elizabeth saegert vs. city of palestine, texas

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TYLER DIVISION

ELIZABETH A. SAEGERT, § § Plaintiff, § § vs. § CIVIL ACTION NO: § CITY OF PALESTINE, TEXAS, § § Defendant. § DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL


TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE:

Plaintiff, ELIZABETH A. SAEGERT files this Plaintiff’s Original Complaint and Jury

Demand against Defendant, CITY OF PALESTINE, TEXAS (herein after referred to as

“Defendant” or “PALESTINE”) for age discrimination (Age Discrimination in Employment

Act of 1967 [ADEA]), race discrimination, sex discrimination (gender), hostile work

environment, retaliation, mental abuse and defamation. In support thereof Plaintiff states

the following:

I. PARTIES

1. Plaintiff ELIZABETH A. SAEGERT is a sixty-two (62) year old, African American,

dark skin toned, female, who resides in Henderson County, Texas and who is a Certified

Public Accountant licensed by the State of Texas.

2. Defendant CITY OF PALESTINE, TEXAS, is a municipality operating under the

laws of the State of Texas, located within Anderson County, Texas, with its principal

offices located at: 504 North Queen Street, Palestine, Texas 75801and who may be

served with process by serving TERESA HERRERA, City Secretary, at her office located

Case 6:13-cv-00599-LED Document 1 Filed 08/19/13 Page 1 of 41 PageID #: 1


at: 504 north Queen Street, Palestine, Texas 75801.

3. At all times relevant herein the CITY OF PALESTINE, TEXAS has continuously

been an employer engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of

Sections 701(b), (g) and (h) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e(b), (g) and (h).

II. JURISDICTION

4. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 451 (judiciary), 28

U.S.C. §1331 (federal question), 28 U.S.C. § 1337 (commerce), 28 U.S.C. §1343 (civil

rights), 29 U.S.C. §626(b) (ADEA Enforcement), 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(f)(1) (unlawful

employment practices), (Title VII Enforcement) and 42 U.S.C. § 1981a (equal rights).

III. PENDANT STATE LAW CLAIMS

5. Plaintiff invokes this Court’s jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 18(a) of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. 1367 to hear and adjudicate claims arising out of the

transactions set forth herein that violate rights and duties established by the laws of the

State of Texas.

6. The actions of PALESTINE are further actionable under the Texas Commission on

Human Rights Act (TCHRA) which has been codified into Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor

Code and all of the allegations contained within this complaint are incorporated into this

claim by reference, as if they had been fully recited therein.

7. PALESTINE has committed various torts against Plaintiff under Texas Law of which

jurisdiction to adjudicate those torts rest with this court.

IV. VENUE

8. The employment practices of PALESTINE alleged to be unlawful were committed

within the jurisdiction of the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division. In addition,

PALESTINE is located within the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division. Additionally



most if not all of the acts and failure to act complained of herein occurred within the

Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division. Accordingly, venue is proper pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §1391(b)(1) & (2).

V. EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATION REMEDIES

9. Prior to filing her original complaint, on May 22, 2013, Plaintiff timely filed with the

United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and simultaneously

with the Texas Workforce Commission Civil Rights Division (“TWCCRD”) within the

appropriate number of days, her written initial charge of discrimination asserting her age

discrimination, race discrimination, and sex discrimination claims, against PALESTINE,

where it is reasonably expected that during the EEOC investigation PALESTINES’s mental

abuse and hostile work environment would be revealed. Federal Exp. Corp. v. Holowecki,

552 U.S. --- (2008), 128 S.Ct. 1147 (2008); Fine v. GAF Chem. Corp., 995 F.2d 576, 577-

78 (5th Cir. 1993); Martinez v. Potter, 347 F.3d 1208 at 1210 (10th Cir. 2003); Deravin v.

Kerik, 335 F.3d 195, 200-01 (2d Cir. 2003).

10. Shortly after Plaintiff filed her initial charge of discrimination against PALESTINE,

with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and

simultaneously with the Texas Workforce Commission Civil Rights Division (“TWCCRD”)

PALESTINE, increased its retaliation against Plaintiff. Therefore to ensure PALESTINE

received notice of Plaintiff’s claims, on July 3, 2013, Plaintiff again timely filed with the

United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and simultaneously

with the Texas Workforce Commission Civil Rights Division (“TWCCRD”) within the

appropriate number of days, her second charge of discrimination asserting her retaliation

claims, against PALESTINE, where it is reasonably expected that during the EEOC

investigation PALESTINES’s defamation, mental abuse and hostile work environment



would be revealed. Federal Exp. Corp. v. Holowecki, 552 U.S. --- (2008), 128 S.Ct. 1147

(2008); Fine v. GAF Chem. Corp., 995 F.2d 576, 577-78 (5th Cir. 1993); Martinez v. Potter,

347 F.3d 1208 at 1210 (10th Cir. 2003); Deravin v. Kerik, 335 F.3d 195, 200-01 (2d Cir.

2003).

11. In conformance with the law, Plaintiff filed her original complaint subsequent to the

expiration of ninety (90) days from the date of receiving her right to sue letter from the

EEOC and within two (2) years after PALESTINE willfully violated Plaintiff’s rights. Plaintiff

received two (2) right-to-sue letters from the EEOC; the first dated May 22, 2013 and the

second dated July 3, 2013. Plaintiff filed her original complaint on or about July 1, 2013.

12. Plaintiff has exhausted all administrative remedies; therefore all conditions

precedent to the Plaintiff maintaining this civil action have accrued, occurred, or been

waived. Jones v. Robinson Property Group, L.P., 427 F.3d 987, 992 (5th Cir. 2005).

VI. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT

13. All conditions precedent; to Plaintiff bringing her claims against PALESTINE for age

discrimination, race discrimination, sex discrimination, hostile work environment, retaliation

and violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) have either been performed, have

occurred or have been waived.

14. All conditions precedent; to Plaintiff bringing her claims against PALESTINE for

mental abuse and defamation have either been performed, have occurred or have been

waived.

15. All conditions precedent; to Plaintiff bringing this lawsuit have either been

performed, have occurred or have been waived.

VII. STATEMENT OF FACTS

16. The City of Palestine, Texas is a city located within Anderson County, Texas.



17. The City of Palestine, Texas is the county seat for Anderson County, Texas.

18. As of the 2010 census, the population of the City of Palestine, Texas was 18,712.

19. PALESTINE employs more than 160 employees not including officers and directors

in 2012.

20. PALESTINE hired Plaintiff to fill the position of Interim Finance Director on or about

January 18, 2011.

21. PALESTINE converted Plaintiff from the position of Interim Finance Director to

Finance Director on or about April 11, 2011.

22. Plaintiff currently holds the position of Finance Director for the City of Palestine,

Texas.

23. The majority of the events complained of herein; occurred at or near the

PALESTINE administration building located at: 504 North Queen, Palestine, Texas 75801.

