Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Plaintiff Jira Churchill (“Plaintiff” or “Ms. Churchill”) through her attorneys, Clark Law
NATURE OF ACTION
or “Defendant”) violations of Title VII of The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C.
§2000-e et seq. and the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act (“MFEPA”), Md. Code., State
Gov’t § 20-601 et seq. for unlawfully discriminating against Ms. Churchill because of her gender
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq. and
MFEPA.
Case 8:17-cv-00980-PWG Document 20 Filed 12/15/17 Page 2 of 21
3. All of the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint are
4. The Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over the instant action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§
1331 and 1343(a)(4) because it arises under the laws of the United States and seeks redress for
5. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, the Court has supplemental jurisdiction Plaintiff’s state
law claims because the violations arise out of the same case or controversy her federal claims.
6. Pursuant to Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 6-102, the Court has personal jurisdiction
over Defendant because it is organized under the laws of the state of Maryland.
8. All of the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint are
9. Plaintiff has satisfied the procedural and administrative requirements for proceeding
b. This complaint was cross-filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
2
Case 8:17-cv-00980-PWG Document 20 Filed 12/15/17 Page 3 of 21
with the EEOC that was cross-filed with the Maryland Commission on Civil
d. On February 24, 2017, Plaintiff received her Notice of Right to Sue for EEOC
e. On or about April 13, 2017, Plaintiff received her Notice of Right to Sue for
f. Plaintiff has filed her complaint within 90 days of receipt of her Notices of Right
to Sue.
10. Plaintiff has satisfied the procedural and administrative requirements for proceeding
continuing violation.
d. Plaintiff’s has filed her complaint over 180 days since filing her charges and
below.
11. Defendant is not prejudiced by Plaintiff’s failure to give formal notice under the
a. On December 14, 2014, Plaintiff filed her charge of discrimination and retaliation.
thereafter.
3
Case 8:17-cv-00980-PWG Document 20 Filed 12/15/17 Page 4 of 21
thereafter.
e. On March 16, 2016, Defendant filed a response to Plaintiff’s charges with the
EEOC.
notice under the Local Government Tort Claims Act. See Md. Code Ann., Cts. &
12. Furthermore, Defendant had actual or constructive notice of Plaintiff’s injuries and
surrounding circumstances. See Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-304(e).
PARTIES
13. All of the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint are
17. Ms. Churchill was a permanent employee of Defendant from August 18, 2014
4
Case 8:17-cv-00980-PWG Document 20 Filed 12/15/17 Page 5 of 21
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
20. All of the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint are
21. Ms. Churchill became a Classroom Teacher with Defendant on or about August 18,
22. On or about September 19, 2014, Ms. Churchill was assigned to DuVal High School.
23. DuVal High School’s Principal was Mark Covington (“Mr. Covington”).
24. One of DuVal High School’s Assistant Principals was Shanay Wheeler (“Ms.
Wheeler”).
25. On October 13, 2014, Ms. Churchill’s classroom was visited by her DuVall High
26. Ms. Churchill received positive feedback from her students throughout her
27. On or around February 12, 2015, Mr. Covington performed a walk-through of Ms.
Churchill’s class and reported that Ms. Churchill’s teaching had resulted in the students being on
28. Ms. Churchill’s sexual orientation was known by the Principal Clark at Thurgood
29. On information and belief, Mr. Clark informed Mr. Covington and/or Ms. Wheeler
5
Case 8:17-cv-00980-PWG Document 20 Filed 12/15/17 Page 6 of 21
30. On information and belief, Mr. Covington and/or Ms. Wheeler informed Ms.
31. Ms. Churchill also told teachers at DuVal High School about her sexual orientation.
32. On information and belief, those teachers informed Ms. Churchill’s students about
33. In or around October 2014, about two weeks after Ms. Churchill began teaching at
DuVal High School, Ms. Churchill found the homophobic slur “FAG” written on her chalkboard,
35. On information and belief, no action was ever taken regarding the chalkboard
incident, even though Ms. Wheeler assured Ms. Churchill that steps would be taken to ensure a
36. At least one other time in 2014, a student, in front of Ms. Churchill, called Ms.
Churchill a “fag.”
37. Throughout 2014, Ms. Churchill’s students repeatedly referred to her as “Mister
Churchill.”
38. Throughout 2014, Ms. Churchill’s students mocked her sexual orientation by
referencing how much she must like rainbows, a widely-known symbol of the LGBT rights
movement.
