Wallace 2006

Case 3:06-cv-01543-PCD Document 1 Filed 10/02/06 Page 1 of 31
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
PEKAH WALLACE, :
Plaintiff :
: CIVIL ACTION NO.
v. :
:
CONNECTICUT COMMISSION ON :
HUMAN RIGHTS AND OPPORTUNITIES :
AND R. HAMISI INGRAM, IN HIS :
INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITIES, :
Defendants : OCTOBER 2, 2006
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
I. Nature of the Case
This is a civil action for damages and equitable relief against the Connecticut
Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (hereafter also referred to as “CHRO”) and R.
Hamisi Ingram in his individual and official capacities, for intentional infliction of emotional
distress; tortious interference with contractual relations; and violations of Plaintiff’s rights to due
process of law and equal protection under the law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment
and as enforced through 42 U.S.C. §1983, false light invasion of privacy and defamation. This
Court has jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §2000e, et seq., 28 U.S.C. §1331, and
28 U.S.C. §1332. The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Venue is proper in the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

II. Factual Allegations
1. The Plaintiff, Ms. Pekah Wallace (hereafter also referred to as “Ms. Wallace” or
“Plaintiff”), is a resident of Bloomfield, CT. Ms. Wallace was hired by the CHRO as the
Regional Manager for the CHRO’s West Central Regional Office on or about March 22, 2002.
Ms. Wallace is a black female of Jamaican national origin. Ms. Wallace relies on her
employment with CHRO to support her family.
2. The Defendant, CHRO, maintains a principal office at 21 Grand Street, Hartford,
CT 06106. The CHRO is an agency and instrumentality of the State of Connecticut, duly
organized and existing under the laws of the State of Connecticut.
3. The Defendant, R. Hamisi Ingram (hereafter also “Mr. Ingram”), is the Executive
Director of CHRO. Mr. Ingram is sued in his individual and official capacities. At all times
relevant to this Complaint, Mr. Ingram was appointed as Executive Director of the CHRO and
acted under color of state law in that capacity.
4. On her Performance Appraisal for the period from March 22, 2002 to June 2002,
Ms. Wallace received an overall performance rating of “Good”. Specifically, Ms. Wallace was
rated as “Good” in the performance criteria of knowledge of work, quantity of work, ability to
learn new duties, initiative, and judgment. Ms. Wallace was rated as “Excellent” in the
performance criteria of quality of work and cooperation. Donald Newton (hereafter “Mr.
Newton”), CHRO’s Chief of Field Operations, issued this Performance Appraisal.
2
5. On her Performance Planning and Appraisal Record for the period from July 1,
2002 to June 30, 2003, Ms. Wallace received a performance rating of “Meets” or “Exceeds”
performance expectations for every performance criteria. Mr. Newton was the CHRO supervisor
that issued this performance appraisal. Specifically, Ms. Wallace received a performance rating
of “Meets All Expectations” for the following performance criteria: (a) Effective management
of regional office to insure that statutory processing timeframes are met; (b) Engaging in
effective communication with administration, staff, and the public including complainants,
respondents, and their representatives; (c) Timely and accurate recording of data in complaint
tracking system; (d) Review of complaints where a reconsideration request has been granted to
reduce and/or eliminate similar errors in the future; (e) Familiarity with and adherence to agency
AA/EEO program goals and objectives as they relate to regional office operations;
(f) Implementation of agency’s attendance policy for regional staff and personal adherence to it;
and (g) Facilitation of transportation for your staff to quarterly meetings and other agency events
when the agency provides transportation. Ms. Wallace received a performance rating of
“Exceeds Expectations” for the performance criteria of: Pursuing no fault conciliation inquiries
at pre-answer stage and actively promoting mediation activities at all stages of the complaint
investigation process. Mr. Newton’s composite rating for Ms. Wallace for the period from July
1, 2002 to June 30, 2003 was “Meets All Expectations.”
3
6. On her Performance Planning and Appraisal Record for the period from July 1,
2003 to June 30, 2004, Ms. Wallace received a performance rating of “Meets” or “Exceeds”
performance expectations for every performance criteria. Mr. Newton issued this performance
evaluation on September 27, 2004. Specifically, Ms. Wallace received a performance rating of
“Meets All Expectations” for the following performance criteria: (a) Engaging in effective
communication with administration, staff, and the public including complainants, respondents,
and their representatives; (b) Timely and accurate recording of data in complaint tracking
system; (c) Review of complaints where a reconsideration request has been granted to reduce
and/or eliminate similar errors in the future; (d) Familiarity with and adherence to agency
AA/EEO program goals and objectives as they relate to regional office operations; and
(e) Implementation of agency’s attendance policy for regional staff and personal adherence to it.
Ms. Wallace received a performance rating of “Exceeds Expectations” for the following
performance criteria: (a) Effective management of regional office to insure that statutory
processing timeframes are met; and (b) Pursuing no fault conciliation inquiries at pre-answer
stage and actively promoting mediation activities at all stages of the complaint investigation
process. Mr. Newton’s composite rating for Ms. Wallace for the period from July 1, 2003 to
June 30, 2004 was “Meets All Expectations.”
4
7. The composite rating of “Meets All Expectations” signifies that the rated manager
achieved all objectives and job requirements, is competent in all responsibilities of the position,
and requires minimal direction.
8. Ms. Wallace met or exceeded her responsibilities as Regional Manager for
CHRO’s West Central Regional Office from March 22, 2002 to October 31, 2004.
9. While Ms. Wallace was Regional Manager, CHRO’s West Central Regional
Office outperformed CHRO’s other regional offices in terms of monetary recoveries for
complainants.
10. CHRO’s Annual Reports reflect the following results for each CHRO Regional
Office in terms of monetary recoveries for complainants for the time period from July 1, 2002 to
October 31, 2004:
CHRO Capitol South West West Central Eastern SEU

