[nfbmi-talk] it ain't over til it's over
William Vandervest
timelord09 at att.net
Wed Oct 29 00:38:26 UTC 2014
just curious, why was this action withdrawn?
There are none so blind as those who will not see
William and Leader Dog Lynard
timelord09 at att.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "joe harcz Comcast via nfbmi-talk" <nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org>
To: <nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 6:50 PM
Subject: [nfbmi-talk] it ain't over til it's over
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Thus I submit this civil rights complaint that subsequently was withdrawn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
_______________________________________________
nfbmi-talk mailing list
nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
nfbmi-talk:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org/timelord09%40att.net
More information about the NFBMI-Talk
mailing list