24. Early in the year of 2012, Plaintiff while employed at the City of Palestine; noticed a

pattern of bullying, intimidation and harassment of older employees (over 40 years of age).

25. Time and again Plaintiff would hear frequent comments stating that it is “alright to

bully…treat older employees differently and that older employees are slow” among other

comments.

26. Age discrimination is widespread among the employees of the City of Palestine.

27. The pattern of bullying, intimidation and harassment extends to persons of color

(employees and customers); statements concerning “skin color, not working for a living,”

assumptions about country of origin “Mexicans”, assumptions that individuals are “drug

dealers,” etc.

28. Race discrimination is prevalent among the employees of the City of Palestine.

29. Male employees continually receive better treatment than female employees of the



City of Palestine.

30. The majority of the high level management within the City of Palestine; are

Caucasian Males.

31. As a result Male employees of the City of Palestine are treated more favorably than

female employees of the City of Palestine.

32. The high level managers for the City of Palestine are primarily Caucasian Males

whom “on a day-to-day basis” run the City of Palestine as if it were a “good-ole-boy”

group, regardless of potential harm or consequences to others.

33. Since Plaintiff first complained of the discriminatory and harassing treatment of the

City of Palestine employees to her supervisors and managers, these individuals and

others have only increased their discriminatory and harassing treatment of Plaintiff, to the

point where Plaintiff works day-after-day in a Hostile Work Environment, frequently

experiencing retaliation.

34. Once Plaintiff complained about managers, supervisors, co-workers and the City of

Palestine of using “dog whistle’ politics, an old political messaging employing coded

language that appears to mean one thing to the general population but has an additional,

different or more specific resonance for a targeted subgroup most often African

Americans, the discrimination and harassment of Plaintiff skyrocketed.

35. As Plaintiff once again complained about managers, supervisors, co-workers and

the City of Palestine of using tactics like those used with the “Jim Crow” laws that

specifically were intended to relegate African Americans to the status of second class

citizens, the discrimination and harassment of Plaintiff intensified.

36. After several attempts to obtain assistance to stop the discrimination and

harassment of Plaintiff, Plaintiff realized that complaining about managers, supervisors,



co-workers and the City of Palestine to the City of Palestine, managers was not doing any

good.

37. As a result, on May 22, 2013, Plaintiff filed her initial Charge of Discrimination,

Charge Number #450-2013-01665 with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission and simultaneously with the Texas Workforce Commission Civil Rights

Division.

38. On May 22, 2013, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

mailed Plaintiff a Notice of Right to Sue Letter.

39. On July 3, 2013, Plaintiff filed her second Charge of Discrimination, Charge Number

#450-2013-03295 with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and

simultaneously with the Texas Workforce Commission Civil Rights Division.

40. On July 3, 2013, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

mailed Plaintiff a Notice of Right to Sue Letter.

41. On or about August 19, 2013, Plaintiff filed this Plaintiff’s Original Complaint and

Jury Demand.

VIII. DAMAGES

42. As a direct and proximate consequence of Defendant’s unlawful and discriminatory

employment policies and practices, Plaintiff has suffered losses including, but not limited

to, back pay, front pay, loss of wages and benefits in the past and future, costs of court,

expert fees and attorney fees, mental anguish, humiliation and emotional distress in the

past and future, prejudgment and post judgment interest, benefits, special damages,

expenses, punitive/liquidated damages, and punitive damages, all to be specified at trial

and any injunctive relief deemed appropriate and available under the statutes which

Plaintiff brings this action.



43. Based on information and belief, Defendant is an employer of over 160 employees

including officers and directors in 2012. See: Vance v. Union Planters Corp., 209 F.3d

438 (5th Cir. 2000).

IX. PROTECTED CLASS MEMBERSHIP

44. This lawsuit is brought under 42 U.S.C. §2000 et. seq. (Title VII) and its counterpart

42 U.S.C. §1981 and 29 U.S.C. §623(a). Title VII and §1981 prohibit employers from

discriminating "against any individual with respect to their compensation, terms,

conditions, or privileges of employment because of such individual's race, color, religion,

sex or national origin. See: 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(a). Title 29 U.S.C. §623(a) states it shall

be unlawful for an employer “to fail or refuse to hire or discharge any individual or

otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms,

conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s age…”

45. Plaintiff identifies that she is a member of the following protected classes:

a) race-(African American); and

b) sex-(Gender)-female; and

c) age-(over forty years old); and

d) filed complaint with EEOC concerning unlawful employment conditions; and

e) retaliation prohibited; and

f) other applicable laws.

46. Plaintiff identifies that she is a member of one or more of the protected classes

identified in paragraphs 44-45 above as defined within the Texas Commission on Human

Rights Act (TCHRA) which has been codified into Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code

and other Texas Statutes.

X. PRIOR “BAD ACTS” BY CITY OF PALESTINE, TEXAS



Saegert Request the Court Take Judicial Notice of the Prior “Bad Acts”

Of Age Discrimination by the City of Palestine, Texas

47. On or about March 29, 2006, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed

its Original Complaint on behalf of Charles S. Petrovich, Jr., against the City of Palestine,

Texas in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division

where it was assigned Civil Action Number 6:06-cv-00141-MHS; for violation of the Age

Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).

48. On or about February 26, 2007, the Court approved the Consent Decree filed by

the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the City of Palestine, Texas wherein

it required the City of Palestine, Texas within 20 days of the entry of the Consent Decree,

in settlement of the dispute, to pay Charles S. Petrovich, Jr., the sum total of $40,000

(Forty Thousand Dollars).

49. Within 90 days of the date of entry of the Consent Decree, the City of Palestine

Police Department’s management officials and employees with authority to promote,

terminate or demote employees shall participate in EEO training of not less than 6 hours.

The training shall: (a) define and identify the types of age-based employment decisions

which are unlawful; (b) instruct when age-based selection, promoting, terminating and/or

demoting criteria is unlawful; and (c) explain the damaging effects age-based employment

discrimination has on individuals. The training shall be conducted by Lance Vincent,

RITCHESON, LAUFFER, VINCENT & DUKES, or another attorney approved by the

EEOC.

50. Within ten (10) business days after the entry of this Decree, Plaintiff shall post

copies of the Notice attached as Exhibit “A” to this Decree at its facility in a conspicuous

location easily accessible to and commonly frequented by employees. The Notice shall



remain posted for the duration of this Decree. Palestine shall ensure that the posting is

not altered, defaced or covered by any other material. Palestine shall certify to the EEOC

in writing within ten (10) business days after the Decree that the Notice has been properly

posted. Subject to 72 hours-notice to Palestine’s management, Palestine shall permit a

representative of EEOC to enter Palestine’s premises for purposes of verifying compliance

with this Paragraph.

51. The duration of the Decree shall be three (3) years from the date of its filing with the

Court; the Decree was file with the Court on February 26, 2007 as document number #49.