Regional Offices Region Region Region Region Region
FY 2002/03
(7/1/02-6/30/03) $303,712 $106,034 $1,481,163 $102,273 $59,748
FY 2003/04
(7/1/03-6/30/04) $324,231 $511,312 $1,096,386 $50,480 $335,005
7/1/04 – 10/31/04 $349,003 $33,822 $492,314 $35,150 $113,580

Total Monetary
Recoveries for
Complainants $976,946 $651,168 $3,069,863 $187,903 $508,333
5
11. While Ms. Wallace was Regional Manager, CHRO’s West Central Regional
Office outperformed CHRO’s other regional offices in terms of number of cases processed,
despite the fact that the West Central Regional Office had fewer investigators than CHRO’s
other Regional Offices.
12. Ms. Wallace established a successful mediation program in the West Central
Office in July 2002 and carried a full mediation caseload while simultaneously performing her
duties as Regional Manager for the West Central Office from July 2002 to October 31, 2004. No
other Regional Manager carried a full mediation caseload in addition to their Regional Manager
duties.
13. As Regional Manager for CHRO’s West Central Regional Office, Ms. Wallace
succeeded in bringing all cases within statutory timeframes, something no other Regional
Manager had been able to accomplish.
14. While Ms. Wallace was Regional Manager for CHRO’s West Central Regional
Office from March 22, 2002 to October 31, 2004, the assigned investigators increased their
productivity and staff professionalism improved. Ms. Wallace held monthly staff meetings for
the purpose of reviewing performance expectations, case issues, operational issues, and to
conduct staff training.
15. In August 2004, R. Hamisi Ingram (black/male) assumed the position of CHRO
Executive Director. As Executive Director, Mr. Ingram acts as CHRO’s agent. Prior to Mr.
6
Ingram’s appointment as Executive Director, Raymond Pech (white/male) (hereafter “Mr. Pech”)
had served as Acting Interim Executive Director. Mr. Pech was a candidate for the position of
Executive Director and interviewed for the position. Numerous Caucasian employees at CHRO
took up a petition to have Mr. Pech selected as Executive Director for CHRO. Although Mr.
Pech was not selected for the position of Executive Director, the CHRO Commissioners
instructed Mr. Ingram to appoint Mr. Pech to the position of Deputy Director for CHRO. Mr.
Ingram objected to that instruction.
16. In August 2003, Ms. Wallace counseled an employee for not being at work when
he was supposed to be present. That employee filed a frivolous grievance complaining that Ms.
Wallace had brought his lack of accountability for his work time to his attention. CHRO
permitted an extended investigation into the frivolous claims asserted against Ms. Wallace by
that subordinate to proceed for months. Mr. Pech, then Acting Interim Executive Director,
privately advised Ms. Wallace on March 25, 2004, that he found the grievance to have no merit
and that the investigation process was flawed. Mr. Pech also advised Ms. Wallace that he would
submit a written response to the grievance expressing his conclusion that the grievance had no
merit, but he failed to do so. On June 8, 2004, Ms. Wallace wrote a memo to Mr. Pech and Mr.
Newton in which she objected to the manner in which the grievance investigation was conducted
and their lack of support for her and advised them that she found the grievance investigation
process to have been discriminatory against her.
7
17. The employee who filed the grievance against Ms. Wallace later transferred to
CHRO’s Central Office and shortly thereafter became the subject of numerous complaints by
union members that he was rarely at work when he was supposed to be. He was also the subject
of a letter of concern from the Capitol Police advising CHRO that this employee was spending
many hours each day wandering around the State Capitol talking to strangers and generally
acting in an eccentric manner. When finally confronted by CHRO’s Central Office management,
the employee admitted to routinely leaving work without permission.
18. On or about August 16, 2004, Mr. Ingram met with Ms. Wallace in his office for
the first time. Mr. Ingram told Ms. Wallace that he understood that she had a discrimination
complaint against Mr. Pech. Ms. Wallace advised Mr. Ingram that she felt that the grievance
process had been handled in a discriminatory manner. Mr. Ingram told Ms. Wallace that the
Commissioners had ordered him to appoint Mr. Pech as his Deputy Director and that he did not
like being told what to do. Mr. Ingram told Ms. Wallace that he wanted her to file a formal
complaint of race discrimination against Mr. Pech. Mr. Ingram intended to use the complaint
against Mr. Pech.
19. Ms. Wallace was troubled by Mr. Ingram’s request. On August 25, 2004, Ms.
Wallace advised Mr. Ingram that she would not file a formal discrimination complaint against
Mr. Pech, as she did not believe it was warranted. Mr. Ingram became very angry with Ms.
Wallace for refusing to file a formal discrimination complaint against Mr. Pech. Mr. Ingram
8
then ordered Ms. Wallace to provide him a copy of her memo of June 8, 2004, in which she had
challenged the grievance investigation process as discriminatory.
20. Marla Shiller (hereafter “Ms. Shiller”) was an investigator assigned to the West
Central Regional Office. Prior to Ms. Wallace’s assignment as Regional Manager, Ms. Shiller
had been assigned very limited duties relating to Merit Assessment of cases, while other limited
number of investigators in the West Central Office struggled with heavy investigative caseloads.
Ms. Wallace assigned Ms. Shiller to perform full case investigations in addition to Merit
Assessment of cases, similar to other investigators in the office. This angered Ms. Shiller. Ms.
Wallace also assigned Ms. Shiller certain additional responsibilities to assist an employee whose
performance was restricted on account of a disability. Ms. Shiller objected to those additional
duties. Ms. Shiller eventually resigned in October 2004 to take a position with another state
agency.
21. Prior to her departure in October 2004, Mr. Ingram called Ms. Shiller to his office
and asked her if she had anything unflattering to say about Ms. Wallace. Ms. Shiller made
numerous false allegations against Ms. Wallace. Mr. Ingram obtained a detailed written
statement from Ms. Shiller to use against Ms. Wallace. It is not a customary practice for
employees departing CHRO to render detailed written statements similar to the one Mr. Ingram
obtained to use against Ms. Wallace.
9
