[nfbmi-talk] it ain't over til it's over

[joe harcz Comcast]

There comes a time in all of our lives that we must fight for what is right and just for all.

Bigotry and discrimination from state actors at the federal public trough should be fought at every instance. Injustice to one is injustice to all.

Thus I submit this civil rights complaint that subsequently was withdrawn but is of merit.

Joe Harcz
 

IN THE DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

CHRISTINE L. BOONE, ) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) 

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 

) 

) BUREAU OF SERVICES FOR ) 

BLIND PERSONS, MICHIGAN ) 

DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING & ) 

REGULATORY AFFAIRS, ) 

EDWARD F. RODGERS, II, an individual, ) 

and STEPHEN ARWOOD, an individual, ) 

) 

Defendants. ) 

_________________________________________ ) 

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES & INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 

NOW COMES the Plaintiff, Christine L. Boone, and respectfully states as follows: 

INTRODUCTION 

1. This is a federal lawsuit brought by the Plaintiff as a result of her having experienced discriminatory treatment by the Defendants and its agents, in retaliation for 

prevailing in an action against her employer, the Michigan Department of Licensing & 

Regulatory Affairs; gender-based discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 

of 1964, 42 USCS 2000(e); gender based discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Elliott 

Larsen Civil Rights Act Mich Comp Laws Sec. 37.2101 et seq. by Defendants Bureau of 

Services for Blind Persons and Department of Licensing & Regulatory Affairs; intentional 

infliction of emotional distress, in violation of State and Federal law. 

JURISDICTION & VENUE

2. Pursuant to 28 USC Sec. 1331, this Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s federal 

and state claims arising under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 USC 2000e; the Elliott Larsen 

Civil Rights Act, MCLA 37.2101 et seq.; and her claim for damages arising from the 

Defendants’ Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED). 3. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because the claims giving 

rise to this action took place in the Western District of Michigan, pursuant to 28 USC Sec. 1391. 4. Venue is appropriate in the District Court for the Western District of Michigan 

pursuant to 28 USC Sec. 1391 because the Defendant operates a Training Center in Kalamazoo, 

MI and has its headquarters offices in Lansing, MI; and the Department of Licensing & 

Regulatory affairs operates its headquarters offices in Lansing, MI and is responsible for all of its 

owned or leased facilities, wherever operated throughout the State of Michigan. PARTIES 

5. Plaintiff Christine L. Boone is a resident of Michigan, residing at 7793 Percheron 

Street, Kalamazoo, Michigan, 49009-8989. 6. Defendant Bureau of Services for Blind Persons, is a “Type 2” agency of the State 

of Michigan located at 201 North Washington Square PO. Box 30652 Lansing, Michigan 48909. 7. Defendant State of Michigan Department of Licensing & Regulatory Affairs is an 

agency of the State of Michigan located at 611 West Ottawa Street, Lansing, Michigan 48933. 8. The Defendant Edward F. Rodgers, II, is a resident of Michigan and the Executive 

Director of the Bureau of Services for Blind Persons. 9. Defendant Steve Arwood is a resident of Michigan and Director of the 

Department of Licensing & Regulatory Affairs. 2 

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 

10. Plaintiff Christine Boone possesses a Bachelor’s degree from the University of 

Colorado at Boulder. She is married and has raised a family. Ms. Boone has many years of 

experience working in the field of vocational rehabilitation, beginning within a year after 

college graduation. Ms. Boone has also been blind since birth. 11. She first worked for the Nebraska Services for the Visually Impaired as an 

instructor of Travel and Cooking skills, and then as a Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor. 12. In late March of 1989, Ms. Boone began work at the New Mexico Commission 

for the Blind as a Rehabilitation Teacher and Counselor. While there, she captured grants to fund 

the State’s first program serving older blind persons. She went on to create the Summer Work 

Experience Program which still serves blind youth in New Mexico today and whose graduates 

are more employable than any other segment of the Commission’s customers. 13. In December of 1985, Ms. Boone was invited to present a seminar on blind 

persons teaching cane travel before the Royal National Institute for the Blind in London, 

England. A year later, a complete text on the viability of blind travel instructors and the success 

of their methods was published by Professor Alan Dodds, Senior Research Fellow for the Blind 

Mobility Research Unit at the University of Nottingham. Professor Dodds dedicated the work to 

Ms. Boone in honor of her accomplishments. 14. Boone returned to school in the mid-1990’s and earned a law degree from the 

Creighton University School of Law, where she became school champion in the Client 

Counseling competition and the ABA Negotiations competition, earned second place in the ABA 

National Negotiations competition, and served as President of the International Moot Court 3 

Board at Creighton. Boone completed an internship in the U.S. Attorney’s office in Omaha and 

graduated in the top 20% of her class. She passed the bar of Nebraska in 1996. 