52. On or about May 2, 2007, the Court entered its final judgment, closing the case.

53. The notices continued to be posted at the City of Palestine, Texas until on or about

February 26, 2010.

XI. CAUSES OF ACTION

THE UNDERLYING EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION SCHEME OF THE CITY OF PALESTINE, TEXAS

54. In the last couple years PALESTINE began a scheme to eliminate African

American, senior employees whom have served PALESTINE as full-time employees to be

replaced by younger, less experienced and in some cases part-time employees.

55. In furtherance of this scheme PALESTINE under the guise of reorganization

terminated African American, senior employees and replaced those individuals with

individuals who were not African American and who were younger and less experienced.

56. Notably in the termination procedure NO other ethnic groups such as “Hispanic,

Asian, American Indian or Pacific Islander” are represented.

57. The scheme was specifically designed to rid PALESTINE of African American,

senior employees, thereby allowing PALESTINE to use their “good ole boy” system to give



the positions to their friends, associates and others who were younger, less experienced

individuals under the alleged reason, so PALESTINE could save monies concerning

salaries, severances, benefits and health insurance.

58. As designed using this scheme PALESTINE did get rid of the African American,

senior employees.

59. As designed using this scheme PALESTINE did hire PALESTINE’s friends,

associates and others who were not African American and who were younger less

experienced individuals so they would have not have to be paid as much as the older

more senior employees.

60. Also by hiring younger employees, PALESTINE through its scheme using statistical

information felt it would also lower its heath care insurance and costs associated therewith

through having younger workers and also by using part time workers with limited hours

where in PALESTINE provides no health care insurance coverage.

61. PALESTINE discriminates against African American individuals based on race.

62. PALESTINE discriminates against African American individuals based on age.

63. PALESTINE does have or practice diversity among its employees.

VICARIOUS LIABILITY RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR - RATIFICATION

IN THE WORKPLACE AT CEDAR HILL INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT

64. The acts of Mike Ohrt, Susie Streb, Greg Laudadio, others and Defendant including

but not limited to Plaintiff's managers, supervisors and co-workers were performed while in

the employment of Defendant and were within the course and scope of that employment

or within the authority delegated to the employee.

65. Therefore the conduct of Mike Ohrt, Susie Streb, Greg Laudadio, others and

Defendant including but not limited to Plaintiff's managers, supervisors and co-workers



toward Plaintiff as outlined herein was performed while in the employment of Defendant.

66. Further the conduct of Mike Ohrt, Susie Streb, Greg Laudadio, others and


toward Plaintiff as outlined herein was approved by Defendant as Defendant took no steps

to change, alter, stop or modify said conduct.

67. At the time of the conduct of Mike Ohrt, Susie Streb, Greg Laudadio, others and


were acting on Defendant’s behalf.

68. After the events complained of, Defendant was fully aware of Mike Ohrt, Susie

Streb, Greg Laudadio, others and Defendant including but not limited to Plaintiff's

managers, supervisors and co-workers and approved them by Defendant’s acts or failure

to act.

69. Defendant approved of the conduct of Mike Ohrt, Susie Streb, Greg Laudadio and

others, including but not limited to Plaintiff's managers, supervisors’ and co-workers acts

with intent to validate them.

70. Therefore Defendant is liable for the acts of Defendants’ employees, Defendant and

others, including but not limited to Plaintiff's managers, supervisors’ and co-workers as

outlined herein.

COUNT ONE - AGE DISCRIMINATION IN THE WORKPLACE AT THE CITY OF PALESTINE, TEXAS

80. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1

through 242 as if fully stated herein.

81. The discriminatory and retaliatory conduct of Defendant caused Plaintiff to suffer

age discrimination; thereby violating the rights of Plaintiff protected by the Age in



Employment Discrimination Act, Title VII, Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code and other

similar state statutes.

82. Plaintiff is a female over forty (40) years old.

83. As evident from the facts above Defendants conduct was directed at Plaintiff

because she was over forty (40) years old.

84. PALESTINE intentionally causes Plaintiff to suffer adverse employment actions.

85. PALESTINE’s decision to intentionally cause Plaintiff to suffer adverse employment

actions was based on Plaintiff’s age.


actions was made by persons younger than Plaintiff.


actions was made by younger employees without following PALESTINE’s written policy.

88. PALESTINE treats younger employees different than older employees like Plaintiff.

89. PALESTINE intentionally and willfully discriminated against Plaintiff and others.

90. The unlawful employment practices complained of herein were intentional.

91. The unlawful employment practices complained of herein were done with malice or

reckless indifference to the protected rights of Plaintiff and other African American

employees.

92. As a result of PALESTINE’s discriminatory conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and will

continue to suffer pecuniary losses, including but not limited to, lost wages and other

benefits associated with her employment.

93. As a result of PALESTINE’s discriminatory conduct, Plaintiff has suffered non-

pecuniary losses, including but not limited to, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience,



mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other non-pecuniary losses. Because of

these losses Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages.

94. PALESTINE’s actions were done with malice and/or with reckless indifference to

Plaintiff’s protected rights. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to punitive damages.

95. Plaintiff also seeks reasonable attorneys’ fees, court costs and including reasonable

expert fees.

COUNT TWO - RACE DISCRIMINATION IN THE WORKPLACE AT THE CITY OF PALESTINE, TEXAS



Background


race discrimination; thereby violating the rights of Plaintiff protected by Title VII and

Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code and other similar state statutes.

98. Plaintiff, Elizabeth A. Saegert, is an African American, dark skin toned, female,

over 40 years old, with over Twenty Four (24) years of service as a Certified Public

Accountant within the State of Texas.

99. PALESTINE, City Manager, Mike Ohrt, is a Caucasian; light skin toned, male,

under-forty years old.

100. PALESTINE, Director of Human Resources, Susie Streb, is a Caucasian; light skin

toned, female, over-forty years old.

101. PALESTINE, Assistant Finance Director, Greg Laudadio, is a Caucasian; light skin

toned, male, under-forty years old.



102. PALESTINE, Assistant Finance Director, Greg Laudadio, has a high school

diploma.

103. PALESTINE, Assistant Finance Director, Greg Laudadio, does not have a college

degree.

104. PALESTINE, Assistant Finance Director, Greg Laudadio, has less education than

some of his African American co-workers.

105. PALESTINE, Assistant Finance Director, Greg Laudadio, has less experience than

some of his African American co-workers.

106. PALESTINE told other more qualified female co-workers not to apply for the

Assistant Finance Director position.

107. PALESTINE want to specifically place Greg Laudadio into the position of Assistant

Finance Director.

108. Immediately upon PALESTINE placing Greg Laudadio into the position of

Assistant Finance Director, PALESTINE took steps to have Greg Laudadio compete with

Plaintiff, thereby causing tension and harassment.