22. State of Connecticut Personnel Regulation Section 5-239-1(a)(1) provides that
“Permanent and temporary transfers within an agency may be made with the approval of the
Commissioner of Administrative Services either by the appointing authority for the good of the
service or by request of the employee with the approval of the appointing authority.”
23. On October 15, 2004, Mr. Ingram advised Ms. Wallace of his decision to transfer
Ms. Wallace from her position as Regional Manager for CHRO’s West Central Regional Office.
Mr. Ingram explained to Ms. Wallace that her transfer would be to a managerial position
managing the mediation of complaints for CHRO. Mr. Ingram advised Ms. Wallace that the
effective date of the transfer would be November 1, 2004.
24. After advising Ms. Wallace of her transfer from her position as Regional Manager
for CHRO’s West Central Regional Office, Mr. Ingram asked Ms. Wallace to sign a letter stating
that she was resigning from her position as Regional Manager due to circumstances in the West
Central Office. Ms. Wallace asked Mr. Ingram what circumstances he was referring to. Mr.
Ingram did not respond. Ms. Wallace told Mr. Ingram that she would not sign the resignation
letter he presented. Ms. Wallace advised Mr. Ingram, however, that she would accept a transfer
to a managerial position in charge of mediation for CHRO, but would not resign her title as
CHRO Regional Manager until the managerial mediation position was formally created pursuant
to the applicable Personnel Rules for the State of Connecticut.
10
25. The Department of Administrative Services did not give Mr. Ingram approval to
transfer Ms. Wallace from her position as Regional Manager for CHRO’s West Central Regional
Office. Mr. Ingram conferred with the Department of Administrative Services and was aware
that he lacked approval to transfer Ms. Wallace from her position as Regional Manager for
CHRO’s West Central Regional Office, but he did so nonetheless.
26. Mr. Ingram did not disclose Ms. Shiller’s written statement or accusations to Ms.
Wallace or provide Ms. Wallace any opportunity to respond to Ms. Shiller’s accusations prior to
transferring Ms. Wallace from her position as Regional Manager on October 15, 2004.
27. On October 19, 2004, Mr. Ingram falsely notified the CHRO Commissioners in
writing that Ms. Wallace had resigned her Regional Manager title. Mr. Ingram so advised the
CHRO Commissioners regarding the nature of his actions against Ms. Wallace in order to
deceive them.
28. Mr. Ingram was angered by Ms. Wallace’s refusal to relinquish her formal job
title of Regional Manager. Mr. Ingram chided Ms. Wallace by asking her, “What are you the
Regional Manager of?” Mr. Ingram also threatened Ms. Wallace in writing on November 23,
2004, writing to her as follows, “The continued use of a state employment title of which you
have been disposed will be considered both insubordination and fraudulent misrepresentation as
a state official.” Mr. Ingram further prohibited Ms. Wallace from attending managerial meetings
or the managerial retreat.
11
29. Despite his promise to create a managerial position for Ms. Wallace in charge of
mediation for CHRO, Mr. Ingram did not do so. Instead, Mr. Ingram assigned Ms. Wallace to
perform the duties of an investigator in CHRO’s Housing Department. Mr. Ingram’s removal of
Ms. Wallace from her position as Regional Manager for CHRO’s West Central Regional Office
and the assignment of duties as an investigator in CHRO’s Housing Department amounted to a
demotion in her duties and responsibilities and caused Ms. Wallace to suffer extreme public
embarrassment, humiliation, and emotional distress.
30. State of Connecticut Personnel Regulation Section 5-240-4a(b) provides that:
“Before a decision is made to demote an employee, the appointing authority shall follow the pre-
discipline procedures, as set forth in these regulations.” The pre-discipline procedures as set
forth in State of Connecticut Personnel Regulation Section 5-240-7a, provide that prior to a
decision to demote an employee, the appointing authority shall provide the employee with oral or
written notice. “The notice shall include what form of action is being considered, shall contain a
concise statement explaining what evidence supports the imposition of the action that is being
considered and shall state a specific time and place for a meeting where the employee will be
given an opportunity to present his side of the story and reasons why the employee feels that the
action being considered should not be taken.” CHRO and Mr. Ingram failed to comply with the
required pre-disciplinary procedures with regard to the decision to demote Ms. Wallace.
12
31. State of Connecticut Personnel Regulation Section 5-240-4a(c) provides that:
“Following the decision to demote an employee, the appointing authority shall follow the post-
discipline procedures, as set forth in these regulations.” The post-discipline procedures, as set
forth in State of Connecticut Personnel Regulation Section 5-240-8a, provide that within one
week of a decision by the appointing authority to demote an employee, the appointing authority
shall provide the employee with written notice stating the reasons for the decision and informing
the employee of any right to further review or appeal pursuant to C.G.S. Section 5-202.
Defendants failed to comply with the required post-disciplinary procedures with regard to the
decision to demote Ms. Wallace.
32. Despite Mr. Ingram’s failure to honor his promise to create a managerial position
for Ms. Wallace in charge of mediation, Ms. Wallace performed her assigned duties as an
investigator in CHRO’s Housing Department in an exemplary manner. On August 2, 2005,
Robert Zamlowski, the Manager of CHRO’s Housing Department, issued the following
evaluation of Ms. Wallace’s work: “As supported by the attached quarterly reviews, your
performance of the duties of processing housing complaints was satisfactory or better in all
respects. You have shown yourself to be very organized, exhibiting excellent case management
skills. You have processed cases assigned within acceptable ranges for both quantity and
timeliness. You learn quickly, and your knowledge of the work, including the unique legal and
case processing issues relevant to housing, is good for someone in the unit this length of time.
13
Judgment has been reliable and thinking logical. You have shown initiative and a passion for the
work. You have been cooperative with myself and other staff and have not hesitated to seek
