Upload
gaylegear
View
219
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/30/2019 Spidle Complaint
1/49
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
VIRGINIA SPIDLE )
)
Plaintiff, ))
v. )
)
BIRMINGHAM CITY, a Municipal )
Corporation in Alabama. ) Jury Trial Demanded
)
)
Defendant. )
COMPLAINT
I. INTRODUCTION1. This is an action for declaratory judgment,
compensatory damages, back pay and related
economic losses, and other equitable relief. This
action is brought to redress race-based employment
discrimination pursuant to Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S. C. 2002e
et seq., the Civil Rights Act of 1991, and 42
U.S.C. 1981 and 1981(a), race discrimination
and retaliation, by and through 42 U.S.C. 1983.
2. This action encompasses the period during whichWilliam Bell served as Mayor of the City of
7/30/2019 Spidle Complaint
2/49
2
Birmingham (City) and Jarvis Patton served as
the Citys Chief of Operations. Patton was
appointed in February 2010 by newly-elected Mayor
Bell. Patton reports directly to Mayor Bell.
Patton claims that twenty-one (21) department
heads report directly to him. At the direction of
the Mayor, Patton assumed a direct managerial role
in the Finance Department.
3. This action is brought to address race-baseddiscrimination and retaliation resulting in
plaintiffs termination on October 26, 2010 after
24 years of service, including 18 years as the
City of Birminghams Chief Accountant in the
General Accounting Division of the Finance
Department.
4. This action also seeks to address the harmstemming from the second wrongful termination
action on January 30, 2012. The second termination
action came after the January 10, 2012 Decision of
the Jefferson County Personnel Board (Personnel
7/30/2019 Spidle Complaint
3/49
3
Board) ordering plaintiffs reinstatement from
the first termination action. Plaintiff returned
to work on January 23, 2012, and within days was
terminated. Fueled by racial animus, the Citys
Mayor defied the Personnels Board Order to
reinstate plaintiff. The City also ignored the
Personnel Boards factual findings that exonerated
plaintiff of all charges including the scurrilous
charge of racism instigated by Patton weeks after
his appointment as Chief of Operations.
5. The actions of the City were the result ofintentional race discrimination and retaliation in
violation of 42 U.S.C 1981, 1981(a) and 1983
and the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution.
6. Plaintiff further seeks redress for acts ofretaliation taken by the City against her for
participating in Title VII proceedings and for
protesting activities that she believed were
unlawful in violation of Title VII of the Civil
7/30/2019 Spidle Complaint
4/49
4
Rights Act of 1964, as amended and the Civil
Rights Act of 1991.
7. The City instigated and condoned a race-basedhostile work environment in the Citys Finance
Department. The discriminatory animus was severe
and pervasive altering the terms and conditions of
employment. The race-based discrimination and
retaliation was directed at employees who are
Caucasian.
8. Within weeks of Pattons appointment, the Divisionof General Accounting in the Finance Department
became permeated with discriminatory intimidation,
ridicule, and insult. In addition to plaintiff,
other employees, who are Caucasian, were gravely
affected by the abusive and hostile working
environment. They, like plaintiff, experienced
serious health and emotional problems, impacting
their job performance and attendance. Three
Caucasian supervisors left the department (two
resigned and one retired) in order to avoid the
7/30/2019 Spidle Complaint
5/49
5
stress caused by the working environment. The sole
remaining supervisor who is Caucasian remains in
constant vigilance, fearful of retaliation because
she reported her concerns to Finance Department
Director Tom Barnett and Deputy Director Henry
Young.
9. Plaintiff was a minority and within a protectedclass as a Caucasian in the Finance Department as
well as within all departments of the City.
10. The City engaged in a pattern of conductinexplicable on grounds other than race-based
discrimination and retaliation.
II.JURISDICTION
11. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked byplaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1343(4)
and 28 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202. The jurisdiction
of the Court is invoked to secure protection for
and to redress the deprivation of rights secured
by Title VII and 42 U.S.C. 1981, and 1981(a)
providing for injunctive and other relief against
7/30/2019 Spidle Complaint
6/49
6
racial discrimination and retaliation.
12. The Court has jurisdiction to address race-baseddiscrimination against Caucasian employees in the
Finance Department in violation of Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, the
Civil Rights Act of 1991 and 42 U.S.C. 1981 and
1981(a).
13. The action also arises under the FourteenthAmendment of the United States Constitution and
U.S.C. 1981, 1983 and 1988. The jurisdiction of
this Court is invoked pursuant to the Fourteenth
Amendment of the United States Constitution.
III. ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES UNDER TITLE VII.
14. On February 16, 2012 plaintiff filed a charge withthe U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC) against the City of Birmingham. Plaintiff
alleged that her employer, the City of Birmingham,
discriminated against her and continues to do so
7/30/2019 Spidle Complaint
7/49
7
impermissibly on the basis of race, and in
retaliation for participating in a Title VII
proceeding and protesting activities she believed
were unlawful under Title VII and for filing a
charge with the EEOC. (Exhibit A)
15. In that charge, plaintiff alleged that afterMayor Bell appointed Jarvis Patton as his Chief of
Operations, plaintiff was subjected to race-based
discrimination and retaliation. Despite
protestations by plaintiff and other Caucasian
employees, a racially charged hostile work
environment was instigated, encouraged, and
condoned by top City officials, specifically Mayor
Bell and Chief of Operations, Jarvis Patton.
16. Plaintiff alleged in her EEOC charge that as aresult of racial discrimination and retaliation
she was wrongfully charged with racism, placed on
leave, and wrongfully terminated from employment
not only once but twice.
17. Plaintiff also reported to EEOC that she and
7/30/2019 Spidle Complaint
8/49
8
other Caucasian employees in General Accounting
were subjected to a race-based hostile work
environment and such continued after she was
subjected to disciplinary charges on May 28, 2010
and placed on administrative leave.
18. Throughout this period up to and including thedate of plaintiffs first termination on October
26, 2010, African-American employees were invited,
if not encouraged, to complain about plaintiff and
other Caucasians. An internal auditor from the
Mayors Office was sent to the General Accounting
Division to solicit complaints against plaintiff
after she was charged and placed on leave.
19. The Citys newly appointed Personnel DirectorPeggy Polk ignored written grievances filed by two
Caucasian supervisors who were targeted for
harassment after plaintiff had been placed on
administrative leave.
20. In her charge, plaintiff incorporated by referencethe EEOC charge filed by Jamie Ligon, the former
7/30/2019 Spidle Complaint
9/49
9
Payroll Manager assigned to General Accounting.
Ligon alleged race-based discrimination and
retaliation; she asked that her charge be assigned
class action status to remedy severe and pervasive
racial discrimination in the City of Birmingham.
(Exhibit B)
21. Ligon, a twenty-four year employee, is aCaucasian. Ligon testified that she resigned on
August 19, 2011 because the oppressive work
environment was affecting her health and mental
well-being. Ligon filed this charge on November
8, 2011 and listed plaintiff as a witness in her
charge:
Since July 2010, Barbara McGrue, DeputyDirector of Finance, continually publically
chastised, ridiculed, humiliated me, and
verbally insulted me and other White employees
creating a racially hostile work environment.
Ms. McGrue denied White employees opportunities
afforded Blacks employees. I e-mailed Tom
Barnett, Director of Finance, Peggy Polk,
Director of Personnel, and copied Ms. McGruethat I believed that Ms. McGrue was subjecting
me to discriminatory treatment because of my
race. No action was taken and they did not
respond to my e-mail. Subsequent to my
complaint Ms. McGrue would not meet with me or
7/30/2019 Spidle Complaint
10/49
10
keep me informed with what was going on in the
section. Ms. McGrue began finding fault in
anything that I did whereas there were never
any problems identified with my work. On
August 19, 2011, I was forced to resign my
employment as a result of no longer being ableto tolerate the adverse treatment imposed upon
me which caused me great stress and mental
anguish. A number of White employees in the
protected age group have been discharged or
forced to resign and replaced with Blacks.
22. On or about October 19, 2012, plaintiff receivedthe EEOCs notice of right to sue letter. (Exhibit
C.)
23. This complaint is timely filed within ninety daysof plaintiffs receipt of the notice.
IV. THE PARTIES
24. Plaintiff is an U.S. citizen of Caucasian descent.She is over the age of twenty one years and
resides in Jefferson County, Alabama.
25. The City of Birmingham is a municipal corporation.Birmingham City Hall is located at 710 North
Twentieth Street, Birmingham, Alabama 35203. Mayor
Bell is the appointing authority for the City of
7/30/2019 Spidle Complaint
11/49
7/30/2019 Spidle Complaint
12/49
12
Public Accountant, began working for the Citys
Finance Department in 1986 as a Senior Auditor in
the Revenue Division.
31. In 1992, plaintiff was promoted to the position ofChief Accountant of the General Accounting
Division. GeneralAccounting is comprised of five
sections (each section was assigned a principal
accountant). General Accounting has responsibility
for the following functions: paying bills,
maintaining the general ledger, preparation of
financial reports, and administering payroll and
pension.
32. Plaintiff was supervised over the course of hercareer by several Deputy Directors (Frank Lopez,
Michael Johnson and Henry Young) and reported to
several Finance Directors Hoyt Bedingfield, Mac
Underwood, Falosade Olanipekun, Michael Johnson,
Steve Saylor, and Henry Young). With the exception
of Lopez, Bedingfield, and Saylor, all are
African-Americans.
7/30/2019 Spidle Complaint
13/49
13
33. Plaintiff was never disciplined for any infractionduring the course of her twenty-four years of
employment with the City.
34. In 1992, when plaintiff was appointed to ChiefAccountant, the General Accounting Division was
composed of 50% African-American employees.