109. One of the steps PALESTINE took to cause tension and harassment was when

PALESTINE placed Greg Laudadio, Assistant Finance Director on the same reporting

level as Plaintiff the Finance Director.

110. Historically and the normal accepted practice is for the Assistant Finance Director to

report to the Finance Director who them reports to the City Manager.

111. It is extremely unusual for a non-department head to report directly to the City

Manager.



112. The majority of supervisory and management employees at PALESTINE, are

Caucasian, light skin toned individuals.

113. Conscious discrimination starts at with the PALESTINE City Manager traveling

down line through PALESTINE’s Human Resource Department to Plaintiff and other front

line employees.

114. Like conscious discrimination, its counterpart unconscious discrimination also starts

with the PALESTINE City Manager traveling down line through the PALESTINE Human

Resource Department to Plaintiff and other front line employees.

115. The PALESTINE authorized supervisory and management team supervising

Plaintiff was primarily comprised of Caucasian, white skin tone, individuals.

Disparate Treatment and Disparate Impact Discrimination

116. Plaintiffs’ Complaint speaks not only to Defendants’ unlawful conduct but outlines

the disparate treatment and disparate impact discrimination endured by Plaintiff.

117. Title VII makes it unlawful to “discriminate against any individual with respect to his

compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such

individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). Title VII’s

prohibition includes “not only overt discrimination [commonly referred to as disparate-

treatment discrimination] but also practices that are fair in form, but discriminatory in

operation [commonly referred to as disparate-impact discrimination].” Griggs v. Duke

Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 431, 28 L. Ed. 2d 158, 91 S. Ct. 849 (1971).

118. Under the “disparate-treatment” scenario of employment discrimination which is

“the most easily understood [form] of discrimination,” a Plaintiff must demonstrate that the

“employer ... treats some people less favorably than others because of their race, color,

religion, sex, or national origin.” International Bhd. of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S.


http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=42USCAS2000E-2&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_8b3b0000958a4

http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1971127025&pubNum=708&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)


http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=1977118786&pubNum=708&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_sp_708_1854


324, 335 n.15, 97 S. Ct. 1843, 1854 n.15, 52 L. Ed. 2d 396 (1977). Proof of discriminatory

intent, in disparate-treatment cases, “is critical, although it can in some situations be

inferred from the fact of differences in treatment.” Id.

119. Claims predicated on the “disparate impact” theory, by contrast, “involve

employment practices that are facially neutral in their treatment of different groups but that

in fact fall more harshly on one group than another and cannot be justified by business

necessity.” Id. A Plaintiff advancing a claim of discrimination under the disparate-impact

theory of liability need not prove discriminatory intent. See id.

120. Title VII prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of religion race, color,

religion, sex, or national origin. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). Absent direct evidence of

discrimination, a Plaintiff must first demonstrate a prima facie case of discrimination.

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green , 411 U.S. 792, 802, 36 L. Ed. 2d 668, 93 S. Ct. 1817

(1973); Chalmers v. Tulon Co. of Richmond, 101 F.3d 1012, 1017 (4th Cir. 1996), cert.

denied, 139 L. Ed. 2d 21, 118 S. Ct. 58 (1997). Once a party has made a prima facie case,

the employer must provide a legitimate nondiscriminatory justification for its action. Texas

Dep’t of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 253, 67 L. Ed. 2d 207, 101 S. Ct.

1089 (1981); Chalmers, 101 F.3d at 1017-18. If the employer advances such a

justification, the Plaintiff then must prove that this justification is a mere pretext for an

actual discriminatory motive. St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 507-08, 125 L.

Ed. 2d 407, 113 S. Ct. 2742 (1993); Chalmers, 101 F.3d at 118.

Race Color Discrimination

121. Plaintiff will establish her prima facia case of race discrimination under Title VII

below by showing (1) [that] she belongs to a protected group, i.e. African American – dark

skin toned – female, over forty (40) years of age; (2) that she was qualified for her position,



http://www.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&pubNum=1000546&cite=42USCAS2000E-2&originationContext=document&vr=3.0&rs=cblt1.0&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search)#co_pp_8b3b0000958a4












i.e. Plaintiff was qualified working for over Twenty Four (24) years as a Certified Public

Accountant within the State of Texas with over Two (2) of those years working with

Defendant, PALESTINE; (3) that she was dismissed or suffered an adverse employment

action; and (4) that [the employer] sought to replace her with a similarly qualified [not

belonging to a protected group].

122. In this specific case Defendant treated other non-African American, non-dark skin

toned persons, under forty (40) years of age with less than Twenty Four (24) years of

service as a Certified Public Accountant within the State of Texas and with over Two (2)

years of service to PALESTINE more favorably than Plaintiff.

123. At all times material herein Defendant did not apply and enforce its policies equally

on Plaintiff and other employees.

Additionally Discriminatory Conduct Because of Plaintiffs Race/Color

124. A few examples of discriminatory conduct of Plaintiff's managers, supervisors, co-

workers and PALESTINE are as follows:

Date Description 1/18/2011 Hired Interim Finance Director

Spring 2011 3 white 20ish customer service employees refused to ride to Tyler TX for a training class with a 50ish black female customer service employee

4/11/2011 Hired Finance Director

Spring 2012 Promoted 30ish white female over a 50ish Black female (5) with a Business Bachelor degree; reason: too slow. Refused to let another Black female hold position on an interim basis; reason: she want fit in.

5/16/2012 Evaluation 3.29 performance is fully complete and satisfactory+

Summer 2012 Black female Finance Supervisor requested tuition assistance to continue college education; denied (1)

Summer 2012 When I reprimanded a Finance Supervisor for calling a 50ish year old employee old and slow and asked her why she and her staff showed disrespect for her; reply: we treat her different because she is old.

Summer 2012 City Manager (4) instructed me to arrange for the City to pay for college courses for Laudadio (2); I responded that Laudadio should not receive opportunities not extended to female Finance Supervisors



9/6/2012 Reassigned supervision of 80% of Finance staff to Laudadio (white male 30ish); Reason: unidentified staff threatened to resign

Nov-12 City paid cost for Laudadio (white Finance supervisor) to take college course

2/1/2013 Received discplinary letter. Reason: discussing financial controls with external auditor

Spring 2013 Laudadio threatened to sue City because I alleged called him a racist. City Manager instructed me to apologize.

May-13 City paid cost for Laudadio (white Finance supervisor) to take another college course

May-13 City employees instructed not to talk to me and not share financial information with me.

2011-2013 Non-white customers and employees frequently not treated with respect i.e. discussions concerning skin color, not working for a living, drug dealers, assuming all individuals of hispanic are "mexicans".

2011-2013 Efforts made by City Manager and HR Director to ostracize, isolate and bully olders female and non-white employees.