guidance when needed or take guidance when offered.”
33. In August 2005, Mr. Ingram attempted again to pressure Mr. Wallace to
relinquish her formal job title as Regional Manager. This time Mr. Ingram ordered Mr. Newton
to retroactively issue Ms. Wallace a poor performance review for the period from July 1, 2004 to
October 31, 2004. The adverse performance review prepared by Mr. Newton contained
unjustified performance criticisms regarding incidents that allegedly occurred during the prior
rating period from July 1, 2003 to June 30, 2004, as to which Mr. Newton had previously rated
Ms. Wallace as meeting all performance expectations.
34. On August 15, 2005, Mr. Newton presented Ms. Wallace with an adverse
performance evaluation for the period from July 1, 2004 to October 31, 2004. Mr. Newton
further advised Ms. Wallace that on the basis of that adverse performance evaluation, she would
forfeit the raise that other managers would be receiving effective July 1, 2005. The adverse
performance evaluation was not justified because Ms. Wallace had successfully performed her
duties as Regional Manager during that period. Further, the adverse performance evaluation for
the period from July 1, 2004 to October 31, 2004 was contradicted by the fully successful
performance evaluation issued by Mr. Newton on September 27, 2004, and described with more
particularity in paragraph 4, above.
14
35. At the time that Mr. Newton handed the adverse performance evaluation to Ms.
Wallace on August 15, 2005, he advised her that he would be willing to tear up the adverse
evaluation and throw it away if she would surrender her Regional Manager title and agree to
accept a formal demotion to the position of investigator in CHRO’s Housing Department. Ms.
Wallace advised Mr. Newton that there was no justification for the belated adverse performance
review and refused to surrender her formal title of Regional Manager.
36. Under the State of Connecticut Personnel Rules, Regulations and Procedures,
performance evaluations: should be issued annually, not in four-month increments of time;
should only evaluate performance by the employee during the rating period; and should fairly
and accurately evaluate an employee’s performance during the relevant rating period. By issuing
Ms. Wallace this false and contrived performance evaluation to use as a bargaining lever to force
Ms. Wallace to relinquish her employment title, Mr. Ingram and CHRO violated the Connecticut
Personnel Rules, Regulations and Procedures.
37. On August 17, 2005, Mr. Ingram directed Ms. Wallace to report to his office to
meet with him. Mr. Ingram directed Ms. Wallace’s supervisor in the Housing Department, Mr.
Zamlowski, to attend the meeting. Ms. Wallace and Mr. Zamlowski reported to Mr. Ingram’s
office for the meeting carrying notepads. Mr. Ingram announced, “no notes.” Ms. Wallace
requested permission to take notes and Mr. Ingram responded again, “no notes.” Ms. Wallace
15
again requested permission to take notes during the meeting, whereupon Mr. Ingram announced,
“the meeting is over,” and dismissed Ms. Wallace and Mr. Zamlowski.
38. On August 22, 2005, Mr. Ingram scheduled Ms. Wallace for a pre-termination
disciplinary hearing on the basis of the unjustified adverse performance evaluation for the period
from July 1, 2004 to October 31, 2004.
39. Ms. Wallace responded by filing grievances challenging the actions of Mr.
Ingram and CHRO. Ms. Wallace’s grievances were adjudicated by the Connecticut Office of
Labor Relations (“OLR”), which issued a written decision in which OLR found as follows:
“There are multiple state documents of record that establish that while Ms. Wallace was the
Regional Manager of the West Central Region, that Region maintained the highest case load
with proportionately the lowest staffing levels and continuously brought in the highest monetary
settlements on behalf of complainants.” OLR Decision, OLR Case Nos. 3147, 3155, 5/23/06,
Page 2 (attached). OLR concluded that, “the objective and undisputed evidence of record
indicates that the West Central Office performed notably well under Ms. Wallace’s leadership as
Regional Manager and the evidence does not support the Agency’s removal of these duties from
her on or about January, 2005.” OLR Decision, Page 2.
40. During the OLR proceedings, Mr. Newton testified: (a) that he would never have
prepared an adverse performance evaluation for Ms. Wallace in August 2005 covering the time
period from July 1, 2004 to October 31, 2004, had he not been ordered to do so by Mr. Ingram;
16
(b) that when he presented the adverse performance review to Ms. Wallace, he offered to tear up
the review and throw it away if she would surrender her formal title as Regional Manager and
accept a formal demotion to investigator in CHRO’s Housing Department; (c) that the adverse
performance review contained criticisms of incidents that occurred prior to July 1, 2004, during a
rating period for which he had issued Ms. Wallace an overall rating of Meets All Expectations;
and (d) that he understood it was not an authorized use of the State performance appraisal
process to prepare an adverse performance evaluation for the purpose of pressuring a State
employee to relinquish her title.
41. OLR ordered CHRO to provide the following relief to Ms. Wallace:
(a) Rescind the unsatisfactory performance review for the period from July 1,
2004 to October 31, 2004 and issue an evaluation of “Meets All
Expectations” for the period from July 1, 2004 to June 30, 2005;
(b) Award Ms. Wallace the retroactive raise that it denied to her retroactive to
FY 2004-2005;
(c) Reinstate Ms. Wallace to her position as Regional Manager of the West
Central Office, allowing her to perform the duties consistent with that title;
and
17
(d) Remove from Ms. Wallace’s personnel file any information pertaining to
comments made by employees regarding Ms. Wallace during employee
exit interviews during the period from 2004-2005.
42. Following the Order issued by OLR, Mr. Ingram has continued to retaliate against
and undermine Ms. Wallace in her position as Regional Manager.
43. On information and belief, on repeated occasions from August 2004 to the
present, Mr. Ingram has made disparaging and untrue remarks about Ms. Wallace’s performance
and employment to the CHRO Commissioners during the CHRO Commission meeting
Executive Sessions and outside of CHRO Executive Sessions, while no advance notice was
given to Ms. Wallace that her performance or employment would be discussed. Mr. Ingram