35. During the period 1992 through May 2010, plaintiffhired and promoted numerous African-American
employees, increasing the composition of African-
American employees to 75%.
36. Plaintiff promoted three persons to PrincipalAccountants, two are African-American (Isaac Smith
and Betty Griggs). The three remaining Principal
Accountants, who are Caucasian, were employed by
the City before plaintiff was assigned to
Accounting in 1992 (Jerry Nemeth, Jamie Ligon and
Lanelle Driver).
37. Plaintiff was never the subject of any claim ofrace discrimination in any jurisdiction (whether
in state court, federal court, or Jefferson County
7/30/2019 Spidle Complaint
14/49
14
Personnel Board).
38. Throughout her employment with the City, plaintiffwas qualified for her position as Chief of the
General Accounting Division.
39. Plaintiffs first and only disciplinary chargecame when she was charged with racism and placed
on administrative leave on May 28, 2010. The City
sent the disciplinary charges to the Jefferson
County Personnel Board who, in turn, published
them to their website before plaintiff ever had an
opportunity to defend herself against those
charges at her determination hearing.
40. Plaintiffs first inkling that she was going to bedisciplined came one day before she was ordered to
leave the premises. An African-American employee,
Shirley Foy, stood outside plaintiffs office door
and repeatedly chanted yes, we did it and its
all because of Calvin, referring to Calvin
Bowman, also an African-American employee assigned
to General Accounting.
7/30/2019 Spidle Complaint
15/49
15
41. Shortly after placing plaintiff on leave, the Citycreated an additional Deputy Director of Finance
position. Barbara McGrue was promoted into that
position sometime in July 2010 from the position
of Budget Officer, a position equivalent to the
chief accountant position. She is African-
American. No other employee in the Finance
Department was invited to apply for the position
although there were qualified candidates within
the department.
42. Months later, the City hired Keila Pryor toreplace plaintiff. Pryor, who is under 40 years of
age, is African-American. On information and
belief she had little, if any, experience in
governmental accounting.
43. During the period that plaintiff was beingsubjected to raced-based discrimination, other
supervisors, who are Caucasian, were reporting
similar discriminatory treatment altering the
terms and conditions of their employment.
7/30/2019 Spidle Complaint
16/49
16
44. On June 11, 2010, Lanelle Driver, the supervisorof Audit and Reconciliation, filed a complaint of
hostile work environment with the Acting Director
of Finance Henry Young, an African-American.
Driver, a twenty-year employee, reported her fears
to Young:
I am hesitant to say anything to the employees
who work under me who are engaged in these
whispered meetings for fear that it will result
in charges being filed against me. Even though
I may not be the primary subject of these
conversations I am aware of what is being
talkedabout and there is an undeniable racial
component to the discussions.
45. When remedial action was not taken to addressthese concerns, Driver sent an e-mail to newly-
appointed Finance Director Tom Barnett alerting
him of other concerns. Driver reported to Barnett
that her authority as supervisor over Audit and
Reconciliation was being undermined by Kevin
Moore, an appointee of the Mayor who appeared in
General Accounting shortly after plaintiff was
removed from her job. Moore is African-American.
7/30/2019 Spidle Complaint
17/49
17
Although Moore was officially assigned the
position of Deputy Director of Facility Services
in the Public Works Department, he spent his days
in the Finance Department.
46. In searching her mind for a reason for the Citystreatment of her, Driver wrote that she could
only conclude that it is racial and/or age
discrimination. Or perhaps retaliation. . . I feel
this could also be retaliation because I support
Ms. Spidle.
47. Barnett sent a copy of Drivers complaint to PeggyPolk, the newly-appointed City Personnel Director.
Neither Barnett nor Polk investigated Drivers
concerns. Only after the Jefferson County
Personnel Board was alerted to the Citys
unauthorized re-assignment did Moore absent
himself from the Finance Department.
48. Despite e-mails being copied to her by FinanceDirector Barnett and Ligon, Polk denied that she
had been informed of grievances filed by Driver
7/30/2019 Spidle Complaint
18/49
18
and Ligon pursuant to the Citys written policy
against racial discrimination.
49. The City Personnel Director also took no actionafter learning of other instances of race
discrimination perpetrated by high ranking City
officials. In one instance, Polk was informed that
Patton had issued instructions for a supervisor
who is Caucasian not to attend meetings at City
Hall -a public building- for any reason. That
supervisor later took a voluntary demotion because
he feared retaliation and termination. Shortly
thereafter, he was replaced by an African-American
who by his own admission was not qualified for the
position. That same supervisor was recently
informed by the Citys Personnel Director Peggy
Polk that there had been an attempt to again bar
him from City Hall.
50. On October 11, 2011, the U.S. EEOC served the Citywith a charge of discrimination filed by Jamie
Ligon, Payroll Manager in the Department of
7/30/2019 Spidle Complaint
19/49
19
Finance. (Ligons EEOC charge was incorporated by
reference in plaintiffs EEOC filing as stated
previously.)