2011 2 (age 40+) long term Finance employees instructed not to apply for Assistant Finance Director position prior to the hire of Laudadio (3)

(1) Black female supervisor has 5+ year at City and an Associates Degree

(2) Laudadio (white, male, 30ish) has been at the City for 2 years, high school diploma

(3) Both 40+ long term female Finance employees have 60+ college hours

(4) White 36 year old male

(5) White, female, 30ish, high school diploma only

125. Through discovery Plaintiff will provide additional examples of discriminatory

conduct of Defendants and others.

126. The disparaging treatment continues unabated during the term of Plaintiff’s

employment.

127. Defendants unilateral actions constitute unlawful discrimination under federal and

state law. Specifically Plaintiff’s race (African American) and color (dark skin tone) was a

motivating factor in Defendants and others acts, malfeasance and omissions complained

of herein.



128. Even before Plaintiff filed this lawsuit, PALESTINE knew of the existing hostile work

environment and had knowledge of the retaliatory actions suffered by Plaintiff but took no

action to stop same.

129. Other African American dark skin toned employees similarly situated to Plaintiff

have also been subjected to a hostile work environment, in violation of Title VII of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964, as amended.



reckless indifference to both the state and federally protected rights of Plaintiff.

132. As a result of Defendants intentional discriminatory conduct, Plaintiff has suffered

and will continue to suffer pecuniary losses, including but not limited to, lost wages and

other benefits associated with her employment.

133. As a result of Defendants discriminatory conduct, Plaintiff has suffered non-

pecuniary losses, including but not limited to, emotion pain, suffering, inconvenience,



134. Defendants actions were done with malice and/or reckless indifference to Plaintiffs’

protected rights. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to punitive damages.

135. Plaintiff also seeks reasonable attorneys’ fees, court costs, including reasonable

expert fees.

COUNT THREE - SEX-GENDER DISCRIMINATION (MALE vs. FEMALE) IN THE WORKPLACE AT THE CITY OF PALESTINE, TEXAS






sex – gender- discrimination (Male vs. Female); thereby violating the rights of Plaintiff

protected by Title VII and Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code and other similar state

statutes.

138. Plaintiff has held the position of Director of Finance with Defendant for over Two (2)

years.

139. In addition to Plaintiff being a member of the Protected Classes described in

Section Nine above; Plaintiff believes a motivating factor for the conduct of Defendant

rests with Plaintiff being an African American Female. Plaintiff is Female whereas Mike

Ohrt and Greg Laudadio among others are all Males.

140. In the last few months Plaintiff began to notice that Male employees of Defendant

received better treatment than Female employees of Defendant.

141. Male employees of Defendant are not held to the same standard as Plaintiff and

other Female employees of Defendant.

142. Plaintiff and other Female employees of Defendant are held to a higher standard

than Male employees.

143. Male employees routinely violate the written policies of the Defendant without

repercussion.

144. Plaintiff and other Female employees who violate the same written policies of

Defendant are disciplined.

145. Defendant does not enforce its written policies equally among all of its employees.

146. On the rare occasion when Male employees are disciplined it means nothing

because they still receive raises and other benefits as if nothing happened.

147. However Plaintiff and other Female employees who are disciplined fail to receive



raises and other benefits.

148. Male employees of Defendant routinely are paid more than Plaintiff and other

Female employees of Defendant.

149. Male employees of Defendant receive more favorable working conditions than

Plaintiff and other Female employees.

150. Male employees with less seniority than Plaintiff and other Female employees

receive more favorable treatment than Plaintiff and other Female employees.

151. Plaintiff believes that the Defendant has and continues to discriminate against her

because of her being a Female.

152. Plaintiff has brought this sex-gender discrimination up to Defendant; however

Defendant took no steps to stop the sex-gender discrimination.

153. Plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action when Defendants would not

provide equal treatment for Plaintiff then Defendants retaliated against her which

retaliation resulted in her suffering more damage.

154. Plaintiff suffered several an adverse employment actions as outlined herein.

155. Defendant intentionally and willfully discriminated against Plaintiff and other Female

employees.



reckless indifference to the protected rights of Plaintiff and other Female employees.

158. As a result of Defendants’ discriminatory conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and will





159. As a result of Defendants’ discriminatory conduct, Plaintiff has suffered non-




160. Defendants’ actions were done with malice and/or with reckless indifference to



expert fees.

COUNT FOUR - HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT IN THE WORKPLACE AT CITY OF PALESTINE, TEXAS

162. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates the allegations contained in Paragraph 1


163. The discriminatory and harassing conduct of Defendant caused Plaintiff to be

subjected to a hostile work environment; thereby violating the rights of Plaintiff protected

by Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), Title VII, Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor

Code and other similar state statutes.

164. Plaintiff will establish her prima facia case of hostile work environment under Title

VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, below by showing (1) [that] she belongs to

a protected group, i.e. African American, dark skin toned, female, over forty (40) years of

age and who reported her employers conduct to management, DOL and EEOC; (2) that

she was subjected to unwelcome harassment, i.e. examples cited herein; (3) the

harassment was based on a protected characteristic, i.e. African American, dark skin

toned, female, over forty (40) years of age and who reported her employers conduct to

management, DOL and EEOC; (4) the harassment affected a term or condition of



employment, i.e. Plaintiff received negative oral & written counseling, unwelcome remarks,

rumors & innuendos; (5) the employer knew or should have known about the harassment

and failed to take prompt, remedial action. Flowers v. Southern Regional Physician

Services, Inc., 247 F.3d 229, 235-36 (5th Cir. 2001).

165. Plaintiff’s workplace is so permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule,

insults, rumors and innuendos that it so sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the

conditions of Plaintiff’s employment, thereby creating an abusive working environment in

violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.

166. Defendant knowingly allowed the ridicule, insults, rumors and innuendoes

concerning Plaintiff, especially about her being an African American, female, over forty

(40) years of age, about her being “old and can’t make it anymore,” and about her

reputation to continue unabated which contributed to the hostile work environment.

167. Defendant took NO steps to reduce or eliminate the hostile work environment,

especially when Plaintiff requested the ridicule, insults, rumor and innuendos to stop;

however Defendant refused to honor said request.

168. As a result of Defendants failure to honor Plaintiff’s request, the ridicule, insults,

rumors and innuendos increased at the workplace, to the point where Plaintiff was

overwhelmed and exhausted thereby aggravating Plaintiff’s medical condition.

169. Defendant exacerbated the hostile work environment when it kept changing

Plaintiff’s reporting requirements, work locations, work hours and other routine

assignments against Plaintiff’s preference although Plaintiff was a more senior

PALESTINE employee.

170. Defendant again increased the pressure working within the hostile work

environment when PALESTINE decided they were going to get rid of the more senior,



African American employees by any means available, when all harassment attempts

failed, they created the artifice of “department reorganization” to achieve their unlawful

goal under what at first blush appears to be a lawful means.


environment when PALESTINE gave Plaintiff projects that set Plaintiff up for failure.


environment when PALESTINE deprived other female co-workers of the opportunity to

apply and be considered for the open Assistant Director of Finance position and then filled

the position with Greg Laudadio, a Caucasian, male, under 40 years old, who was

younger than the other African American co-workers and who had less experience and

education than the other African American co-workers.

