You are on page 1of 10

Case 9:18-cv-81227-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2018 Page 1 of 10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. __________

STEVE ROBERT,

Plaintiff,
v.

CITY OF BOCA RATON, FLORIDA;


JEREMY CODLING; CHIEF DANIEL
ALEXANDER; AND DEPUTY
CHIEF MICHELE MIUCCIO

Defendants,
_________________________________/

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Introduction

Plaintiff, Steve Robert, brings this action pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of

1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000 et seq., the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, 42 U.S.C. §§

1981, 1983, 1985, 1986, and U.S Constitutional amendments XIII and IIV. This action is brought

to remedy acts of discrimination perpetrated against him by the City of Boca Raton, Florida’s

Police Department (“BRPD”). Plaintiff contends that BRPD officials discriminated against him

by terminating him because of his race, subjected him to a hostile work environment due to his

race, and acted in concert to deprive him of his federal rights.

Jurisdiction and Venue

1. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this civil action pursuant to

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16, 42 U.S.C. § § 1981, 1983, 1985,

1986 and U.S. Constitutional amendments XIII and IIV.

1
Case 9:18-cv-81227-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2018 Page 2 of 10

2. Venue is proper in this judicial district as Plaintiff was employed by the City of

Boca Raton, Florida at the time of his termination, Plaintiff’s employment records are maintained

in this judicial district, and the decisions adverse to Plaintiff’s employment that are the subject of

this civil action were made in this judicial district.

Parties

3. Plaintiff, Steve Robert, a black male, is a citizen of the United States and a resident

of the State of Florida. Mr. Robert was employed by the BRPD from December 2015 until his

termination in May 2017.

4. Defendant is the City of Boca Raton, Florida, which was Mr. Robert’s employer

via the BRPD during all relevant times to this suit.

Statement of Facts

5. Mr. Robert was employed by the City as a Police Officer Candidate (“POC”) for

the BRPD beginning on December 4, 2015. He was subsequently sworn in on July 27, 2016.

6. Mr. Robert was praised by both citizens and previous supervisors on several

occasions.

7. On April 27, 2017, after receiving no disciplinary complaints in his employee

record, Mr. Robert was transferred to work under the supervision of Sergeant Jeremy Codling.

8. On Mr. Robert’s first day working under Sergeant Codling, he was subjected to

racist comments. Sergeant Codling asked Mr. Robert if he “owned a mule” to go along with

acreage he had just acquired. These remarks were also observed, ignored and tolerated by other

officers.

2
Case 9:18-cv-81227-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2018 Page 3 of 10

9. Within a week of Mr. Robert’s transfer, Sergeant Codling strongly demonstrated

his animosity toward Mr. Robert based on his race. Sergeant Codling began to attack Mr. Robert

for minor paperwork errors. In fact, the paperwork errors were a pretext for his real goal, which

was to terminate Mr. Robert for being black.

10. In spite of the fact that other probationary officers – white officers – made far more

egregious errors while employed as rookie officers, including errors that jeopardized the safety of

other officers and civilians, only Mr. Robert was targeted.

11. Sergeant Codling warned Mr. Robert that he had him “under a microscope”,

brazenly acknowledging that he was looking for a way to terminate him.

12. Zero errors or disciplinary matters were ever recorded in writing in Mr. Robert’s

employment file between the time Mr. Robert first became a rookie officer and the date of his

termination, May 31, 2017.

13. On May 31, 2017, Sergeant Codling issued a written reprimand to Mr. Robert. This

was Mr. Robert’s first written reprimand.

14. In spite of the fact that Mr. Robert had no prior reprimands on file, Sergeant Codling

advised Mr. Robert that he must resign or be terminated that same day.

15. Although Mr. Robert initially resisted, another officer, Sergeant Shifflett, indicated

that he had no choice – resign or be fired. Mr. Robert reluctantly resigned.

16. Mr. Robert’s resignation was a constructive termination.

17. Mr. Robert was terminated within 10 working days of being supervised by Sergeant

Codling.

3
Case 9:18-cv-81227-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2018 Page 4 of 10

18. Tellingly, white officers committed far worse infractions than the paperwork errors

for which Mr. Robert was reprimanded in May of 2017 – including safety violations such as the

running of red lights; failing to follow policy that allowed a suspect to evade apprehension; and a

vehicular accident causing property damage and risk to life.