15. Following her graduation Ms. Boone worked for a law firm in private practice for 

two years, during which time her family moved to Pennsylvania. On July 1, 1998, she obtained a 

job as a lawyer with the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry, in the Office of the 

Chief Counsel, working in the Vocational Rehabilitation division. 16. In early 2000 Ms. Boone became Director of the Bureau of Blindness and Visual 

Services, in the Pennsylvania Office of Vocational Rehabilitation, where she served until August 

of 2003. From 2004 until 2006 Ms. Boone was Director of Legal Services & Training for Blind 

Industries & Services of Maryland. Ms. Boone was head-hunted to Michigan in the summer of 

2006 and accepted the position of Director of the Michigan Commission for the Blind Training 

Center. At that time, the Michigan Commission for the Blind was a type II agency located within 

the Michigan Department of Energy, Labor & Economic Growth. Christine Boone began 

working as Director of the Training Center on October 9, 2006, in Kalamazoo, reporting directly 

to Pat Cannon, Director of the Michigan Commission for the Blind. 17. When Christine Boone became Training Center administrator, almost no 

computer training or access technology was available. The Center lacked comprehensive 

employment-related programming for its customers whose ultimate goal was competitive 

employment. More than 40% of Center students were returning customers, meaning that they 

had not achieved success after their first program. 18. By 2009 the Michigan Commission for the Blind Training Center possessed one 

of the most well-equipped technology programs in the Nation, and students participated in a 4 

variety of access technology and computer courses. Career planning was required curriculum for 

all vocational rehabilitation customers; and less than 30% of students had to return. 

19. To address Michigan’s growing need for comprehensive Center training and the 

demand for greater access to computer instruction, Ms. Boone wrote a successful grant in 2009 

that brought $750,000 from a local philanthropist to the Training Center. Because these funds 

were private, they could be used to draw an additional $2.8 million in federal funds to the 

Michigan Commission for the Blind. These funds were used to update the dormitory and 

construct a state-of-the-art technology facility inside the Training Center. Under Boone’s 

leadership the Center continued to enhance access technology training and career exploration 

curriculums. A community volunteer program was initiated which enabled students to gain work 

experience, increase their confidence and generate positive references by volunteering at area 

businesses and organizations. 20. On February 4, 2010, Ms. Boone’s employment was wrongfully terminated by the 

Department of Energy, Labor & Economic Growth. Pat Cannon was vacationing in Mexico at 

the time, so the Department’s director of human resources acted as proxy and took this adverse 

employment action. Ms. Boone’s termination was reversed through Arbitration in January 2011 

and she was reinstated with back-pay and benefits as of June 27, 2011, again reporting to Pat 

Cannon. 21. In preparing for her return to work, Ms. Boone believed it was important that she 

establish a positive working relationship with Pat Cannon’s supervisor, so she requested a 

meeting with Defendant Steve Arwood, then deputy director of the Department of Energy, Labor 

& Economic Growth. Defendant Arwood responded to the Plaintiff’s request in a message 

stating that he had no desire to meet Christine Boone or to know anything about her. After Boone 5 

returned to work, she reestablished the positive working relationships that she had always 

enjoyed with employees within the Commission for the Blind and coworkers within the 

Department of Energy Labor and Economic Growth. A customer satisfaction survey disclosed a 

student satisfaction rating in the 90th percentile among Training Center customers under Boone’s 

leadership. Staff morale continued to improve markedly during the rest of her tenure and the 

creativity and ingenuity of this staff added tremendously to the effectiveness of Center training 

programs. Less than 20% of students were repeat customers and an increasing number of Center 

graduates found competitive employment, thereby achieving the purpose for which Ms. Boone’s 

employer received federal and state funds. 