made such disparaging and untrue remarks about Ms. Wallace for the improper purpose of
deceiving and manipulating the CHRO Commissioners to acquiesce in his malicious and
retaliatory actions against Ms. Wallace. The false and disparaging statements by Mr. Ingram to
the Commissioners were to the effect that Ms. Wallace: created disharmony with the employees
that she managed, violated the rights of employees in her region, failed to properly manage her
regional office, and wrongly failed to surrender a chair from her office.
44. Under the Connecticut Freedom of Information Act, C.G.S. §1-200(6), a public
agency must give an employee advance notice if it intends to discuss the employee’s
performance or employment in an Executive Session. Under C.G.S. §1-222(6), an employee
18
receiving such notice has the right to require that the discussion of their performance or
employment be held in an open meeting. From August 2004 to the present, CHRO has
repeatedly failed to give Ms. Wallace advance notice when it discussed her performance and
employment in Executive Session.
45. On June 16, 2006, State of Connecticut Auditors found that CHRO violated
Connecticut Personnel Regulations when it transferred Pekah Wallace from her position as
Regional Manager of CHRO’s West Central Regional Office effective November 1, 2004. In his
response to State Auditors, Mr. Ingram, acting on behalf of CHRO, provided the following
written response to the Auditors of Public Accounts, 20 Trinity Street, Hartford, CT 06106:
“CHRO intended to transfer the Regional Manager from her position in Waterbury to another
managerial position in the Central Office. Once the Regional Manager came to the Central
Office, however, she determined that she no longer wanted the intended managerial position. As
noted in the draft audit report, a major reason for the proposed transfer was personnel issues in
the West Central office. We did not wish to exacerbate those issues, and tried for many months
to convince the Regional Manager to reconsider the equivalent position to which she initially
agreed. The commission now realizes that the equivalent position should have been established
and approved by DAS/OPM before the initial offer was made. The matter has now been
reversed and the manager has been returned to the West Central Office.”
19
46. After advising Ms. Wallace in October 2004 of her transfer from her position as
Regional Manager for CHRO’s West Central Regional Office, Mr. Ingram asked Ms. Wallace to
sign a letter stating that she was resigning from her position as Regional Manager due to
circumstances in the West Central Office. Ms. Wallace told Mr. Ingram that she would not sign
the resignation letter he presented. Ms. Wallace advised Mr. Ingram, however, that she would
accept a transfer to a managerial position in charge of mediation for CHRO, but would not resign
her title as CHRO Regional Manager until the managerial mediation position was formally
created pursuant to the applicable Personnel Rules for the State of Connecticut. Mr. Ingram
demanded that Ms. Wallace write down her position on the matter and hand it to him, which she
did. Ms. Wallace’s statement to Mr. Ingram provided as follows:
“Pursuant to our discussion this afternoon, I am willing to accept your offer to
become head of the new mediation unit, effective Nov as we agreed, this is a
lateral transfer reporting to Donald Newton, Chief of Field Operations. The
position will be located in the Central Office. And will utilize my expertise in
mediation. I understand you will attempt to provide me additional staffing as the
need arises. This position will assist in carrying out the statutory and policy
requirements to pursue mediation and conciliation at all steps of case processing.”
47. Mr. Ingram’s statement to State Auditors that Ms. Wallace would not accept a
transfer to a mediation manager position upon her transfer to the Central Office in 2004 is false.
20
Ms. Wallace was willing to accept a mediation manager position, however no such position
existed.
48. Mr. Ingram’s statement to State Auditors that CHRO “tried for many months to
convince the Regional Manager to reconsider the equivalent position to which she initially
agreed” is false. To the contrary, Ms. Wallace was willing to accept a mediation manager
position. However, no such position existed and Mr. Ingram failed to take the necessary steps to
create the promised mediation manager position.
49. Mr. Ingram’s statement to State Auditors that the “commission now realizes that
the equivalent position should have been established and approved by DAS/OPM before the
initial offer was made” is false. Mr. Ingram communicated with DAS regarding this matter in
October 2004 and has known from the outset that: (1) he lacked authority to transfer Ms.
Wallace from her Regional Manager position; (2) he lacked authority to demote Ms. Wallace to
investigator; and (3) the creation of the mediation manager position required approval from
DAS, which he did not obtain. These matters are not recent discoveries to Mr. Ingram or CHRO.
50. Mr. Ingram’s statement to State Auditors that “a major reason for the proposed
transfer was personnel issues in the West Central office” is false. The major reason for her
removal from her position as regional manager was retaliation by Mr. Ingram against Ms.
Wallace because of her refusal to file a sham discrimination complaint against Mr. Pech that Mr.
Ingram wanted for his own purposes.
21
51. Mr. Ingram and CHRO did not subject CHRO’s four other Regional Managers,
who are similarly situated to Ms. Wallace, to the foregoing adverse actions to which Ms. Wallace
was subjected.
52. As a result of the foregoing, Ms. Wallace has suffered substantial damages,
including severe emotional distress and suffering, loss of self-esteem, damage to her professional
reputation and standing, lost interest on the raise that was denied in August 2005, lost
employment benefits, lost work time taken to obtain professional counseling, consequential
damages, attorney’s fees incurred in opposing the Defendants’ retaliatory and malicious actions
and in obtaining reinstatement to her position as Regional Manager of the West Central Regional
Office, attorney fees incurred in defending against ongoing acts of retaliation by Mr. Ingram and
CHRO, and attorney’s fees and costs that Ms. Wallace will continue to incur in pursuing this
action.
III. Causes of Action
COUNT ONE: INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL

DISTRESS AS TO CHRO AND R. HAMISI INGRAM
53. Paragraphs 1 through 52 of this complaint are incorporated by reference as if fully
repeated and realleged herein.
54. The Defendants, CHRO and Mr. Ingram, intended to inflict emotional distress or
knew or should have known that emotional distress would likely result by their conduct.
55. The Defendants’ actions were extreme and outrageous.
22
56. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ extreme and outrageous
actions, Ms. Wallace has suffered severe and extreme emotional distress for which she claims
damages.
COUNT TWO: TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL

RELATIONS AS TO R. HAMISI INGRAM
57. Paragraphs 1-56 of this Complaint are incorporated by reference as if fully
repeated and re-alleged herein.
58. Upon information and belief, Mr. Ingram acted out of personal, improper,
malicious, vengeful, and retaliatory motives when he: (a) repeatedly ordered Ms. Wallace to file
a formal complaint of discrimination against Mr. Pech; (b) transferred Ms. Wallace from her
position as Regional Manager for CHRO’s West Central Regional Office; (c) refused to disclose
to Ms. Wallace the reasons behind her transfer from her position as Regional Manager of
CHRO’s West Central Regional Office; (d) demoted Ms. Wallace to the position of Investigator
in CHRO’s Housing Department; (e) refused to follow the pre-disciplinary and post-disciplinary
procedures with regard to his decision to demote Ms. Wallace; (f) falsely reported to the CHRO
Commissioners that Ms. Wallace had resigned her title as Regional Manager; (g) instructed Mr.
Newton to prepare a sham adverse performance review for the period from July 1, 2004 to
October 31, 2004 and to use that sham review to pressure Ms. Wallace to relinquish her Regional
Manager title; (h) wrongfully withheld the raise to which Ms. Wallace was entitled; and (i)
repeatedly made untrue and disparaging remarks about Ms. Wallace to CHRO Commissioners
23
during Commission meeting Executive Sessions, without giving Ms. Wallace required notice
that her performance or employment would be discussed, for the purpose of deceiving and
manipulating the CHRO Commissioners to acquiesce in his malicious and retaliatory actions
against Ms. Wallace. In so doing, Mr. Ingram was acting maliciously and with improper
personal, vengeful and retaliatory motive, and acting outside the scope of his official
responsibilities.
59. By so doing, Mr. Ingram tortiously interfered with Ms. Wallace’s contractual
relations with her employer, the CHRO.
60. As a direct and proximate result of Mr. Ingram’s actions, Ms. Wallace has
sustained damages, including emotional distress and suffering, loss of self-esteem, damage to her
professional reputation and standing. Ms. Wallace is entitled to payment for her damages from
Mr. Ingram in his individual capacity, including payment for emotional distress, damage to
reputation, loss of self-esteem and consequential damages.
24
COUNT THREE: DENIAL OF EQUAL PROTECTION IN VIOLATION OF

THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED
STATES CONSTITUTION, 42 U.S.C. §1983 AS TO CHRO
AND R. HAMISI INGRAM
61. The foregoing paragraphs 1-60 are hereby incorporated by reference as if fully
62. Acting under color of law, Defendants intentionally singled Ms. Wallace out for
adverse treatment that was entirely irrational and wholly arbitrary as compared to other Regional
Managers similarly situated to Ms. Wallace.
63. There is no rational basis for the disparate treatment to which Defendants
subjected Ms. Wallace.
64. Defendants’ conduct denied Ms. Wallace equal protection under the law in
violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as enforced through 42
U.S.C. §1983.
65. The aforesaid actions of the Defendants were malicious, intentional, willful,
wanton and/or in reckless disregard of Ms. Wallace’s rights.
66. As a result of the aforesaid unlawful acts, Ms. Wallace has suffered damages,
including economic losses, mental anguish, emotional distress, humiliation and embarrassment.
67. As a further result of the actions of Defendants, Ms. Wallace has incurred and will
continue to incur attorney’s fees and costs in pursuing this action.
25
COUNT FOUR: DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS IN VIOLATION OF THE

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED
STATES CONSTITUTION, 42 U.S.C. §1983 AS TO
CHRO AND R. HAMISI INGRAM
69. Ms. Wallace had a recognized property interest in her job as CHRO Regional
Manager.
70. Acting under color of law, Defendants denied Ms. Wallace proper notice and a
meaningful opportunity to be heard prior to transferring her from her position as Regional
Manager and demoting Ms. Wallace to the position of Investigator in CHRO’s Housing
Department.
71. Defendants denied Ms. Wallace of her property interest in her Regional Manager
position in CHRO’s West Central Office from November 1, 2004 to July 21, 2006, without
affording her due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States
Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
26
COUNT FIVE: DENIAL OF LIBERTY IN VIOLATION OF THE

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED
STATES CONSTITUTION, 42 U.S.C. §1983 AS TO
CHRO AND R. HAMISI INGRAM
76. In her position as Regional Manager of CHRO’s West Central Office, Ms.
Wallace had substantial professional interaction with representatives of companies, agencies, and
municipalities, attorneys practicing before CHRO, complainants, and CHRO staff and managers.
By transferring Ms. Wallace from her position as Regional Manager and demoting her to the
position of Investigator in CHRO’s Housing Department, Defendants severely damaged Ms.
Wallace’s professional reputation in the community and within CHRO.
77. By repeatedly making untrue and disparaging remarks about Ms. Wallace to
CHRO Commissioners during Commission meeting executive sessions, without giving Ms.
Wallace required notice that her performance would be discussed, for the purpose of deceiving
and manipulating the CHRO Commissioners to acquiesce in his malicious and retaliatory actions
against Ms. Wallace, Defendants severely damaged Ms. Wallace’s professional reputation in the
community and within CHRO.
27
COUNT SIX: FALSE LIGHT INVASION OF PRIVACY