173. Plaintiff is repeatedly discriminated against each time PALESTINE provided better

treatment to the other employees other than it provided Plaintiff. Said treatment of Plaintiff

was predicated upon Plaintiff being an African American, dark skin toned, female, over

forty (40) years of age with over twenty-four (24) years of service as a Certified Public

Accountant within the State of Texas. Such conduct in and of itself created daily tension

and hostility within the workplace contributing to a hostile work environment.

174. On almost a day-to-day basis PALESTINE City Manager Mike Ohrt, PALESTINE

Director of Human Resources Susie Streb and other managers and supervisors routinely

gave orders that are in direct opposition with the written policies and standard operating

procedures of the Defendant so they may treat other employees differently than Plaintiff.

175. Although PALESTINE knew of the hostile work environment, Defendant took NO

remedial action to stop the hostile work activities and prevent those types of unlawful

activities from occurring in the future.



176. In fact not only did PALESTINE not take any remedial action to stop the hostile

work environment, PALESTINE City Manager, Mike Ohrt, PALESTINE Director of Human

Resources, Susie Streb, and others themselves contributed to the hostile work

environment.

177. PALESTINE City Manager, Mike Ohrt, PALESTINE Director of Human Resources,

Susie Streb and others, willingly, knowingly and intentionally allowed the hostile work

environment to exist.

178. PALESTINE City Manager, Mike Ohrt, PALESTINE Director of Human Resources,

Susie Streb and others, by their acts or failure to act herein supported the ongoing hostile

work environment.



reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of Plaintiff and other African

American, dark skin toned, females, over forty (40) years old.

181. As a result of PALESTINE and others, discriminatory conduct, Plaintiff has suffered

and will continue to suffer pecuniary losses, including but not limited to, lost wages and

other benefits associated with her employment.

182. As a result of PALESTINE and others, discriminatory conduct, Plaintiff has suffered

non-pecuniary losses, including but not limited to, emotional pain, suffering,

inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other non-pecuniary losses.

Because of these losses Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages.

183. PALESTINE and others, actions were done with malice and/or with reckless

indifference to Plaintiff’s protected rights. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to punitive

damages.




expert fees.

COUNT FIVE – RETALIATION IN THE WORKPLACE AT THE CITY OF PALESTINE, TEXAS



186. The discriminatory and harassing conduct of PALESTINE and others, caused

Plaintiff to be subjected to retaliation; thereby violating the rights of Plaintiff protected by

Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), Title VII, Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor

Code and other similar state statutes.

187. Throughout the course of employment with Defendant, Plaintiff time and again

suffered unproductive disparaging remarks.

188. The disparaging remarks continue unabated throughout Plaintiff’s employment.

189. PALESTINE, PALESTINE City Manager, Mike Ohrt, PALESTINE Director of

Human Resources, Susie Streb and others retaliation against Plaintiff during 2012

included but is not limited to:

1) Defendant and others uttering unproductive disparaging remarks to

Plaintiff; and

2) Defendant and others being insubordinate to Plaintiff; and

3) Defendant, management, supervisors and others undermining Plaintiff; and

4) Defendant, management, supervisors and others creating events at the

workplace to cause more stress and aggravation for Plaintiff; and

5) Defendant, management, supervisors and others blatantly discriminating

against Plaintiff;



6) Defendant, management, supervisors and others depriving Plaintiff from her

Federally protected rights;

7) Defendants, management, supervisors and others depriving Plaintiff from her

Rights protected by the State of Texas;

8) Defendants, management, supervisors and others depriving Plaintiff of the

opportunities to apply and be considered for other open department positions; and

9) Defendant, management, supervisors and others using the “good ole boy”

system within the City of PALESTINE; and

10) Defendant, management, supervisor and others using a systematic scheme

to provide better employment opportunities and benefits to Caucasian individuals

and friends; and

11) Defendant, management, supervisors and others applying pressure to

Plaintiff in an attempt to get Plaintiff to resign; and

12) Defendant, management, supervisors and others creating adverse

employment actions against Plaintiff.

190. Most if not all of the acts complained of within this entire Complaint were retaliatory

in nature and directed toward Plaintiff.

191. Finally the ultimate act of retaliation and adverse employment action occurred when

PALESTINE and others, under the guise of a lawful reason, department restructuring,

reassign 80% of the Finance staff to Plaintiff’s subordinate Greg Laudadio.

192. It is unlawful to retaliate against an individual for opposing discriminatory

employment practices or for filing a discrimination charge, testifying, or participating in any

way in an investigation, proceeding, or litigation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of

1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, the Fair Labor Standards Act of



1938 as amended, the Texas Labor Code and other similar statutes.

193. Defendants further violated Plaintiff’s civil rights by taking adverse actions against

her in response to her complaints about the unlawful and discriminatory working

conditions.

194. During the course of Plaintiff’s employment, Defendants, acting through its

management, supervisors, agents and vice principals, in a continuous course of conduct,

discriminated against Plaintiff in the terms, conditions and privileges of her employment

due to her age, race, color, sex, national origin and due to retaliation for having

participated in an DOL and EEOC proceeding and/or for having opposed conduct which

she had a good faith belief was unlawful and/or discriminatory on the basis of age, race,

color, sex, national origin and retaliation including in that:

Defendants, through their agents, supervisors and/or employees, in a continuing course of conduct, subjected Plaintiff to retaliation and discrimination in the terms, conditions, and privileges of his employment in retaliation for him filing a charge of discrimination with the EEOC and/or participating in a proceeding with that agency against his former employer and/or because he opposed discrimination and retaliation at Defendants place of employment. Plaintiff also asserts that the Defendant has engaged in age, race, color, national origin and sex discrimination by replacing him and his job duties with a substantially younger person with little or no experience that is not an African American, dark skin toned, male, over forty (40) years old, in the violation of the law.

COUNT SIX – MENTAL ABUSE IN THE WORKPLACE AT THE CITY OF PALESTINE TEXAS



MENTAL ABUSE BY THE CITY OF PALESTINE DISTRICT’S MANAGEMENT, SUPERVISORS & OTHERS

196. PALESTINE’S Management, Supervisors & Others including but not limited to Mike

Ohrt, City Manager, Susie Streb, Director of Human Resources, Greg Laudido, Assistant



Finance Director, Defendant and other managers and supervisors of Plaintiff and others

willingly, knowingly and intentionally, by their acts or failure to act subjected Plaintiff to

mental abuse.