a. In January of 2012, a Government reorganization resulted in the 

establishment of the Department of Licensing & Regulatory Affairs (Defendant LARA) in place 

of the Department of Energy Labor & Economic Growth. The Michigan Commission for the 

Blind was placed in that Department. In April of 2012 the Governor signed Executive Order 

2012-10, abolishing the Michigan Commission for the Blind, eliminating the position of 

Commission director and establishing the Michigan Bureau of Services for Blind Persons, 

(Defendant BSBP) 23. On August 29, 2012, the director position for the new Bureau was posted. The 

posting closed six (6) days later, following the Labor Day holiday weekend. Plaintiff Christine 

Boone was one of the applicants interviewed for this position, and the only applicant who 

possessed actual experience directing a vocational rehabilitation service delivery Bureau. She 

had accumulated a positive record of achievement during her tenure as a Bureau chief. The 

Defendant LARA did not select Ms. Boone for the position although she was the most qualified 

candidate for the post. The Defendants LARA, and its director Steve Arwood took this adverse 6 

employment action against Plaintiff Boone in retaliation for her having won reinstatement and 

back pay in her successful arbitration against the Department in 2011. 

24. On October 1, 2012 Edward F. Rodgers (“Ed Rodgers”) began work as director of 

the newly created Bureau. Christine Boone reported directly to him. Defendant Rodgers did not 

have any experience in the area of vocational rehabilitation. He did not possess experience in a 

human service field. Defendant Rodgers had never served as a Bureau chief or in an equivalent 

post, but he was a long-time friend of the hiring manager, LARA Chief Deputy Director Mike 

Zimmer. 25. Christine Boone first met with Ed Rodgers on or about Tuesday, October 9, 2012. 

During that meeting Boone mentioned that she was a lawyer, whereupon Defendant Rodgers 

asked if she was licensed to practice in Michigan. Boone replied that she was not, because she 

had not moved to Michigan to practice law. Rodgers immediately stated that Boone was not 

entitled to call herself a lawyer and that she should not do so again. He went on to lecture Ms. 

Boone about the unauthorized practice of law, stating that she should not ever practice law 

without a license. Boone indicated that she was somewhat offended by this commentary, and 

assured Ed Rodgers that she was not engaging in the practice of law nor had she ever done so in 

Michigan. 26. From that date forward, the level, quality and quantity of the communication Ed 

Rodgers afforded to Christine Boone was substantially less than that which he afforded to her 

peers at the Division Administrator level within the BSBP, both of whom were men. Defendant 

Rodgers’ communications with Ms. Boone were so infrequent and so markedly different from 

his interactions with the other 2 division administrators as to interfere with Ms. Boone’s ability 

to perform her job. She was regularly and repeatedly denied access to Ed Rodgers when 7 

requesting meetings, either face-to-face or telephonic. Indeed Defendant Rodgers refused to 

provide Ms. Boone with his office phone number for more than 3 months after beginning his job 

and he telephoned her only twice during that time. The negative impact of these tactics upon Ms 

Boone was magnified by the fact that Ed Rodgers and the other 2 division administrators 

reporting directly to him, worked in the Lansing offices of the BSBP. Ms. Boone alone worked 

75 miles away in Kalamazoo. In response to Ms. Boone’s repeated requests for his phone 

number, Rodgers explained that: “I do not give my phone number to just anyone”. Adding that 

he did not know whether Division Administrator Leamon Jones had his phone number because 

“His office is right down the hall from mine, so I stop by to see him every day.” Finally on 

Friday January 4, 2013, after confirming that Leamon Jones had indeed been given Ed Rodgers 

office telephone number, Boone asked Rodgers if he was prepared to tell her that the other 3 

people who reported directly to him had not been given his phone number within his first week 

on the job. Rodgers released his number to Plaintiff Boone within an hour’s time. 

27. During this same 3-month interval, despite repeated attempts by Christine Boone 

to meet with Rodgers, he met with her only twice. The first meeting was a mandatory conference 

on December 5, scheduled without consultation with Ms. Boone. Because the time of the 

meeting directly conflicted with pre-scheduled activities under Boone’s supervision, she asked if 

he might modify the time of the meeting. He refused. The second meeting lasted just 10 

minutes. 28. The overtime approval standard that Rodgers applied to Ms. Boone and the 

Center that she administered was sufficiently draconian as to constitute harassment, particularly 

in light of: past practice during the 40 year history of the Training Center; union rules, the 8 

Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, the Michigan Constitution and reasonable business necessity 

in administering a 24/7 facility. 