19. Only after Mr. Robert filed a complaint with the EEOC did the BRPD first contend

that Mr. Robert has other errors – errors which never appeared in his employment file.

20. Even if Mr. Robert did commit errors, the BRPD weighed the severity of the errors

committed by white officers with far less scrutiny than the errors allegedly committed by Mr.

Robert.

21. Upon information and belief, there are other officers who have committed similar

paperwork errors as those allegedly committed by Mr. Robert during the course of their training

period as rookie officers. Those rookie officers were not terminated. These officers were white.

22. Upon information and belief, it is common place for rookie officers to make errors

during their training period as a rookie, as this is the purpose of a “training” period.

23. In this case, Mr. Robert’s alleged errors are a pretext for the real reason for his

termination – his race.

24. Shortly after Mr. Robert was terminated, Officer Desir (African American) made a

race discrimination complaint against the BRPD (BRPD Internal Affairs Investigation #201-

7005).

4
Case 9:18-cv-81227-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2018 Page 5 of 10

25. His complaint – and accompanying documentation – strongly illustrate that not

only was Sergeant Codling blatantly engaging in a pattern of hostile behavior toward black

officers, but that many officers within the department were aware of, and condoned, the behavior.

26. Tellingly, the complaint by Officer Desir describes in clear detail just how biased

Sergeant Codling was when making decisions involving black officers.

27. The complaint goes into painstaking detail about the racially charged environment

that black officers endure at the BRPD.

28. Officers Desir explicitly details racist remarks made against black officers by

multiple officers, including that blacks are “prone to stealing” and that he observed Sergeant

Codling refer to blacks as “nigger.”

29. Continuing to show his bias, Sergeant Codling indicated that a black male “must”

be the chauffeur of a white man he was accompanying, and has sent memes via text message

indicating that “blacks never work.”

30. Sergeant Codling also sent text messages stating that “black people were white

people dipped in chocolate.”

31. The BRPD sustained the investigation against Sergeant Codling, and Sergeant

Codling was terminated for making these racially motivated remarks.

32. Sergeant Codling was also terminated for lying during his sworn questioning about

his use of the word “nigger.”

33. Incredibly, even after terminating Sergeant Codling for conduct unbecoming an

officer arising out of racially motivated remarks and lying under oath, the BRPD refused to look

5
Case 9:18-cv-81227-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2018 Page 6 of 10

at the circumstances regarding Mr. Robert’s termination, failing to even return his calls or

messages.

34. Instead, in an effort to protect itself, the BRPD has backed the party line on Mr.

Robert.

35. It has become BRPD policy to “back the party line” on decisions in an effort to

protect its reputation. Having had racial discrimination claims in the past against the BRPD, and

bad press recently regarding racial discrimination, the chief decision makers, Chief Daniel

Alexander and Deputy Chief Michele Miuccio have made the decision to continue its story line

that Mr. Robert was incompetent.

36. Both Chief Daniel Alexander and Deputy Chief Michele Miuccio have continued

to defame Mr. Robert’s reputation by telling various individuals and officers that he is incompetent

and harassed women.

37. This is all part of the well-known custom of the “blue wall of silence,” which seeks

to protect the BRPD’s “own” from reputational harm.

38. After Mr. Robert filed a complaint with the EEOC, the City continued its custom

of protecting its racist officers and their discriminatory practices against black males, by providing

a litany of small paperwork errors – some so ludicrously tiny that they show pretext in and of itself.

39. Tellingly, none of the errors the City now claims are the reason for his firing are in

his employee record.

40. This “backward scramble” is part of the BRPD’s back pedaling effort to cover up

constitutional violations, rather than admit that a grievous error was made.

6
Case 9:18-cv-81227-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2018 Page 7 of 10

41. It is patently obvious that the City scrambled backwards to find any tiny errors to

cover up the real season Mr. Robert was terminated, which was Sergeant Codling’s animosity

toward black individuals.

42. Chief Steven Meyer and Deputy Chief Michele Miuccio, who were aware of

Sergeant Codling’s proclivities towards black officers, have aided and abetted Sergeant Codling

by scrambling to cover the real reason that Mr. Robert was terminated.