197. Plaintiff was subjected to direct mental abuse from PALESTINE’s Management,

Supervisors & Others including but not limited to Mike Ohrt, City Manager, Susie Streb,

Director of Human Resources, Greg Laudadio, Assistant Director Finance, and

supervisors of Plaintiff and others, when they continually ridiculed Plaintiff, made

condescending remarks about Plaintiff and was simply mean spirited in their speech and

actions toward Plaintiff.




supervisors of Plaintiff and other managers and supervisors of Plaintiff and others, when

they kept changing Plaintiff work assignments and locations to other areas in opposition to

the will of Plaintiff.




supervisors of Plaintiff and other managers and supervisors of Plaintiff and others,, when

they continually placed Plaintiff in situations where he was set up for failure.







they kept Plaintiff from applying for and being considered for certain benefits available to

all other PALESTINE employees.





they deprived Plaintiff from receiving proper training.




supervisors of Plaintiff and other managers and supervisors of Plaintiff and others, they

repeatedly attempted to force Plaintiff to resign her position.





they continually questioned Plaintiff’s performance and attendance.





they treated others differently than Plaintiff.







they caused Plaintiff to endure adverse employment actions.

206. Although Defendant, Management, Supervisors and others knew about their

conduct they took no steps to stop such conduct from continuing.

207. This ongoing mental abuse by Defendant, Management, Supervisors and others

caused Plaintiff painful emotional and mental reactions, such as embarrassment, fright,

horror, grief, shame, humiliation, uncontrollable crying episodes, difficulty sleeping,

emotional outbursts, stomach disorders, headaches, depression and worry.

208. Defendant knew about of all the matters claimed herein; however Defendant failed

and refused to take any steps to stop the mental abuse, discrimination, hostile work

environment, harassment and discriminatory conduct.

209. By Defendants failure and refusal to stop the mental abuse, discrimination, hostile

work environment, harassment and discriminatory conduct caused Plaintiff to suffer severe

emotional distress which exacerbated Plaintiff other medical conditions.

210. Defendant knew that continuing to allow the mental abuse, discrimination, hostile

work environment, harassment and discriminatory conduct to continue created a high

degree of risk of harm to Plaintiff and others; however Defendant deliberately proceeded

to act in conscious disregard of with indifference to that rise.

211. Defendant has intimate knowledge of other employees of Defendant who had

nervous breakdowns and other emotion distress issues so severe they were hospitalized

and in some cases never returned to Defendants employ. Despite this special knowledge

Defendant continues to fail and refuse to stop the mental abuse, discrimination, hostile

work environment, harassment and discriminatory conduct.



212. Defendant has intimate knowledge of other employees of Defendant who had been

administered medications for depression, stress, anxiety and other emotional conditions

so they can function day-to-day. Despite this special knowledge Defendant continues to

fail and refuse to stop the mental abuse, discrimination, hostile work environment,

harassment and discriminatory conduct.

213. Plaintiffs severe emotional distress includes painful emotional and mental reactions,

such as embarrassment, fright, horror, grief, shame, humiliation, uncontrollable crying

episodes, difficulty sleeping, emotional outbursts, stomach disorders, headaches,

depression and worry.

214. Defendant, management, supervisors and others extreme and outrageous conduct

was intensified with their day-to-day harassing conduct aimed at Plaintiff, which

proximately caused severe emotional distress to Plaintiff.

215. As a direct result of Defendant, management, supervisors and others extreme and

outrageous conduct Plaintiff sought medical advice.

216. Defendant, management, supervisors and others believes they are above having

to comply with the law. This belief combined with the acts or failure to act by Defendant,

management, supervisors and others to stop the harassment and hostile work

environment creates confusion within the Defendants working environment thereby directly

contributing to the day-to-day hostile work environment.

217. Defendant, management, supervisors and others do not apply the written policies

equally among all of Defendants employees. Conduct discriminatory in nature against

Plaintiff thereby contributing to the disparate treatment of Plaintiff. Said treatment toward

Plaintiff was predicated upon Plaintiff being a member of the Protected Classes as



outlined in Section Nine above. This type act contributes to the day-to-day hostile work

environment.

218. But for Plaintiff being a member of the Protected Classes as outlined in Section

Nine above Plaintiff would not have suffered disparate treatment.

219. Plaintiff has several examples of disparate treatment and disparate impact

treatment toward Plaintiff and therefore reserves the right to raise those examples as

discovery progresses.

220. Defendant failed to take any action, failed to take remedial action, failed to

discipline its employees, failed to separate the employees, and/or failed to take corrective

action all the while encouraging a hostile work environment.

221. All of the events outlined here in totality establishes a hostile work environment

exist at the City of Palestine.


reckless indifference to the protected rights of Plaintiff and other male employees.

223. As a result of Defendants’ discriminatory conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and will



224. As a result of Defendants’ discriminatory conduct, Plaintiff has suffered non-


mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other non-pecuniary losses, which non-

pecuniary losses only exacerbated Plaintiff medical condition. Because of these losses

Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages.

225. Defendants’ actions were done with malice and/or with reckless indifference to





expert fees.

COUNT SEVENTH – DEFAMATION IN THE WORKPLACE AT THE CITY OF PALESTINE, TEXAS



228. Plaintiff was subjected to defamation from PALESTINE’s Management, Supervisors

& Others including but not limited to Mike Ohrt, City Manager, Susie Streb, Director of

Human Resources, Greg Laudadio, Assistant Director Finance, other managers and

supervisors of Plaintiff, Defendant and others, published statements by oral and written

communication asserting statements as true that were not true.



Human Resources, Greg Laudadio, Assistant Director Finance, and other managers and

supervisors of Plaintiff and others, published statements by oral and written

communication asserting as fact that Plaintiff had negative performance evaluations which

statements were not true.



Human Resources, Greg Laudadio, Assistant Director Finance, managers and

supervisors of Plaintiff and others, statements involving a private issue. The allegation

about Plaintiff is a private issue which should not have been made public prior to the

completion of a thorough investigation.





Human Resources, Greg Laudadio, Assistant Director Finance, managers and

supervisors of Plaintiff and others, statement referred to Plaintiff by her full name i.e.

Elizabeth A. Saegert.

232. PALESTINE’s Management, Supervisors & Others including but not limited to Mike

Ohrt, City Manager, Susie Streb, Director of Human Resources, Greg Laudadio,

Assistant Director Finance, managers and supervisors of Plaintiff and others, statements

were defamatory per se under the common law.



Assistant Director Finance, managers and supervisors of Plaintiff and others, are strictly

liable to Plaintiff for the defamation.



Assistant Director Finance, managers and supervisors of Plaintiff and others without

evidence, maliciously created their statements, then proceeded to publish said false

statements with the specific intent to a) cause Elizabeth A. Saegert to be embarrassed,

ridiculed and harassed, b) cause Elizabeth A. Saegert to be subject to persecution; c)

cause Elizabeth A. Saegert to be withheld from training, thereby causing negative

employment situations; d) cause Elizabeth A. Saegert’s reputation to be tarnished and e)

cause Elizabeth A. Saegert to suffer damages.