51. Ligon, a twenty-four (24) year employee, reportedthat commencing in 2010, she was being subjected
to a racially hostile work environment. Plaintiff
and three other supervisors were listed among
Ligons witnesses to the ongoing harassment of
Caucasian Americans (Lanelle Driver, Jerry Nemeth,
and Betty Griggs.)
52. Ligon, who was in charge of payroll, reported toEEOC that in May 2010, the racial make-up of the
General Accounting Division was nineteen (19)
African American employees and nine (9) White
employees. Since that time, four whites have been
terminated, reassigned or retired; each position
was filled by an African-American. Additionally,
Ligon reported that as of October 2011, five new
positions had been created and all had been filled
by African-Americans. At the end of 2011 only one
7/30/2019 Spidle Complaint
20/49
20
supervisor of Caucasian descent remained in the
Finance Department (Lanelle Driver).
Allegations of intentional race discrimination.
53. Mayor Bell and Jarvis Patton were personallyinvolved in creating a hostile work environment
and subjecting plaintiff to retaliation during the
period leading up to her termination and including
her first and second terminations, a period
extending over two and one-half years.
54. Shortly after being hired by the newly-electedMayor William Bell on February 2, 2010, Jarvis
Patton commenced a race investigation of
plaintiff. Patton is an African-American with 10
years of experience working for the EEOC during
the period 1975-1985. He also served as a City
Council aide from 1985 until 2003.
55. Patton testified that he instigated under theauthority of Mayor Bell an investigation of
plaintiff in March 2010 after speaking with Calvin
Bowman, a ten-year employee assigned to handling
7/30/2019 Spidle Complaint
21/49
21
travel vouchers at the travel desk. At that
meeting with Patton, Bowman broke out in tears
and complained that he was being treated unfairly.
56. At the outset of the investigation, Pattoninformed plaintiff that Bowman had complained to
him about low morale. Patton did not reveal at
any time that the investigation focused instead on
racial discrimination, a charge that City would
within weeks lodge against plaintiff.
57. At the time Patton commenced the investigation ofplaintiff, Bowman was prosecuting a
gender/disability case pending in federal court,
wherein Bowman had alleged that (1) he was wrongly
denied a workplace accommodation (reduced work
week) because of allergies he acquired in City
Hall and (2) he was being discriminated against
because of his gender.
58. At the time Patton met with Bowman, lawyers inthe City Law Department (City Legal) represented
plaintiff in Bowmans suit against the City.
7/30/2019 Spidle Complaint
22/49
22
59. Bowmans litigious history was well known by Cityofficials in the Mayors office. Over Bowmans
ten-year work history, he filed gender/disability
suits against the City and officials in their
individual capacity including Mayor Bernard
Kincaid, Personnel Director Gordon Graham and
Finance Director Falosade Olanipekun.
60. During a deposition taken during a previouslawsuit filed by Bowman in 2004, the assigned City
lawyer questioned Bowman about his felony record.
The City was aware that Bowman listed two felony
convictions in his job application prior to his
being hired in 1989.
61. The City Law Department defended plaintiff inthese cases because plaintiff was found not to
have been involved in any decision related to
Bowmans claims.
62. In December 2009, Henry Young, the Deputy Directorof Finance, filed a sworn affidavit on behalf of
the plaintiff denying Bowmans EEOC charges that
7/30/2019 Spidle Complaint
23/49
23
he was not being accorded training and overtime
pay because of his gender and an alleged
disability.
63. The City was aware that Bowman had never allegedracial discrimination against plaintiff or any
other City employee during his ten years with the
City.
64. During the March 2010 investigation of lowmorale, City Legal under directions from Mayor
Bell instructed plaintiff to turn over her
confidential files on Bowman and five other
complainants to the contract investigator Jonice
Vanterpool.
65. Within days, Patton met with Mailye Taylor andfour other employees who similarly complained of
low morale in the Finance Department. Patton
referred to these complainants as the Birmingham
Six.
66. Patton immediately instructed Henry Young, theActing Director of Finance to assume direct
7/30/2019 Spidle Complaint
24/49
7/30/2019 Spidle Complaint
25/49
25
criticized Bowmans incessant desire to achieve a
shortened workweek and a flexible work schedule.
70. Barbara White served as the Citys PersonnelDirector during the period leading up to
plaintiffs disciplinary action. White did not
support the Citys investigation of plaintiff and
challenged any action to terminate plaintiff.
71. Barbara White was replaced by Peggy Polk, formeranalyst for the Citys Personnel Department, who
testified that she voted to terminate plaintiff.
Prior to joining the City, Polk was employed as a
counselor with a substance abuse program. Polk
claimed that for many years she conducted race
investigations for the NAACP. Polk is an African-
American.
72. On May 28, 2010, in the presence of the CityAttorney, Patton acting under the authority of
Mayor Bell directed Acting Finance Director Young
to sign and serve on plaintiff disciplinary
charges alleging among other things that she had
7/30/2019 Spidle Complaint
26/49
26
engaged in racial discrimination against African-
Americans.