29. The comprehensive adult training center (“Center”) that Christine Boone 

managed houses an average of 22 students and operates on a 24/7 basis. The Center serves many 

individuals whose health is greatly compromised by conditions other than blindness. Students 

reside in a dormitory staffed around the clock, and dormitory staff continue to assist with 

medical emergencies even during the class day, which runs from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday. 30. During her introductory meeting with Defendant Rodgers, Christine made him 

aware of the fact that the Center was half a position short-staffed in this section of its operations, 

resulting in a need to use overtime each week in making up the short-fall. She further advised 

Rodgers that additional overtime was needed when staff members were unable to work due to 

illness or their use of accrued leave time. Notwithstanding, Defendant Rodgers refused to 

approve the continuation of the overtime schedule that had been in place when he became 

Bureau director on October 1, 2012. He demanded the immediate suspension of all overtime, 

ordering Boone to work any and all uncovered overtime shifts (a blatant violation of Union 

rules) and not to miss any of her own work time as a result. 31. When the Defendant LARA requested the customary submission of an overtime 

schedule, Ed Rodgers was copied per protocol. He immediately began to harass Ms. Boone, 

requesting re-submissions of the same request in the following variations: Overtime between October 1 and December 31, by area, 

Overtime between October 23 and December 31, by area,

Overtime between October 23 and December 31, by employee, 

9 

Overtime between November 1 and December 31, by employee, 

Overtime between December 1 and December 31, by employee, 

Overtime between December 6 and January 7, by employee, and 

Rodgers refused to approve any of these submissions. 

32. This issue was at last discussed at the mandatory December 5 conference 

mentioned above. Ms. Boone was asked to bring “at least 6 paper copies” of a list of documents 

constituting more than 50 pages to the conference, all of which had previously been provided to 

Rodgers on multiple occasions. She was also instructed to bring an employee to the meeting 

because Ed Rodgers said she would not be able to manage so many documents. After receiving 

the requested papers, Rodgers read the first sentence of one document, and immediately began 

shouting at Ms. Boone in front of the other employees in the room. He falsely and repeatedly 

accused her of saying and writing things which she neither spoke nor wrote. He berated her for 

making such wild statements and outrageous suggestions, and repeated that he had told her many 

times that such-and-such was not the case. This haranguing process continued for nearly 3 

hours. At the end of this meeting Ed Rodgers stated that more conversations would be 

necessary. No decisions were made. 33. An emergency overtime need arose on December 7. Ms. Boone informed 

Rodgers of this and he requested and received the name of the employee who would cover the 

shift. At 3:30 that afternoon, Defendant Rodgers sent an email approving a portion of the 

employee over time list. The employee, whom he knew to be working that evening’s shift 

beginning at 4 p.m., was not approved and Ed Rodgers refused to speak with Ms. Boone when 

she called to inform him of this oversight. Defendant subsequently disciplined Ms. Boone for 

allowing the above noted overtime shift without his permission. 10

34. In December of 2012 Ms. Boone and her staff put together the first draft edition 

of a Training Center newsletter, in response to requests from other Bureau staff that they hear 

more about the Center on a regular basis. On or about December 22, 2010 Ms. Boone emailed 

this draft to Ed Rodgers with a note indicating the reason for its development and seeking his 

approval before sending it out to the Bureau. Rodgers responded with a venomous email, 

demanding to know how Ms. Boone would dare to produce a newsletter at all, and why she 

would dare to start any project without thoroughly discussing the matter with him first. He 

demanded to know the cost of publication, the cost in staff time for preparation, the statute that 

would allow her to produce a newsletter and the names of all of the persons who had seen copies 

of the draft. He also demanded signed releases from each person who had authored an article for 

the newsletter, though it was made clear to him that student authors were enthusiastic volunteers. 