43. Because this is a “top down” policy, the BRPD has failed to adequately train its

officers on constitutional issues. This is evidenced by the fact that numerous officers received the

racist text messages from Sergeant Codling, but nobody reported the discrimination until Officer

Desir (black male) stepped forward.

44. The inadequate training of officers, as well as the cover-ups perpetrated by high

rankings officers created a practice and custom that systematically subjected black officers to

discrimination and a hostile work environment.

45. Since his termination, Mr. Robert has applied – and been turned down – from

several police departments.

46. Moreover, Mr. Robert’s termination, as well as the BRPD continual spreading of

false rumors about his competence and the reason he was terminated, may prevent him from ever

receiving comparable employment in his life.

47. Mr. Robert timely filed a formal administrative complaint asserting discrimination.

On June 20, 2018, the EEOC issued its right to sue letter.

7
Case 9:18-cv-81227-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2018 Page 8 of 10

Count One

(Racial Discrimination in Violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.

2000e et seq. and the Florida Civil Rights Act)

48. The foregoing paragraphs realleged and incorporated by reference herein.

49. The Defendants’ conduct as alleged at length herein constitutes discrimination

based on race in violation of Title VII. The stated reasons for the Defendants’ conduct were not

the true reasons, but instead were pretext to hide the Defendants’ discriminatory animus.

Count Two

(Hostile and Abusive Working Environment)

50. The foregoing paragraphs are realleged and incorporated by reference herein.

51. The Defendants’ conduct as alleged above constitutes hostile and abusive working

environment in violation of Title VII. The stated reasons for the Defendants’ conduct were not the

true reasons, but instead were pretext to hide the Defendants’ discriminatory animus.

Count Three

(Violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983)

52. The foregoing paragraphs are realleged and incorporated by reference herein.

53. The Defendants acted under color of law to deny Mr. Robert equal protection of

the laws, and in their discrimination based on race.

54. The BRPD created a custom or policy by repeatedly depriving black officers of

their rights by defending known behavior that violated black officers’ rights; by failing to

8
Case 9:18-cv-81227-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2018 Page 9 of 10

adequately train its officers and by its policymakers creating a custom to stand by the decision of

“its own,” regardless of the law.

55. The repeated unofficial practice of the BRPD to “stand behind” termination

decisions, even when race is a factor, was the moving force in violating Mr. Robert’s rights.

56. The BRPD has violated other black officers’ rights in similar ways; yet, it continues

its customs, practices and policies.

57. The BRPD has joined in concert – post termination – to create frivolous claims or

errors against Mr. Robert to defend its policy of “standing by” wrongful terminations and to protect

its reputation.

58. Chief Steven Meyer and Deputy Chief Miuccio have instituted an official policy to

stand by its officers’ termination decisions, even when that involves a cover up of constitutional

violations.

59. The BRPD violated Mr. Robert’s clear constitutional right to receive the same

treatment as white rookie officers.

Count Four

(Violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985 and 1986)

60. The foregoing paragraphs are realleged and incorporated by reference herein.

61. Various officers of the BRPD conspired to deprive Mr. Robert from equal

protection of the laws and equal privileges and immunities thereunder.

9
Case 9:18-cv-81227-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2018 Page 10 of 10

Prayer for Relief

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff requests that the court award him:

(a) A retroactive reinstatement with the BRPD, with all attendant back pay, benefits

and other emoluments of employment;

(b) Damages for pain, suffering and mental anguish;

(c) Compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial;

(d) Front pay (including pay commensurate with the overtime Mr. Robert’s worked as

a POC);

(e) Costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and any other

applicable authority incurred with this lawsuit with interest thereon; and

(f) Any other relief deemed appropriate and just.

Jury Demand

The Plaintiff requests trial by jury.

Dated: September 13, 2018 Respectfully Submitted,

____________________
Richard A. D’Amura
Bar No. 663921
D’Amura & Zaidman, PLLC
609 Josephine Street
Austin, Texas 78704
Tel: (512) 967-1898
Fax: N/A
E-Mail: rdamura@dz-pllc.com

10

You might also like