73. Young informed the plaintiff that the order camefrom the Mayors office.
74. Mayor Bell subsequently placed Kevin Moore, aDeputy Director assigned to Public Works
Department, in the General Accounting Division to
assume plaintiffs role.
75. After being served with disciplinary charges,plaintiff was removed from her office and placed
on administrative leave. She was not permitted to
take any files needed to defend against the
charges.
76. When City Legal declined to prosecute chargesagainst plaintiff, the City retained an outside
private law firm (Hand Arendall) to prosecute the
disciplinary charges against plaintiff and defend
the City against the disability/gender suit filed
by Calvin Bowman. (contract lawyers).
77. On June 15, 2010, plaintiff took medical leave as
7/30/2019 Spidle Complaint
27/49
27
a result of the physical and psychological harm
stemming from the false allegations made against
her.
78. On June 16, 2010, City Legal withdrew itsrepresentation of plaintiff in the pending Bowman
litigation.
79. Young, who had served as plaintiffs directsupervisor over two years, admittedthat he had no
involvement in the events leading up to the
charges against plaintiff.
80. Young denied the existence of morale problems inthe Accounting sections and denied any involvement
in the Vanterpool/Patton investigation of
plaintiff nor with the drafting of the charges
against her.
81. Young further stated Calvin Bowman, Mailye Taylor,and Shirley Foy never complained about racial
discrimination.
82. Young further denied witnessing mistreatment ofany member of Pattons Birmingham Six.
7/30/2019 Spidle Complaint
28/49
28
83. Young testified that in May 2010 he personallyreprimanded Bowman for time reporting
irregularities and admonished Bowman for his
constant call for a three-day workweek.
84. Young also testified that Taylor had been recentlyadmonished by plaintiff in March 2010 for failing
to order car tags causing police vehicles to be
without valid licenses and that serious
deficiencies had been noted in an independent
audit of Fixed Assets an area assigned to Taylor
since 2002. Young instructed plaintiff to write up
Taylor for neglect of duty.
85. After plaintiff was taken out of service in May2010, Bowman attempted to add discrimination to
his pending disability/gender suit.
86. On September 23, 2010, contract lawyers for theCity denounced Bowmans claims of race
discrimination stating that Bowman provided no
particular instance of, or factual support for
such an allegation of race discrimination. In a
7/30/2019 Spidle Complaint
29/49
29
federal court pleading, the City stated:
[Bowman], who is black, continues to allege
that both white and black co-employees were
treated more favorably by co-defendants, Nemeth
and Spidle. ... It is fundamental that onecannot sustain a claim of racial discrimination
by alleging that employees who included members
of ones own race received more favorable
treatment...
87. In November 2010, Patton acting under theauthority of Mayor Bell negotiated a money
settlement with Bowman for an amount that required
only the Mayors approval. With the Citys payment
of $9,500, Bowman dismissed his disability/gender
suit against the City and plaintiff and agreed to
not pursue further charges against her. Later the
paid attorneys called Bowman as the Citys
principal witness against plaintiff at the
Personnel Board hearing.
88. Patton admitted that prior to taking disciplinaryaction against plaintiff under Mayor Bells
authority (1) he did not consider or review
plaintiffs performance evaluations or
7/30/2019 Spidle Complaint
30/49
30
disciplinary history; (2) he did not review
plaintiffs hiring and promotional history before
terminating her employment; and (3) he did not
review the personnel file of any of the six
complainants.
Plaintiff terminated upon return from medical leave.
89. Plaintiff returned from medical leave on October25, 2010. Upon arrival to work at 8:30 a.m.,
Jarvis Patton and Henry Young convened a
Determination Hearing. The hearing the City was
represented by outside counsel. Although
Vanderpool was not present at this hearing, she
had recently been hired by the same outside firm
to prosecute the case against plaintiff.
Vanderpool had access to all confidential files
furnished to her by plaintiff. These files were
unavailable to plaintiff for her defense.
90. Patton testified that he recommended thetermination of plaintiff to Mayor Bell prior to
the determination hearing.
7/30/2019 Spidle Complaint
31/49
31
91. Within hours that day, on October 25, 2010, at thedirection of the Mayor, Young signed plaintiffs
notice of termination.
92. Young admitted that he signed the terminationnotice despite the fact he never saw the
Vanderpool report or any other documents that the
City contended were the basis for terminating
plaintiff.
93. The termination notice was mailed that day.Plaintiff timely appealed her termination.
Jefferson County Personnel Board exonerated
plaintiff and ordered reinstatement.
94. The Jefferson County Personnel Board appointed ahearing officer to conduct plaintiffs
disciplinary appeal hearing.
95. Among the witnesses on behalf of plaintiff wasMichael Johnson, an African-American, who served
as plaintiffs direct supervisor from 1996 until
August 2008.
96. Johnson described plaintiff as cooperative and
7/30/2019 Spidle Complaint
32/49
32
knowledgeable, a joy to have in the department.