Boone provided all of the available answers to Rodgers, who demanded the same information 

two more times before the end of January, 2013. In the end he never permitted the newsletter to 

be sent and subsequently forbid Ms. Boone to communicate with anyone outside the Bureau, 

including other staff within the Department, community partners, professionals and organizations 

with whom she had worked routinely since coming to the Department. 35. Next, Defendant Rodgers began sending emails to Ms. Boone without warning, 

requesting extensive documentation and research with extremely short turn-around times. He 

would send an email on Tuesday afternoon, demanding certain specific information, along with 

extensive supporting research and documentation, to be sent to him not later than 3:00 p.m. on 

Wednesday. Frequently these requests would require responses to be faxed, emailed, and snail-

mailed. Though deadlines were nearly always met, Ed Rodgers generally failed to respond in 

less than 2 to 3 weeks. 11

36. On one occasion Ms. Boone sent approximately 6 spending requests on the same 

day, each of which contained a boiler-plate proviso that all expenditures were subject to 

availability of funds. Ed Rodgers took exception to this language, stating that only he could 

make any provisos relating to funds. Ms. Boone immediately wrote back, indicating that the 

language would be changed henceforth. However, Rodgers anger apparently increased as he 

read each of the remaining requests that had been prepared with the objectionable language. He 

responded to each request with a separate email, each more outraged than the last, berating Ms. 

Boone, demanding that she stop using those words and asking how many times she needed to be 

told to make this change. All of these responses were sent on the same afternoon, and all were 

copied to Ms. Boone’s secretary and fiscal tech. 37. On January 11, 2013 Ed Rodgers called Ms. Boone to his office without 

explanation. On that occasion he presented her with a disciplinary document containing at least 

two false accusations. Rodgers shouted at Ms. Boone, using a demeaning tone of voice and 

refusing to listen to her or to answer when she requested clarification of incidents that never took 

place. In an intentional effort to cause her distress, he accused Ms. Boone of going to the LARA 

Human Resources office in opposition to his specific instructions. He refused to listen or discuss 

the matter when Ms. Boone and her secretary assured him that this did not happen. He blamed 

Ms. Boone because the United States mail took 5 days to deliver a package from Ms. Boone in 

Kalamazoo to him in Lansing. He again refused to listen when she produced proof that Ed 

Rodgers had himself required the documents in question to be sent via the US mail, rather than 

the less costly State ID Mail system. Rodgers then told Ms. Boone with great condescension that 

she would need to sign a paper, explaining that the paper would say that he and she had 

participated in this little meeting. Rodgers then asked Ms. Boone’s secretary “Now will she be 12

able to sign a paper if you show her where she needs to sign”? This was said to Ms. Boone 

because she is blind- never mind that she was a level 17 division administrator responsible for 

nearly 1/3 of the BSBP staff, oversight of its only 24/7 program and an almost 5-million dollar 

budget. 

38. When he assumed management of the BSBP, Ed Rodgers asked all management 

staff to submit any and all monetary requests to him in memorandum form. He further required 

that a separate memorandum be prepared for each request exceeding $1,000. Defendant Rodgers 

knew at the time that this requirement would have a disparately negative impact on Christine 

Boone because her division had no management staff besides Boone, with the exception of a 

maintenance mechanic supervisor whom Ed Rodgers said was not permitted to prepare or submit 

any request to him. On the other hand, the other 2 divisions included 6 additional management 

staff members who were permitted to prepare such memoranda. Moreover, Boone’s division had 

a more diverse range of expenditures because of its nature, so each memorandum needed an 

individualized rationale for the expenditure. In short, imposing this requirement required 

substantial extra work by Christine Boone and only Christine Boone. 39. Though Ed Rodgers generally approved the memorandums submitted by the other 