AS TO R. HAMISI INGRAM
82. Mr. Ingram knowingly, intentionally and maliciously publicized false statements
regarding Ms. Wallace to the CHRO Commissioners and to the Auditors of Public Accounts, on
behalf of CHRO, that placed Ms. Wallace in a false light publicly.
83. Mr. Ingram knew that the statements he publicized to the CHRO Commissioners
and to the Auditors of Public Accounts were false or acted with reckless disregard to their falsity.
84. The false statements regarding Ms. Wallace publicized by Mr. Ingram to the
CHRO Commissioners and to the State Auditors of Public Accounts, would be highly offensive
to any reasonable person. Mr. Ingram publicized false statements to the State Auditors of Public
Accounts for the purpose of their inclusion in a highly public audit report.
28
including harm to her business reputation, economic losses, mental anguish, emotional distress,
humiliation and embarrassment. As a further result of the actions of Defendant, Ms. Wallace has
incurred and will continue to incur attorney’s fees and costs in pursuing this action.
COUNT SEVEN: DEFAMATION AS TO R. HAMISI INGRAM
87. Mr. Ingram knowingly, intentionally and maliciously publicized false and
defamatory statements, both verbal and written, regarding Ms. Wallace to the CHRO
Commissioners and to the Auditors of Public Accounts, which were harmful and injurious to Ms.
Wallace’s business reputation.
88. Mr. Ingram knew that the statements he publicized regarding Ms. Wallace were
false or acted with reckless disregard to their falsity.
89. The false statements regarding Ms. Wallace publicized by Mr. Ingram to the
CHRO Commissioners and to the State Auditors of Public Accounts, were false statements of
fact, harmful to Ms. Wallace’s professional reputation in the community.
including harm to her business reputation, economic losses, mental anguish, emotional distress,
29
humiliation and embarrassment. As a further result of the actions of Defendant, Ms. Wallace has
incurred and will continue to incur attorney’s fees and costs in pursuing this action.
IV. Prayer for Relief
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:
a. Award compensatory damages to the Plaintiff;
b. Award punitive damages to the Plaintiff;
c. Restore Plaintiff’s lost wages and payment for lost benefits;
d. Reinstate Plaintiff’s lost leave time;
e. Issue a permanent injunction preventing the Defendants from taking any
further retaliatory action against the Plaintiff;
f. Award attorneys fees and costs to the Plaintiff, including but not limited to
an award of attorneys fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988;
g. Award interest to the Plaintiff;
h. Require Defendants to issue a retraction of the false comments regarding
Plaintiff;
i. Require Defendants to remove any derogatory material from Plaintiff’s
personnel file;
j. Award Plaintiff damages for emotional distress, injury to reputation, loss
of self-esteem and consequential damages;
30
k. Allow Plaintiff a jury trial; and
l. Grant the Plaintiff any other and further relief, as the Court deems
appropriate.
PLAINTIFF,
PEKAH WALLACE
By:
Miguel A. Escalera Jr., ct07252
Kainen, Escalera & McHale, P.C.
21 Oak Street, Suite 601
Hartford, CT 06106
Tel.: (860) 493-0870
Fax: (860) 493-0871
Email: mescalera@kemlaw.com
23798
31
Case 3:06-cv-01543-PCD Document 1-2 Filed 10/02/06 Page 1 of 3

Wallace 2006

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Wallace 2006

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Case 3:06-cv-01543-PCD Document 1 Filed 10/02/06 Page 1 of 31

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

I. Nature of the Case

States District Court for the District of Connecticut.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

II. Factual Allegations

employment with CHRO to support her family.

2. The Defendant, CHRO, maintains a principal office at 21 Grand Street, Hartford,

organized and existing under the laws of the State of Connecticut.

acted under color of state law in that capacity.

Newton”), CHRO’s Chief of Field Operations, issued this Performance Appraisal.

1, 2002 to June 30, 2003 was “Meets All Expectations.”

June 30, 2004 was “Meets All Expectations.”

and requires minimal direction.

8. Ms. Wallace met or exceeded her responsibilities as Regional Manager for

October 31, 2004:

CHRO Capitol South West West Central Eastern SEU

7/1/04 – 10/31/04 $349,003 $33,822 $492,314 $35,150 $113,580

other Regional Offices.

Manager had been able to accomplish.

conduct staff training.

Ingram objected to that instruction.

process to have been discriminatory against her.

the employee admitted to routinely leaving work without permission.

against Mr. Pech.

challenged the grievance investigation process as discriminatory.

obtained to use against Ms. Wallace.

22. State of Connecticut Personnel Regulation Section 5-239-1(a)(1) provides that

effective date of the transfer would be November 1, 2004.

to the applicable Personnel Rules for the State of Connecticut.

CHRO’s West Central Regional Office, but he did so nonetheless.

or the managerial retreat.

and the assignment of duties as an investigator in CHRO’s Housing Department amounted to a

embarrassment, humiliation, and emotional distress.

30. State of Connecticut Personnel Regulation Section 5-240-4a(b) provides that:

31. State of Connecticut Personnel Regulation Section 5-240-4a(c) provides that:

decision to demote Ms. Wallace.

investigator in CHRO’s Housing Department in an exemplary manner. On August 2, 2005,

guidance when needed or take guidance when offered.”

Ms. Wallace as meeting all performance expectations.

particularity in paragraph 4, above.

review and refused to surrender her formal title of Regional Manager.

performance evaluations: should be issued annually, not in four-month increments of time;

Personnel Rules, Regulations and Procedures.

from July 1, 2004 to October 31, 2004.

her on or about January, 2005.” OLR Decision, Page 2.

employee to relinquish her title.

2004 to October 31, 2004 and issue an evaluation of “Meets All

comments made by employees regarding Ms. Wallace during employee

exit interviews during the period from 2004-2005.

and undermine Ms. Wallace in her position as Regional Manager.

performance or employment in an Executive Session. Under C.G.S. §1-222(6), an employee

employment in Executive Session.

did. Ms. Wallace’s statement to Mr. Ingram provided as follows:

“Pursuant to our discussion this afternoon, I am willing to accept your offer to

lateral transfer reporting to Donald Newton, Chief of Field Operations. The

mediation. I understand you will attempt to provide me additional staffing as the

requirements to pursue mediation and conciliation at all steps of case processing.”

create the promised mediation manager position.

Ingram wanted for his own purposes.

III. Causes of Action

COUNT ONE: INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL

53. Paragraphs 1 through 52 of this complaint are incorporated by reference as if fully

repeated and realleged herein.

55. The Defendants’ actions were extreme and outrageous.

COUNT TWO: TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL

57. Paragraphs 1-56 of this Complaint are incorporated by reference as if fully