Johnson stated that plaintiff worked effectively
with several mayors and finance directors over the
years.
97. Johnson noted that all of these individuals withwhom she interacted daily are African-American.
Johnson further testified that he was never aware
of any allegations of race-discrimination in the
Accounting Division.
98. Johnson also testified that he would have promptlyinvestigated such claims and remedied a problem of
this nature. Johnson also testified that he had an
open door policy, yet was never alerted of any
complaints by Bowman. Nor did he observe plaintiff
treat Blacks differently over the course of his
supervision that ended in 2008.
99. The only employee dispute he could recall involvedShirley Foy, one of the Birmingham Six, who had
filed a complaint against her direct supervisor
Isaac Smith, who is an African-American.
7/30/2019 Spidle Complaint
33/49
33
100. Johnson testified that Calvin Bowman never came tohim to lodge a race complaint. Johnson was aware,
however, that Mailye Taylor had complained that a
Caucasian had been hired over her. Johnson
testified that he assured City legal that the
hiring decision was correct.
101. A four-day trial at the Personnel Board began ninemonths after plaintiffs termination. The case
was heard July 13 & 14, September 27, and November
17, 2011.
102. The City contract attorney after conferring withthe City representative Jarvis Patton stipulated
to the hearing officer that the plaintiff did not
discriminate against blacks as a racial group a
charge for which she had been wrongfully accused
and terminated.
103. The hearing officer overturned the Citystermination of plaintiff and ordered her immediate
reinstatement to her former position.
104. The hearing officer in his opinion to overturn the
7/30/2019 Spidle Complaint
34/49
34
termination found the following findings of fact:
Accusations levied against Spidle lacked
consistency and any reasonable degree of
uniformity to be accepted. This would include
but not limited to, the testimony of CalvinBowman. Perhaps none more so than the testimony
of Calvin Bowman. (Hearing Officer Report atpage 7).
That Calvin Bowman, the principal
complainant, focused much of his energy in hiscampaign to fight against the City and/or
officers of the City for 10 years. Over the
years, Bowmans written complaints, whether
formal or informal, are not consistent with
claims he attributes to Spidle that would
justify her termination.
While Bowman, Taylor and other employees
are convincing in regard to their
dissatisfaction with particular elements in the
workplace, it is just not convincing that such
dissatisfaction is a product of any wrong-doing
on behalf of Virginia Spidle. (Hearing OfficerReport at page 7.)
[Johnson] testified that Spidle deals with
subordinates professionally and that he never
saw her treat employees differently. [Former
Finance Director Michael Johnson] indicated
that he was never interviewed by anyone over
suspected discrimination or hostile work
environment. He indicated that he never
witnessed a hostile work environment or unfairhiring practices. (Hearing officer Report at5.)
[Deputy Director Henry Young, plaintiffs
immediate supervisor since 2008] was unaware of
7/30/2019 Spidle Complaint
35/49
35
any verbal or written warnings to Spidle and
not aware of Spidles receiving a reprimand for
a hostile work environment. Young also
conceded that if he thought there was a racial
problem, he would have addressed it
immediately, but he did not believe there wasone. (Hearing officer Report at 6.)
The most credible witnesses during thehearing spoke highly and positively of Spidles
abilities as a supervisor and appropriateness
in which she governed her division..[and]
willingness to support and encourage them on
matters of a personal nature, as well as,
professional.
105. On January 10, 2012, the Personnel Boardunanimously affirmed the Findings of Fact in its
ruling that the Citys termination action was
without merit.
106. Shortly after testifying against plaintiff, bothBowman and Taylor were given promotions.
107. Taylor was given a promotion to Senior Accountantin a newly created position in Fixed Assets with
no additional duties from her position as
accountant. Her supervisor was not informed of the
promotion. That supervisor, an African American,
did not approve of Taylors promotion. When Taylor
7/30/2019 Spidle Complaint
36/49
36
was unable to function as a Senior Accountant in
Fixed Assets, she was moved to Bowmans travel
desk; the City hired an outside accountant to
perform the duties in Fixed Assets. On information
and belief, Taylor continues to be paid senior
accountant pay for performing an accountants
duties.
108. Bowman was also promoted after he testifiedagainst plaintiff. Bowman is currently assigned as
the Business Manager to the BillHarris Arena (the
Crossplex). The promotion increased Bowmans pay
grade from a 21 to a 30 almost doubling his
salary. Prior to his promotion, the City with the
approval of the Mayor had routinely paid Bowman
significant overtime. Prior to his settlement with
the City, Bowman had claimed to the EEOC he was
unable to work more than three or four days a
week. No other employee in the Finance Department
was afforded an opportunity to transfer and be
afforded an opportunity for a promotion into a
7/30/2019 Spidle Complaint
37/49
37
position created with specific job duties only
Bowman possessed.
Pending appeal, the City refused to reinstate
plaintiff.
