reported to Defendant Wallace and the Genesee County

Board of Commission.
39. The conduct exhibited by Defendant Wallace was unwelcome to
Plaintiff.
40. The harassment exhibited by Defendant Wallace was sufficiently
severe or pervasive, such that it altered the condition of her
employment to create an abusive working environment.
41. Plaintiff was treated differently by Defendant Wallace because of
her sex, female.
42. Plaintiff was treated differently by Defendant Genesee County
because of her sex female, in that, Defendant Genesee County
chose to terminate her position in whole or in part because she as a
woman.
43. Plaintiffs sex was a factor in Defendants decision to adversely act
against her interests as an employee by refusing to address
Defendant Wallaces conduct after it was brought to Defendant
Genesee Countys attention via email and personal meeting by
Plaintiff.
44. If Plaintiff was a male, she would not have been treated in the
manner described.
45. If Plaintiff was a male, her opinion would not have been
disregarded by Defendants.
46. If Plaintiff was a male, she would not have been terminated.

14

47. Defendants actions were intentional and done with reckless

indifference to Plaintiffs rights and sensibilities.

48.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants unlawful actions against

Plaintiff as described, Plaintiff has sustained injuries and damages, including
but not limited to, loss of earnings, loss of career opportunities, mental and
emotional distress; loss of reputation and esteem in the community, and loss
of the ordinary pleasures of everyday life, including the opportunity to pursue
gainful occupation of choice.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Honorable Court grant her whatever legal
or equitable relief to which he is entitled that the court finds equitable to compensate her
for her lost wages, front pay, back pay, interest, loss of future employment opportunities,
damages as a result of embarrassment, humiliation and punitive damages as a result of
violations of Michigan public policy and attorneys fees and court costs.

Dated: March 3, 2015

Respectfully Submitted,
BURGESS SHARP & GOLDEN PLLC

___________________________
Heidi T. Sharp, P69641
43260 Garfield Suite 280
Clinton Township, MI 48038
(586) 226-2627
Heidi@bsglawfirm.com

15

STATE OF MICHIGAN
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF GENESEE
KAREN DOMBROWSKI
Plaintiff,

Case No.:
Honorable:

CD

v.
GENESEE COUNTY,
GENESEE COUNTY ANIMAL CONTROL,
PAUL WALLACE, an individual, both
Individually and his role as Director of Genesee
County Animal Control;
Defendants.
_______________________________________________________________________/
BURGESS SHARP & GOLDEN, PLLC
Attorneys for Plaintiff
By: Heidi T. Sharp, P69641
43260 Garfield, Suite 280
Clinton Township, MI 48038
(586) 226-2627
Heidi@bsglawfirm.com
______________________________________________________________________ /
JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff requests a jury in the above-captioned matter.

Dated: March 3, 2015

Respectfully Submitted,
BURGESS SHARP & GOLDEN PLLC

___________________________
Heidi T. Sharp, P69641
43260 Garfield Suite 280
Clinton Township, MI 48038
(586) 226-2627
Heidi@bsglawfirm.com

16