39. In or around October 2014, when students were eating lunch in Ms. Churchill’s
classroom, as allowed, Ms. Wheeler noticed that the majority of the students eating in the
6
Case 8:17-cv-00980-PWG Document 20 Filed 12/15/17 Page 7 of 21
40. Ms. Wheeler then told Ms. Churchill “the school [can’t] have [the female students]
41. Because other teachers were praised for allowing students to eat lunch in their
classrooms, Ms. Churchill believed Ms. Wheeler’s actions to be a result of the fact that Ms.
Churchill is a lesbian.
homosexual student; Ms. Churchill intervened, removed the harassing student form her
classroom, and referred the student to Mr. Covington for disciplinary action.
responded by sending the students to school administrators requesting that they be disciplined for
44. On information and belief, none of the students Ms. Churchill sent to administrators
45. From on or around October 29, 2014 through on or around April 23, 2015, Ms.
Churchill filed at least eleven (11) “Administrative Procedure 4170” complaints against,
46. The filing of an Administrative Procedure 4170 complaint is the grievance procedure
47. In or around October 2014, Ms. Churchill informed her union representative, Camille
Dogbe, that she believed the actions described in her Administrative Procedure 4170 complaints
7
Case 8:17-cv-00980-PWG Document 20 Filed 12/15/17 Page 8 of 21
48. On information and belief, shortly thereafter Ms. Dogbe informed Mr. Covington that
Ms. Churchill believed that the actions described in Ms. Churchill’s Administrative Procedure
49. Ms. Churchill never received any follow-up regarding her Administrative Procedure
4170 complaints, and these complaints did little to curtail the behavior of DuVal High School
administrators.
50. In or around September and October 2014, Ms. Churchill made several requests to
51. Ms. Churchill’s autoimmune disorder causes her immune system to attack healthy
tissue throughout various part of her body and affects the moisture-producing glands of the body,
52. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s autoimmune disorders are disabilities under the ADA and
MFEPA.
53. On or around December 10, 2014, Ms. Churchill filed a charge of disability
discrimination and retaliation with the Prince George’s County Human Relations Commission
against Defendant.
54. On information and belief, Mr. Covington and Ms. Wheeler learned about the charge
shortly thereafter.
55. On or about December 17, 2014, Ms. Churchill filed an Administrative Procedure
56. On or about January 2, 2015, Ms. Churchill filed an Administrative Procedure 4170
8
Case 8:17-cv-00980-PWG Document 20 Filed 12/15/17 Page 9 of 21
57. Ms. Churchill made additional Administrative Procedure 4170 complaints on or about
January 30, February 13, April 13, April 22, and April 23, 2015.
58. Less than two months after Ms. Churchill filed her charge with the Prince George’s
County Human Rights Commission and less than a month after filing her January 2, 2015
Administrative Procedure 4170 complaint, on February 5, 2015, Ms. Churchill was issued a
Letter of Reprimand for failing to appear to at two parent conferences which Ms. Wheeler
59. On or around February 10, 2015, Ms. Churchill received another Letter of
Reprimand.
60. On or around March 4, 2015, Ms. Churchill was notified that a review panel
recommended that her contract not be renewed for the next school year.
61. On or about April 4, 2015, in a meeting with Ms. Churchill, her union representative,
and Mr. Covington. Mr. Covington informed Ms. Churchill that she was to be removed from the
62. In this meeting, Mr. Covington referred to Ms. Churchill as “aggressive,” and
expressed his belief that such aggression was an attribute of “her people.”
63. As Ms. Churchill and Mr. Covington are both African-American, Ms. Churchill
64. On or around April 8, 2015, Ms. Churchill was removed from her teaching duties and
65. Mr. Covington stated that she was removed because she was too much of an influence
in the classroom.
9
Case 8:17-cv-00980-PWG Document 20 Filed 12/15/17 Page 10 of 21
66. Ms. Churchill believed that Mr. Covington’s use of the word influence meant her
67. In or around April 2015, Ms. Churchill was fixing a fax machine in the special
education department. Ms. Churchill’s newly assigned supervisor, Ms. Price, told Ms. Churchill
68. A gender stereotype is that men are more skillful with tools than women.
69. Ms. Churchill believed that Ms. Price’s statement meant that Ms. Churchill was not
stereotypically female.
70. Ms. Price also stated that “your people are handy.”
71. Since Ms. Price and Ms. Churchill are both African-American, Ms. Churchill
72. Ms. Churchill reported the Ms. Price’s statements to Mr. Covington. Mr. Covington
73. On or around April 14, 2015, Mr. Covington instituted hearing procedures against
74. The hearing officer determined that there was not sufficient evidence to support the
proposed termination and therefore denied Mr. Covington’s attempt to remove Ms. Churchill.
