Professional Documents
Culture Documents
TRESHA K. NEFF
Plaintiff
Case # 16-cv-
v.
HON.
CITY OF EAST
LANSING
Defendants
COMPLAINT FOR:
VIOLATIONS OF TITLE
VII, THE CIVIL RIGHTS
ACT, 42 USC 2000e and
MICHIGANS ELLIOTTLARSEN CIVIL RIGHTS
ACT MCL 37.2202
A JURY IS DEMANDED
Joni M. Fixel
FIXEL AND NYEHOLT, PLLC
4084 Okemos Rd., Ste B
Okemos, MI 48864
(517) 332-3390
jfixel@fixellawoffices.com
This suit is brought and jurisdiction lies pursuant to Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 USC 2000e. This is also an action
for violations of the Michigan Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA), MCL
37.2202.
1
2.
3.
complaint occurred within the State of Michigan and in the County of Ingham
and damages exceed $75,000.00. Therefore, jurisdiction is proper in this
Court.
9.
This action arises under Title Vii of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as
2
amended. It also arises under Michigans Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, MCL
37.2202.
11.
Plaintiff received her Right to Sue letter from the U.S. Equal
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
12.
The Plaintiff waited until those officers that had seniority had all had
Once she had the seniority and training she applied for promotions.
17.
Each time the Plaintiff applied for promotions, she was denied and
Each time the Plaintiff was denied promotions, she would ask why
she wasnt promoted and was told repeatedly that she needed to be more well
rounded.
19.
Often the male coworker that had been promoted had considerable
Plaintiff was advised that she should get a BA degree to help her
3
Later Plaintiff was told that working toward the degree was not the
same as having completed the degree as an excuse for not promoting her.
22.
Lansing Woman magazine. In the interviews that followed, she supported the
Defendants East Lansing Police Department to maintain a good reputation
despite the repeated discrimination that she had experienced.
24.
training programs:
25.
27.
29.
Despite having less training and seniority, Plaintiff was told that Sgt.
4
and her managers recommended that she come off of the probation on
December 7, 2012.
31.
program.
32.
As a Sergeant she was the supervisor of the Motor Unit and was
responsible for the training and special events within that unit
35.
Lansing Community College, where she taught alcohol enforcement and Civil
Disorder/Small Squad tactics.
36.
scenario based calls for recruits to build skills with actors to ready the recruits
for real calls after graduation.
37.
apply for promotions to Lieutenant in 2013 and 2014, she was passed over
again.
38.
Plaintiff applied for the positon on or about January 10, 2013 and
5
Letters applying for the position were due on September 30, 2014.
Plaintiff submitted her letter dated September 24, 2014 to Captain Murphy.
43.
Captain Murphy took the letter from Plaintiff in his hand and then
motioned like he was going to throw it in the trash and said is this where this
goes?
44.
Scot Sexton, was promoted. Sexton had only been in the Sergeant position
for 18 months and at the time of promotion he had not completed one
supervisor school.
45.
scheduled a supervisor school and had 5 years less seniority than the
Plaintiff (who had a total of 23 years of experience with 3 years of experience
prior to East Lansing Police Department)
46.
Resources Department to have the Defendant reimburse her for classes for
her Masters Degree as was allowed by their Command Officers Contract.
47.
told her that the money was already gone as of December 2014. Human
Resources stated that they had checked with Chief Leibler and that the Chief
6
stated that additional amounts would not be approved for coursework for
graduate programs.
48.
Chief Leibler approved over $5,000 for the male command officer
Yet from July 1,2014-June 30, 2015 only $3,440 was reimbursed to
male command officers. But when Plaintiff asked for the same benefit, she
was denied.
51.
obtain his bachelors degree. However, Murphy didnt obtain his BA until
December 2015 after he had been the Acting Chief for approximately 6-8
months.
52.
Plaintiff to go after she had been a supervisor for 2-3 years due to the stress
that it puts on new supervisors.
54.
each year) in 2014. This time she was denied because Defendants were
sending Sergeant Chad Connelly, because he didnt have any supervisory
7
schools completed.
56.
to be successful in her new position. She had taken the initiative to improve
herself and now it was being used against her.
57.
protected class.
60.
favorably by promoting, training and reimbursing these same male officers for
education while denying Plaintiff the same opportunities.
62.