2 division administrators he routinely denied Boone’s submissions, without explanation. Rodgers 

denials became so pervasive that the Training Center was not able to proceed with essential 

repairs or routine maintenance. 40. Ed Rodgers next began to demand that Ms. Boone provide legal research in 

support of spending requests. Because Ms. Boone did not possess the tools for legal research, she 

asked whether Rodgers could have one of his two legal research assistants do this work. Rodgers 

refused, stating that these 2 employees were doing important work for him. 13

41. There were three (3) division administrators inside the BSBP. The two men in 

these positions were Leamon Jones & Mike Pemble. Each of these men had four (4) direct 

reports. Christine Boone had thirty-two (32) direct reports. Ed Rodgers as Bureau chief also had 

four (4) direct reports. 42. On or about November 1, 2012, the Center division had one staff vacancy to be 

filled. Before submitting her request to the director, Ms. Boone discussed the hiring matter with 

the Human Resources staff. They supported her plan to hire an assistant director to share in the 

running of this complex division. When she made the request to Defendant Rodgers, he denied it, 

stating that such a position was unnecessary and “not my priority”. 43. As a senior management level employee, Ms. Boone had no internal grievance 

process to pursue and she was a NERE (Non Exclusively Represented Employee). Ms. Boone 

cares deeply about her work in the field of vocational rehabilitation and she was genuinely 

interested in improving her relationship with Ed Rodgers and continuing to help blind citizens of 

Michigan to better their lives. Ms. Boone was upset and distressed by the treatment she was 

receiving from Ed Rodgers. 44. On Saturday October 20, 2012 Ms. Boone saw Mike Zimmer, Chief Deputy 

Director of the Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs at a conference. She spoke with 

Mr. Zimmer about her concerns regarding Ed Rodgers harshness toward her during their first 

meeting together. Ms. Boone indicated that she would like to be able to call upon Mr. Zimmer to 

help her in building a relationship with Ed Rodgers. Mr. Zimmer responded that he believed Ed 

Rodgers would work with, her, but that Ms. Boone should contact him directly if she ever 

needed his help. 14

45. By early January, Ms. Boone was suffering from high blood pressure, having 

trouble sleeping, and noticeably stressed and upset by the treatment she and the Training Center 

staff were receiving from Ed Rodgers. She prepared a 7-page letter, detailing many of the issues 

that had arisen and requesting certain specific remedial measures. Ms. Boone sent this letter to 

Defendant Ed Rodgers, Chief Deputy Director Mike Zimmer, Defendant Steve Arwood and Lt. 

Governor Brian Calley; with a copy to the Human Resources office. The HR office did 

acknowledge receipt of Ms. Boone’s letter. She did not receive any response, communication or 

action from any of the officials to whom the letter was sent, or from any other person. A copy 

of this letter is attached to this complaint as Exhibit 1. 46. In late January, Ms. Boone contacted her State Representative, Margaret O’Brien, 

and arranged to meet with her. Representative O’Brien was very concerned about the situation, 

believing that Ms. Boone was doing an excellent job of directing the Training Center. She 

contacted Lt. Governor Brian Calley, provided him with another copy of Ms. Boone’s January 

letter and asked if he could look into the situation. Neither Ms. Boone nor any member of her 

staff was contacted by Lt. Governor Calley or any member of his staff. Ms. Boone also send at 

least two (2) emails to Mike Zimmer between December 28, 2012 and March 1, 2013. 

Receiving no response to either of these communications, she called his direct phone number and 

left a message in his voicemail sometime in January 2013. The Plaintiff took these actions in 

reliance upon Mr. Zimmer’s assurance in October of 2012, which she could call upon him if 

necessary. 47. In March, 2013 Ms. Boone contacted the Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission’s (EEOC’s) Chicago office and prepared a charge of gender-based discrimination, 

discriminatory retaliation and creation of a hostile work environment against Ed Rodgers. She 15

received a Right to Sue letter dated June 11, 2013. A copy of the letter from the EEOC is 

attached to this complaint as Exhibit 2. 

48. Ms. Boone tendered her resignation to Mr. Rodgers on Tuesday March 12, 2013, 

providing nearly 3 weeks’ notice. In April, 2013 Ms. Boone applied for Unemployment benefits. 

She was awarded Unemployment benefits based upon the information she provided about the 

hostile environment in which she had been forced to work. A copy of the Plaintiff’s 

Unemployment Insurance benefit letter is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 3. COUNT I: GENDER DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VII OF THE 

FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS ACT 

49. Plaintiff restates and incorporates by reference as set forth fully here in 

paragraphs 1 through 48. 50. Defendants conduct toward and treatment of Christine Boone was unlawful and 

discriminatory, in that the male division administrators were not subjected to the same treatment 

by Defendant Rodgers; neither did he place the same requirements or deadlines upon them. 51. Plaintiff’s gender was the factor that distinguished her from her similarly situated 

counterparts who were treated with greater respect, publicly and privately by the defendant. 