109. The City appealed the decision to the three-memberPersonnel Board. Meanwhile, the City defied the
hearing officers opinion and put plaintiff in a
position outside of General Accounting. The
position had been vacant for over a year.
110. Plaintiff was assigned no duties. Just days laterand on the same day the City was released from the
consent decree by the federal court, Finance
Director Tom Barnett under the direction of Mayor
Bell served plaintiff with disciplinary charges on
similar charges as the first disciplinary action,
this time absent any allegations of racism
(hereinafter second termination.) Plaintiff was
terminated on January 30, 2012.
111. The City appealed the Personnel Boards decisionto reinstate plaintiffs employment to the
7/30/2019 Spidle Complaint
38/49
38
Jefferson County Circuit Court.
112. During the many months the matter was on appeal,the City refused to reinstate plaintiff despite
the final order from the Personnel Board.
113. During the appeal period, the plaintiff remainedwithout income and health insurance. She was
unable to find employment due to the Citys
scurrilous and unfounded charge of racism that
had been previously lodged against her.
114. For the last 24 years of her career, plaintiffsexpertise was focused in governmental accounting.
Continuing education and training had centered on
that specific area of accounting so plaintiff
could ensure her skills and education remained up-
to-date.
115. The Citys termination of plaintiff created asignificant disadvantage in that it virtually
barred her from obtaining a job with another
governmental agency within the Jefferson County
Personnel Board System. Further, because of her
7/30/2019 Spidle Complaint
39/49
39
concentrated attention on governmental accounting,
she lacked the requisite skills to return to the
public sector at a level commensurate with that of
chief accountant.
116. In August 2012, the Jefferson County Circuit Courtdenied the Citys appeal and affirmed the trial
findings and conclusions of the Jefferson County
Personnel Board. The Circuit Courts decision
exonerated plaintiff from all charges alleged by
the City, including the false and specious charge
of racism.
117. Plaintiff remained out of work until shortlybefore a prehearing on the second termination
action.
City dismissed its second termination action.
118. On December 13, 2012, plaintiff received acertified letter from the City that plaintiff was
hereby ordered to return to work the following
Monday, December 17, 2012. The City warned that if
she failed to appear for work on December 17,
7/30/2019 Spidle Complaint
40/49
40
2012, the City would deem herfailure to return as
a voluntary resignation.
119. Under these circumstances, plaintiff agreed toreturn to work on December 17, 2012. Within days,
the City filed with the Personnel Board a notice
of dismissal of the second disciplinary action
against plaintiff.
120. Plaintiff is currently employed in a newly createdposition in the Public Works Department. At this
site, plaintiff has not been assigned any
meaningful duties. Plaintiff suffers from extreme
diminution of job responsibilities.
121. The City Personnel Director informed her on herreturn to duty on December 17 that she was being
placed in Public Works because the department had
budget issues. The Personnel Board lists the job
specifications for the position of Chief
Accountant; the position plaintiff currently
occupies requires little to none of those listed
requisite skills, knowledge, and abilities. Such
7/30/2019 Spidle Complaint
41/49
41
constructive termination impacts her ability to
advance and jeopardizes her job security in the
merit system.
The Citys Race Based Discrimination caused Physical
and Emotional Harm to Plaintiff.
122. Plaintiff suffered severe mental anguish over atwo-year period stemming from the false charges
leveled against her. At the time of her
dismissal, she was the sole support of herself and
her daughter. The actions of the City threw them
in a state of uncertainty and unexpected financial
upheaval comparable to the loss of her husband
just a few years before.
123. Plaintiff sought counseling from a certifiedprofessional. The deep grief she experienced over
the false charge of racism resulted in emotional
distress, disorientation, loss of appetite,
depression, and an overall inability to function
as normal. She remains under a doctors care and
prescribed medication to alleviate the emotional
7/30/2019 Spidle Complaint
42/49
42
strain she suffered.
124. Plaintiff suffered a loss of enjoyment of lifefrom the resulting loss of income and emotional
distress.
VI. CLAIMS
125. The following claims or counts refer to andincorporate the foregoing paragraphs of this
complaint.
Count 1
126. The City violated Title VII and 42 U.S.C. 1981insofar as --
(a) The plaintiff, a member of a protected
class of employees, suffered an adverse job
action when the City, her employer, terminated
her employment;
(b) She was qualified for her job;
(c) She suffered an adverse employment action;
and
(d) Under circumstances given rise to an
inference of discrimination or retaliation.
7/30/2019 Spidle Complaint
43/49
127. As a proximate cause of the above violation ofTitle VII, the plaintiff suffered loss of pay and
benefits, mental and emotional distress, and other
pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses such as lost
opportunities and/or eligibility for other
advancement in position, experience, and pay.
128. The City is liable to the plaintiff for back payand related relief, including but not limited to
an injunction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(g),
and all compensatory damages allowed under Title
VII and 42 U.S.C. 1981a(b)(3). Plaintiff was
forced to liquidate her deferred compensation fund
and incurred penalties that had to be paid to the
IRS as a result of early distribution. Plaintiff
was dependent on family to assist with unexpected
debts. After second termination, plaintiff was not
eligible for unemployment benefits and was totally
dependent on the assistance of her family.