75. On or around April 21, 2015, Ms. Churchill received a letter notifying her that her
contract would not be renewed and her termination would be effective June 30, 2015.
77. On information and belief, Ms. Churchill was replaced by Daniel Curran, who is
male.
10
Case 8:17-cv-00980-PWG Document 20 Filed 12/15/17 Page 11 of 21
79. On information and belief, Mr. Curran was not certified and therefore not qualified to
Ms. Churchill Was Not Paid The Wages She Was Owed
81. For the two-week period of January 10, 2015 through January 23, 2015, Defendant
paid $2,067.88 gross instead of $2,440.50. Accordingly, Defendant did not pay Ms. Churchill
82. For the two-week period of January 24, 2015 through February 6, 2015, Defendant
paid $2,067.88 gross instead of $2,440.50. Accordingly, Defendant did not pay Ms. Churchill
83. For the two-week period of February 7, 2015 through February 20, 2015, Defendant
paid $2,067.88 gross instead of $2,440.50. Accordingly, Defendant did not pay Ms. Churchill
84. For the two-week period of February 21, 2015 through March 6, 2015, Defendant
paid $2,067.88 gross instead of $2,440.50. Accordingly, Defendant did not pay Ms. Churchill
85. For the two-week period of March 7, 2015 through March 20, 2015, Defendant paid
$1,928.06 gross instead of $2,440.50. Accordingly, Defendant did not pay Ms. Churchill
86. For the two-week period of March 21, 2015 through April 3, 2015, Defendant paid
$1,788.26 gross instead of $2,440.50. Accordingly, Defendant did not pay Ms. Churchill
11
Case 8:17-cv-00980-PWG Document 20 Filed 12/15/17 Page 12 of 21
87. For the two-week period of April 4, 2015 through April 17, 2015, Defendant paid
$1,788.24 gross instead of $2,440.50. Accordingly, Defendant did not pay Ms. Churchill
88. For the two-week period of April 18, 2015 through May 1, 2015, Defendant paid
$2,067.88 gross instead of $2,440.50. Accordingly, Defendant did not pay Ms. Churchill
89. For the two-week period of May 2, 2015 through May 15, 2015, Defendant paid
$1,928.06 gross instead of $2,440.50. Accordingly, Defendant did not pay Ms. Churchill
90. For the two-week period of May 16, 2015 through May 29, 2015, Defendant paid
$1,508.60 gross instead of $2,440.50. Accordingly, Defendant did not pay Ms. Churchill
91. Ms. Churchill was not paid an additional $1,500.00 stipend that should have been
92. Ms. Churchill is owed a total of at least $6,624.58 in unpaid gross wages.
93. Ms. Churchill’s pay statements indicated that funds were being reduced based on her
alleged use of unpaid leave, however Ms. Churchill did not take unpaid leave. She reported to
work and worked during each of the above stated pay periods.
withholding of Ms. Churchill’s owed wages was part of Defendant’s hostile work environment
against and thus within the scope of Ms. Churchill’s EEOC charge.
12
Case 8:17-cv-00980-PWG Document 20 Filed 12/15/17 Page 13 of 21
96. Ms. Churchill’s charge expressly named Mr. Covington as a management official
97. Mr. Covington’s actions as an actor named in Ms. Churchill’s charge are thus in the
98. On or around April 14, 2015, Mr. Covington instituted hearing procedures against
99. On or around April 21, 2015, Ms. Churchill received a letter notifying her that her
100. Ms. Churchill was intentionally not paid her owed wages for several pay periods
101. Ms. Churchill was intentionally not paid her owed $1,500.00 stipend on June 19,
2015.
102. The above stated discrete adverse employment actions are a part of Defendant’s
103. The above stated discrete adverse employment actions occurred prior to two years
before Ms. Churchill filed her original Complaint against Defendant on April 10, 2017.
104. Because the above stated discrete adverse employment actions occurred within the
MEFA’s two-year statute of limitations period, Plaintiff’s hostile work environment claims are
timely. Guessous v. Fairview Property Investments, LLC, 828 F. 3d 208, 223 (4th Cir. 2016).
105. Therefore, Ms. Churchill’s MFEPA hostile work environment claims are timely.
13
Case 8:17-cv-00980-PWG Document 20 Filed 12/15/17 Page 14 of 21
106. All of the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint are
111. Defendant, on the basis of Plaintiff’s sexual orientation, failed to take any action to
eradicate the harassment Plaintiff was experiencing at the hands of her students.
113. Defendant subjected Plaintiff to a hostile work environment because of her sexual
orientation.