Plaintiff’s gender caused her to be subjected to disparate treatment by all defendants in their 

failure to intervene when she brought her discriminatory treatment by Defendant Rodgers to the 

notice of Defendants Steve Arwood, LARA and BSBP. The Defendants were predisposed to 

discriminate on the basis of gender and Defendants’ discriminatory actions were willful and 

intentional. 16

52. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violation of Title VII, Plaintiff 

suffered damages consisting of but not limited to economic loss, physical illness, emotional 

distress, and humiliation. 53. Defendants discriminatory acts are in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended, 42 USC Sec. 2000e. 

COUNT II -- HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT 

54. Plaintiff restates and incorporates by reference as set forth fully here in 

paragraphs 1 through 53. 55. From the date on which he assumed directorship of the BSBP, October 1, 2012, 

Defendant Ed Rodgers held himself out as the agent, representative and embodiment of the 

Defendant BSBP. 56. The conduct of Defendant Rodgers toward Christine Boone served to place her in 

a humiliating position in front of her employees, peers and colleagues within the BSBP and 

LARA. Defendant Rodgers actions arbitrarily and intentionally cut Plaintiff Boone off from 

communication with himself and from colleagues and other professionals throughout LARA and 

the broader state system. Defendant Rodgers’ conduct was sufficiently severe, pervasive, 

negative, persistent, open and notorious; as to constitute a hostile environment in which Ms. 

Boone was forced to work. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants unlawful, creation 

of this hostile work environment, Plaintiff has sustained injuries and damages including, but not 

limited to, loss of economic well-being, loss of earnings, loss of future earning capacity; loss of 

career opportunities; humiliation and embarrassment; mental and emotional distress; and loss of 

the ordinary pleasure of everyday life. Defendants’ conduct constitutes a violation of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964 as amended, 42 USC 200e et seq. 17

COUNT III – CONSTRUCTIVE DISCHARGE 

57. Plaintiff restates and incorporates by reference as set forth fully here in 

paragraphs 1 through 56. 58. The hostile environment created by Defendants Ed Rodgers and the BSBP was 

sufficiently severe, persistent, and pervasive that Ms. Boone was prevented from performing the 

essential functions of her job. The conduct of Steve Arwood in failing to address Ms. Boone’s 

letter requesting redress and appropriately addressed to him, forced Plaintiff Boone to tender her 

resignation. The conduct of Defendants Rodgers and Arwood was sufficiently negative, 

pervasive, persistent, open and notorious as to result in Ms. Boone’s constructive discharge from 

her employment. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants unlawful, constructive 

discharge, Plaintiff has sustained injuries and damages including, but not limited to, loss of 

economic well-being, loss of earnings, loss of future earning capacity; loss of career 

opportunities; humiliation and embarrassment; mental and emotional distress; and loss of the 

ordinary pleasure of everyday life. Defendants’ constructive discharge of the Plaintiff violates of 

the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended, 42 USC 200e et seq. COUNT IV: RETALIATION AGAINST PLAINTIFF IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VII OF 

THE FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS ACT

59. Plaintiff restates and incorporates by reference as set forth fully here in 

paragraphs 1 through 58. 60. Defendants further discriminated against Christine Boone by failing to promote 

her to the position of Director of the Bureau of Services for Blind Persons, even though she was 

clearly the most qualified candidate for the position. This action was taken in retaliation for her 

having prevailed in Arbitration against the Department, winning reinstatement to her position as 

Training Center director in 2011. After she was passed over to direct the newly created Bureau 18

of Services for Blind Persons, Plaintiff set out to work positively with Defendant Steve Arwood 

and Defendant Ed Rodgers. When Defendant Arwood refused to meet with Ms. Boone or even to 

speak with her; and Defendant Rodgers singled her out for disparately negative treatment, 

Plaintiff continued to attempt positive interaction, seeking assistance from LARA, Mike Zimmer 

and finally the LARA chain of command including Defendant Steve Arwood and the Lt. 

Governor. 