Plaintiff was and is qualified for all of these opportunities and often
was more qualified than the similarly situated male officers who were promoted or
allowed training opportunities.
63.
omissions, Plaintiff has lost wages and benefits, loss of retirement benefits,
humiliation and embarrassment, and loss of professional reputation.
WHEREFORE Plaintiff, Tresha K. Neff, respectfully requests that this Court enter
2.
3.
4.
5.
an order of this Court granting Plaintiff further relief that it deems just and
equitable.
Count II
Violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, 42 USC 2000e Disparate Impact
65.
66.
Since that first promotion, only 4 other women have been promoted.
67.
68.
69.
The Plaintiff and other women who have applied for promotions were
as or more qualified than the similarly situated male co-workers who
were promoted.
70.
71.
72.
73.
75. Other similarly situated male officers were given promotions, training opportunities
and were reimbursed for education.
76. Defendants violated the Act and deprived Plaintiff of her civil rights by, among other
things discriminating against Plaintiff through administering promotions that were
discriminatory due to gender, training opportunities that were discriminatory due to
gender and educational reimbursements based on gender.
77. Plaintiff has been discriminated by Defendants' agents and employees throughout
the course of her employment.
78. The actions of Defendants and their agents, representatives, and employees were
intentional and made with reckless indifference to Plaintiffs rights and sensibilities.
79. Defendants knowingly and willfully discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of her
gender in violation of the Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act.
10
80. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' unlawful actions against Plaintiff as
described, Plaintiff has suffered injuries and damages, including, but not limited to, loss
of earnings and earning capacity; loss of career opportunities and loss of reputation
and esteem in the community.
1. Legal relief
a. compensatory damages in whatever amount Plaintiff is found to be
entitled
b. exemplary damages in whatever amount over $75,000 Plaintiff is
found to be entitled
c. an award of interest, costs, and reasonable attorney fees
d. Liquidated damages in whatever amount she is found to be entitled.
e. An award of interests, costs, and reasonable attorney fees and
expert witness fees.
2. Equitable relief
a. an award of interest, costs, and reasonable attorney fees
b. an order enjoining Defendant from further acts of discrimination or
retaliation
c. whatever other relief appears appropriate at the time of final
judgment
d. whatever other relief may appear appropriate when this courts final
order is entered.
11
12
Case 1:16-cv-00066
EXHIBIT A
Page
1 of 2
PagelD.13
Case 1:16-cv-00066
Page
S.
Civil
101/
2 of 2
PagelD.14
Department of justice
Rights Division
CERTIFIED MAIL
950
Karen
January 21,
4239
2016
Suite B
Okemos, MI 48864
Re: EEOC
No. 471201500722
Dear Ms. Neff:
Because you filed the above charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and
than 180 days have elapsed since the date the Commission assumed jurisdiction over the charge,
and no suit based thereon has been filed by this Department, and because you through your attorney
have specifically requested this Notice, you are hereby notified that you have the right to institute a
civil action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2000e, et seq,
against the above-named respondent.
more
90
If you choose to commence a civil action, such suit must be filed in the
days of your receipt of this Notice.
The
Office,
Detroit, MI.
This Notice should not be taken to mean that the
whether or not your case is meritorious.
Sincerely,
Vanita
Gupta
City
of East
Lansing
to
AO 440
(Rev. 01/09)
Sunenb afiltettipotlea(ReEtgl"
NO
Page
1 of 1
PagelD.15
TRESHA K. NEFF
East
MI 48823
against you.
IL
Lansing,
Joni M. Fixel
Fixel and Nyeholt, PLLC
4084 Okemos Road, Ste B
Okemos, MI 48864
CLERK. OF COURT
following locations:
399 Federal Building, 110 Michigan St., NW, Grand Rapids, MI 49503
P.O. Box 698, 314 Federal Building, Marquette, MI 49855
107 Federal Building, 410 W. Michigan Ave., Kalamazoo, MI 49007
113 Federal Building, 315 W. Allegan, Lansing, MI 48933
Date
PROOF OF SERVICE
This
summons
for
City of East
Lansing
and title,
(name of individual
deny)
was
received by me
on
(date)
on
D I left the summons at the individual's residence or usual place of abode with, a person
of suitable age and discretion who resides
there,
on
behalf of
on
(name of organization)
(date)
My fees
are
total of
Date:
Server's signature
attempted service,
etc.:
Server's printed name and title
Server's address