115. All of the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint are
117. Homosexuality is against the gender stereotype that females should be attracted to
men.
14
Case 8:17-cv-00980-PWG Document 20 Filed 12/15/17 Page 15 of 21
121. Defendant, on the basis of the gender stereotype of Plaintiff’s sexual orientation,
failed to take any action to eradicate the harassment Plaintiff was experiencing at the hands of
her students.
attributable to males.
124. Ms. Churchill’s supervisor Ms. Price stated that she was handy with tools, a gender
stereotypes.
127. All of the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint are
128. Plaintiff belongs to a protected class based upon her sexual orientation.
15
Case 8:17-cv-00980-PWG Document 20 Filed 12/15/17 Page 16 of 21
130. Defendant treated other similarly situated employees outside of Plaintiff’s protected
class more favorably than Plaintiff by intervening to discipline misbehaving students and
131. As set forth more fully above, the circumstances surrounding Plaintiff’s termination
132. Defendant replaced Plaintiff with someone outside of her protected class.
136. All of the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint are
138. Homosexuality is against the gender stereotype that females should be attracted to
men.
attributable to males.
141. Ms. Churchill’s supervisor Ms. Price stated that she was handy with tools, a gender
16
Case 8:17-cv-00980-PWG Document 20 Filed 12/15/17 Page 17 of 21
142. Defendant treated other similarly situated employees outside of Plaintiff’s protected
class more favorably than Plaintiff by intervening to discipline misbehaving students and
143. As set forth more fully above, the circumstances surrounding Plaintiff’s termination
144. Defendant replaced Plaintiff with someone outside of her protected class.
148. All of the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint are
149. As a result of Plaintiff’s complaints against Mr. Covington and Ms. Wheeler and
December 2014 charge of discrimination and retaliation, she suffered from Defendant’s
retaliatory adverse employment actions, including, but not limited to, letters of reprimand,
150. As a result of Plaintiff’s complaints against Mr. Covington and Ms. Wheeler and
December 2014 charge of discrimination and retaliation, she suffered from Defendant’s
17
Case 8:17-cv-00980-PWG Document 20 Filed 12/15/17 Page 18 of 21
152. All of the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint are
accommodation in 2014.
155. As set forth more fully above, shortly after Plaintiff requested a reasonable
accommodation and filed her charge, she experienced a series of adverse employment actions,
including, but not limited to, letters of reprimand, removal of duties, and ultimately termination
156. As a result of Plaintiff’s protected activity, she suffered from Defendant’s retaliatory
157. All of the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint are
158. On or around December 10, 2014, Ms. Churchill filed a charge of disability
discrimination and retaliation with the Prince George’s County Human Relations Commission
against Defendant.
159. On or about December 17, 2014, Ms. Churchill filed an Administrative Procedure
160. On or about January 2, 2015, Ms. Churchill filed an Administrative Procedure 4170
18
Case 8:17-cv-00980-PWG Document 20 Filed 12/15/17 Page 19 of 21
161. Less than two months after Ms. Churchill filed her charge with the Prince George’s
County Human Rights Commission and within weeks of filing internal complaints of
discrimination and retaliation, Defendant began to not pay Ms. Churchill all of her earned wages.
162. As stated above, Defendant has failed to pay Ms. Churchill at least $6,624.58 in
unpaid wages.
withholding of Ms. Churchill’s owed wages was part of Defendant’s hostile work environment
against and thus within the scope of Ms. Churchill’s EEOC charge.
165. Ms. Churchill’s charge expressly named Mr. Covington as a management official
166. Mr. Covington’s actions as an actor named in Ms. Churchill’s charge are thus in the
management purposefully withheld Ms. Churchill’s owed wages because of her requests for
B. Back pay;
C. Compensatory damages;
19
Case 8:17-cv-00980-PWG Document 20 Filed 12/15/17 Page 20 of 21
F. Other such relief as may be appropriate to effectuate the purposes of Title VII, ADA, and
MFEPA.
Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all questions of fact raised by the Complaint.
20
Case 8:17-cv-00980-PWG Document 20 Filed 12/15/17 Page 21 of 21
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that, on December 15, 2017, a true and accurate copy of the
foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk’s Office served using this court’s CM/ECF
system, which will then serve a notice of electronic filing (NEF) on the judge and the following:
Andrew G. Scott
Federal Bar No. 29257
Pessin Katz Law, P.A.
901 Dulaney Valley Road, Suite 500
Towson, Maryland 21204
Tele: (410) 339-6744
Fax: (410) 832-5627
21