Count 2
129. Defendant City violated Title VII when itretaliated against plaintiff because the plaintiff
7/30/2019 Spidle Complaint
44/49
44
opposed conduct proscribed by Title VII. The
conduct opposed was racial discrimination and
retaliation, which was intentional, falls within
the meaning of employment discrimination
proscribed by U.S.C. 2000-e(3) for which damages
may be awarded under 42 U.S.C. 1981a(a)-(b). The
City further violated Title VII when it retaliated
against plaintiff because she served as witness
against the City in EEOC charges against the City
in October 2011, insofar as --
(a) The plaintiff engaged in an activity
protected by Title VII when she served as a
witness in charges of racial
discrimination;
(b) The City was aware of the protected
activity;
(c) The plaintiff was adversely affected by
one or more employment decisions of the
City made contemporaneously with or
subsequent to herengaging in the protected
7/30/2019 Spidle Complaint
45/49
45
activity; and
(d) There is a casual connection between
the protected activity and the adverse
employment decision(s).
130. As a proximate cause of the above violations ofTitle VII, the plaintiff suffered and continues to
suffer mental and emotional distress, other non-
pecuniary losses, and lost opportunities and/or
eligibility for administrative experience.
Plaintiff anguished over the hurtful and unfounded
charge of racism falsely lodged by the City
against her. She had taken personal pride in
treating people fairly without regard to race.
This allegation was demeaning and the violation of
federal law caused embarrassment and humiliation.
Because of these false charges former colleagues
in City Hall ostracized her. Later while plaintiff
was on leave, she encountered a Councilwoman who
heretofore had always stopped and spoken to her;
this time, this lady turned her head from
7/30/2019 Spidle Complaint
46/49
46
plaintiff without speaking. Plaintiff still feels
the emotional scars from being falsely labeled a
racist.
131. During the few days plaintiff was returned to workin January 2012, coworkers would come to her
office door to speak with her to express their
happiness she was back. Fearing reprisal, other
employees would not come into her office but would
rather talk to her in whispers in the hallway.
132. The City is liable to the plaintiff for reliefwhich includes but is not limited to equitable
relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(g) and all
compensatory damages allowed under Title VII and
42 U.S.C. 1981a(b)(3).
Count Three
133. The City terminated plaintiff on the firstoccasion on October 26, 2010 falsely alleging she
was engaging in racial discrimination. Following a
four-day trial, the Jefferson County Personnel
Board ordered her reinstatement with all back pay
7/30/2019 Spidle Complaint
47/49
47
and benefits. Within four days of her
reinstatement plaintiff was fired again.
134. The second termination falsely allegedincompetency, a charge that was listed on the
Citys first termination action for which she had
been vindicated days before the second termination
on January 30, 2012. The second termination was
also motivated by race-based discrimination and
retaliation.
135. The City is due to be enjoined from the above-described constitutional violations, and is due to
be enjoined from taking any further retaliatory
actions against the plaintiff. Plaintiff is due to
be returned to her previous position in General
Accounting as Chief Accountant.
Prayer for Relief
WHEREFORE, the plaintiff requests that this Court:
1.Find and declare that the City violated TitleVII and 42 U.S.C. 1981 by terminating her
employment, by altering to her detriment the
7/30/2019 Spidle Complaint
48/49
48
terms or conditions of her employment, and by
retaliating against her or alternatively,
2.Enjoin the City to redress the detrimentalchanges in the terms or conditions of the
plaintiffs employment.
3.Enjoin the City to reinstate her position aschief accountant in the Finance Department.
4.Award back pay owed and related relief to theplaintiff to include reimbursement of all COBRA
expenses other medical expenses paid by
plaintiff during the two-year period was
terminated from the City.
5.Enter a judgment against the City for theplaintiff for compensatory damages in an amount
to be decided at trial including interest on
back pay awards.
6.Enter a judgment for compensatory damages in anamount to be determined by a jury.
7.Issue a permanent injunction requiring the Cityto abolish race discrimination in its
7/30/2019 Spidle Complaint
49/49
employment policies and practices.
8.Enter a judgment against the City for the costsof this action and a reasonable attorney's fee
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(k) and/or 42
U.S.C. 2000e-5(g)(2)(B)(i) and/or 42 U.S.C.
1988.
9.Order other and further relief that is just.Jury Demand
The plaintiff demands a jury to decide issues of
fact and damages.
Submitted by undersigned counsel for the plaintiff.
/s/_Gayle_H._Gear_________
Gayle H. GearAttorney for Plaintiff2229 Morris AvenueSuite BBirmingham, AL 35203
/s/_Brett Adair___________Brett Adair
The Highland Building2201 Arlington Avenue SouthBirmingham, AL 35205
Pl i tiff t th t th D f d t Cit f