Assistant Director Finance, managers and supervisors of Plaintiff and others, false



statements caused injury to Plaintiff, which resulted in the following damages: Plaintiff has

suffered damages including, but not limited to, back pay, front pay, loss of wages and

benefits in the past and future, costs of court, expert fees and attorney fees, mental

anguish, humiliation and emotional distress in the past and future, prejudgment and post

judgment interest, benefits, special damages, expenses, punitive/liquidated damages, and

punitive damages, all to be specified at trial and any injunctive relief deemed appropriate

and available under the law which Plaintiff brings this action.




statements were defamatory per se, which entitles Plaintiff to a presumption of general

damages.




statements resulted in the following special damages to Plaintiff: a) loss of earning

capacity; b) loss of past and future income; c) loss of employment opportunities; d)

invasion of privacy through publication; and e) loss of employment benefits and e)

emotional distress.

238. Plaintiff seeks unliquidated damages within the jurisdictional limits of this court.

239. Exemplary damages. Plaintiff’s injury resulted from PALESTINE’s Management,


Director of Human Resources, Greg Laudadio, Assistant Director Finance, managers and

supervisors of Plaintiff and others , malice, which entitles Plaintiff to exemplary damages



under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code section 41.003(a).

XII. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

240. Plaintiff restates, realleges, reavers and hereby incorporates by reference any and

all allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 242, inclusive, herein. In addition, Plaintiff alleges

that Defendant’s discriminatory actions outlined herein must be enjoined by this Court in

order to force Defendant to comply with the law. It is suggested that the injunction be

specific in enjoining Defendants, its management, supervisors, officers, agents,

successors, employees, attorneys, assigns and other representatives, and all those acting

in concert; or participation with them and at their direction, from engaging in any

employment policy or practice shown to discriminate against Plaintiff in violation of Title VII

on the basis of Age, Race, Color, Sex and National Origin and or like state statutes.

241. That this Court retain jurisdiction for five (5) years to make sure Defendant is

complying with the law.

XIII. DEMAND FOR A TRIAL BY JURY

242. Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff demands a

trial by jury in this action. See also: U.S. Const. Amend. 7. In accordance with the

Federal Rules, this jury demand is being filed with the Clerk of the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d)

and Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b).

XIV. PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays this Court to:

a. Defendant be summoned to appear and answer herein; and

b. Issue findings of fact and conclusions of law that Defendant’s acts, practices, and

procedures, subjected Plaintiff to Age Discrimination, Race (Color) Discrimination,



Sex (Gender) Discrimination, Hostile Work Environment, Retaliation, Mental Abuse

and Defamation as complained of herein violated Plaintiff’s rights as secured under

Title VII or like state statute; and:

c. Grant to Plaintiff a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants, its management,

supervisors, officers, agents, successors, employees, attorneys, assigns and other

representatives, and all those acting in concert; or participation with them and at

their direction, from engaging in any employment policy or practice shown to

discriminate against Plaintiff in violation of Title VII on the basis of Age, Race,

Color, Sex and National Origin and or like state statutes; and

d. Grant to Plaintiff a judgment for damages, for Race Discrimination, Color

Discrimination, Harassment, Hostile Work Environment and Retaliation, against

Defendant in an amount within the jurisdictional limits of this Court; and

e. Grant judgment for damages for Age Discrimination pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §207, et.

seq., in an amount within the jurisdictional limits of this Court; and

f. Retain jurisdiction over this action to assure full compliance with the orders of this

Court and with applicable law;

g. Grant judgment for damages for Defamation under the laws of the State of Texas,

in an amount within the jurisdictional limits of this Court; and

h. Award Plaintiff judgment for her damages for mental abuse, pain and suffering,

mental anguish and for the humiliation caused by Defendant’s unlawful treatment in

an amount within the jurisdictional limits of this Court; and

i. Plaintiff prays for an award of punitive damages in an amount believed by the Court

to be appropriate to punish Defendant for the willful and malicious misconduct and



necessary to deter Defendant from engaging in such misconduct in the future, in an

amount within the jurisdictional limits of this Court; and

j. Plaintiff prays that the Court award Plaintiff costs and expenses of this action and

award Plaintiff reasonable attorney fees as provided in Title VII 42 U.S.C. §2000e-

5(k) and or like state statutes;

k. Plaintiff, in accordance with her rights under the United States and Texas

Constitutions, and statutory rights under Title VII 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(k) and or like

state statutes demands a trial by jury on issues triable to a jury;

l. Pre-judgment interest accruing at the rate of Six per cent (6%) per annum1 from

May 22, 2013 until the date of judgment;

m. Post-judgment interest at the rate of Eighteen per cent (18%) per annum or at the

highest legal or contractual rate allowed by law from the date of judgment until the

judgment is paid;

n. Judgment in the amount of Seventy Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00) as initial

attorney’s fees plus additional attorney’s fees when incurred in prosecution of this

lawsuit, if Defendant does not appeal this judgment this to the Fifth Circuit Court of

Appeals and time for appeal to that court has expired, Defendant shall be entitled to

a remittitur of Five Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($5,500.00), against the

judgment for attorney’s fees; and if Defendant does not appeal from the Court of

Appeals to the Supreme Court of the United States and time for that appeal has

expired, Defendant shall be entitled to a remittitur of Four Thousand Five Hundred

1 If no specific rate of interest is agreed on by the parties, 6 percent annual interest, starting thirty days after

the amount is due and payable, maybe charged. Tex. Const. art. XVI, § 11; Tex. Fin. Code Ann. §302.002 (Vernon Supp. 2003); see: Miner-Dederick Construction Corp. v. Mid-County Rental Service, Inc., 603 S.W.2d 193, 200 (Tex. 1980). This is sometimes referred to as “legal Interest.” T Fin C §§ 301.002(a)(8), 302.002.



Dollars ($4,500.00) against the judgment for attorney’s fees;

o. All costs of court;

p. All expert witness fees incurred in the preparation and prosecution of this action;

q. All court reporter fees incurred in the preparation and prosecution of this action;

r. Plaintiff be granted all writs necessary to enforce the judgment of this Court; and

s. Plaintiff be awarded such other, further, and different relief as the nature of the case

may require or as may be determined to be just, equitable, or proper by the Court.

Respectfully submitted, this 19th day of August, 2013.

/s/ Hiram McBeth Hiram McBeth, Esq. SBT No. #13329500 6060 North Central Expwy, Suite #560 Dallas, Texas 75206 Tel: (972) 498-8702 Fax: (972) 674-3111 [email protected] www.mcbethlawoffice.com ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF ELIZABETH A. SAEGERT


mailto:[email protected]

http://www.mcbethlawoffice.com/

elizabeth saegert vs. city of palestine, texas

Documents

state of texas

texas law

texas commission

defendant city of palestine

texas labor code

actions of palestine

jury demand page

plaintiff elizabeth