61. In retaliation for her successful arbitration in 2011 and her letter of complaint in 

January 2012, Defendants forced Plaintiff to resign her position. 62. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants unlawful, retaliatory actions, 

Plaintiff has sustained injuries and damages including, but not limited to, loss of economic wellbeing, loss of earnings, loss of future earning capacity; loss of career opportunities; humiliation 

and embarrassment; mental and emotional distress; and loss of the ordinary pleasure of everyday 

life. Defendants’ conduct violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended, 42 USC 

2000(e). COUNT V – INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 

63. Plaintiff restates and incorporates by reference as set forth fully here in 

paragraphs 1 through 62. 64. At all relevant times, Defendants intentionally acted to violate Plaintiff’s civil 

rights and intentionally retaliated against her for Plaintiff’s willingness to defend herself against 

unfair, discriminatory and disparate treatment. 65. Defendants’ intentional and tortious acts were extreme, outrageous, and beyond 

the bounds of reasonableness. 19

66. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ intentional, tortious, and extreme 

conduct, Plaintiff sustained damages of severe emotional distress, mental anguish, and physical 

harm. Plaintiff has also suffered pecuniary losses as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ 

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. COUNT VI – VIOLATIONS OF THE MICHIGAN ELLIOTT-LARSEN CIVIL RIGHTS ACT 

67. Plaintiff restates and incorporates by reference as set forth fully here in 

paragraphs 1 through 66. 68. After Plaintiff’s reinstatement to her position, she was subjected to different terms 

and conditions of employment, discriminatory treatment, a hostile work environment, and was 

constructively discharged on the basis of her gender. Defendants and its agents treated Plaintiff 

differently from similarly situated male employees in the terms and conditions of her 

employment, based on unlawful consideration of her gender. 69. Defendants’ actions were intentional and in disregard for Plaintiff’s rights. 70. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful actions, Plaintiff has 

sustained injuries and damages including, but not limited to, loss of earnings, earning capacity; 

loss of career opportunities; humiliation and embarrassment; mental and emotional distress; and 

the loss of ordinary pleasure of everyday life. 71. Defendants are liable to Plaintiff for her injuries and damages for the unlawful 

and intentional acts, as stated above, in violation of the Michigan Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act 

MCLA 37.2101 et seq. 20

COUNT VII- RETALIATION (UNDER ELLIOT-LARSEN CIVIL RIGHTS ACT) 

72. Plaintiff restates and incorporates by reference as set forth fully here in 

paragraphs 1 through 71. 73. Plaintiff complained to Defendants on multiple occasions about what she 

considered to be unfair treatment by Defendants on the basis of her having prevailed in, a 2011 

arbitration against the Defendant LARA. Defendants failed to promote Plaintiff, ignored her 

complaints, and forced her out of her position). 74. Defendants’ acts were intentional, retaliatory, with reckless indifference to 

Plaintiff’s rights and sensibilities. 75. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful actions, Plaintiff has 

sustained injuries and damages including, but not limited to, loss of earnings, earning capacity; 

loss of career opportunities; humiliation and embarrassment; mental and emotional distress; and 

the loss of professional reputation. 76. Defendants are liable to Plaintiff for her injuries and damages for the unlawful 

and intentional acts, as stated above, in violation of the Michigan Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act 

MCLA 372101 et seq. PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

FOR ALL OF THE FOREGOING REASONS, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this 

Court award her the following relief: 

a. That she be awarded front pay from the date her employment ended; b. That she be paid compensatory damages for the loss of her position and the 

economic damages she has suffered thereby; 21

c. That she be paid compensatory damages for the severe emotional distress caused 

to her by the defendants’ intentional and unlawful actions; d. That she be awarded punitive damages for the defendants intentional and 

unlawful conduct; Table with 2 columns and 3 rowse. That she be awarded her costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in the prosecution of this action; 

f. That she be awarded such other relief as this Court may deem just and proper. Table endJURY TRIAL DEMAND 

In accordance with Rules 38 and 39 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Plaintiff 

hereby request a jury on all issues raised in the instant Complaint which may be tried by a jury.

 Respectfully submitted, 

Christine L. Boone, Pro Se 

7793 Percheron Street 

Kalamazoo, Michigan, 49009-8989 

christine_boone at comcast.net 

(269) 343-1959 This 12th day of September, 2013 

22