Kimberly Wilson Rowlett Lawsuit

Case 3:18-cv-02003-C Document 1 Filed 08/01/18 Page 1 of 29 PageID 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
KIMBERLY WILSON, )
)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO.
)
CITY OF ROWLETT, )
)
Defendant. )
________________________________________ )
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
Plaintiff Kimberly Wilson (“Plaintiff” or “Wilson”), by counsel brings this action for
violations of the Texas Whistleblower Protection Act, sexual harassment and sexually hostile
work environment in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e, et seq. and the Texas Labor Code,
and retaliation in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e, et seq. and the Texas Labor Code
against Defendant, City of Rowlett (“Defendant” or “City of Rowlett”) and would respectfully
show the Court as follows:
I. PARTIES
1.1. Plaintiff Wilson is a citizen of the United States and a citizen and resident of the
State of Texas, who resides at 7518 Spicewood Drive, Garland, TX 75044.
Plaintiff’s Original Complaint 1

1.2. Defendant, the City of Rowlett, Texas is a municipal corporation that is located in
Dallas County. The Defendant may be served with process by serving its City Attorney, David
Berman, Nichols, Jackson, Dillard, Hager & Smith, L.L.P., 1800 Ross Tower, 500 North Akard,
Dallas, TX 75201.
1.3. Defendant, the City of Rowlett, is a municipality within the State of Texas and,
until Plaintiff's discharge, was her employer as that term is statutorily defined by the statutes
upon which Plaintiff relies for her causes of action. As a municipality, the City is not immune
from suit or liability in this case. Whenever Plaintiff alleges conduct by the City, it is meant that
the City acted through its officers, agents, servants, employees, or representatives.
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2.1. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and pendent and
supplemental jurisdiction of the common law claims.
2.2. Venue for all causes of action stated herein lies in the Northern District of Texas
because the acts alleged in this Complaint took place, in whole or in part, within the boundaries
of this District, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391. Plaintiff Wilson’s EEOC charge was forwarded to
the Department of Justice and the Department of Justice issued a Right to Sue on July 17, 2018.
See exhibit A.
2.3. Plaintiff provided proper and timely notice to Defendant pursuant to the Texas
Tort Claims Act, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 101.101 on November 9, 2017.
III. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
3.1. Plaintiff Kim Wilson started her employment for the City of Rowlett on
September 21, 2015. She worked under the guidance of City Manager Brian Funderburk.
(“Funderburk”). Ms. Wilson was proficient in her position and praised by Mr. Funderburk in her

January 2017 performance review as having “the potential to be one of the best Chief Financial
Officers in Texas.”
3.2. Ms. Wilson was efficient in her role as CFO, uncovering discrepancies in the
fiscal budget of the City of Rowlett and bringing any miscalculations to the attention of Mr.
Funderburk. Oftentimes, the errors Ms. Wilson discovered were caused by Mr. Funderburk
during the time he managed the City’s budget. However, as Ms. Wilson continued to point out
discrepancies in the fiscal budget and accounts of the City, Mr. Funderburk became frustrated
and angry. Mr. Funderburk even blatantly asked Ms. Wilson to “cover up” or delay informing
the City Council about these glaring errors.
Whistleblowing Activities
3.3. Plaintiff, while employed by the city as a public employee, notified the City
Manager often more than once (and on a couple occasions to the City Attorney and to Human
Resources), of the following violations of policy and law that she had discovered and requested
to be corrected:
(1) The property tax collections had been miscalculated. The City did not account for the
impact of the senior tax freeze, as described below in the property tax revenues for the
General Fund and the Debt Service Fund.
(2) Mr. Funderburk had provided inaccurate information regarding the senior tax freeze, in
both his 2015 Budget memo and again in a council workshop held on July 5, 2016, which
was included in the Mayor’s newsletter in July 2016. When Ms. Wilson discovered the
error in the property tax calculation, she reported it to the City Manager and Assistant
City Manager Jim Proce.
(3) In October 2016, Ms. Wilson requested that former IT Director, Joe Beauchamp take the
cell service contracts to council because in the aggregate the contracts exceeded the
$50,000 level that required the approval of the City Council. All cell service purchase
orders exceeded $165,000. Ms. Wilson brought this to the attention of the City Attorney
and the Executive Staff in December 2016, and Mr. Beauchamp informed the group he
would take the item to council in January or February 2017. However, Mr. Funderburk

requested that the item be postponed until after the City Manager’s review in April 2017.
The City Manager knowingly deceived the City Council and received a $28,000 increase
in pay and additional fringe benefits after his evaluation. On August 24, 2017, Ms.
Wilson complained to the City Manager again that the cell service contract purchase
orders needed City Council knowledge and approval. After the City Manager returned
from a week-long vacation over Labor Day, on approximately September 11, 2017, he
told HR Director Richard Jones that he was going to find a way to fire Ms. Wilson. Two
days later, on September 13, 2017, Ms. Wilson was terminated.
(4) Ms. Wilson discovered a $300,000 error in the permitting revenue budget in the FY2017
budget. When she informed Mr. Funderburk about what she believed was an
unintentional error, he instructed her to “figure up a way to cover up the errors in the
revenue while discussing it with the City Council,” but Ms. Wilson refused to do so
despite pressure from Mr. Funderburk because it would constitute both fraud and a
breach of her fiduciary duty to the City.
(5) The discount points paid to the underwriter were substantially more than they should
have been for the 2017 private placement Bayside Public Improvement District (PID)
bonds. When the City Council asked about the cost during the council meeting,
Economic Development Director Jim Grabenhorst stated the cost was fair. However,
compared to other private placement bond issues, the costs were exorbitant. The
developer and ultimately the taxpayers were charged over $200,000 more than is
common practice among bond writers for this type of transaction. The underwriter for the
bonds was a friend of the Economic Development Director. In a previous Bayside PID
bond issue, the underwriter told Ms. Wilson that her personal feelings had clouded her
judgment. Ms. Wilson reported this violation of city policy and fraud to City Manager
Funderburk immediately upon learning this information. The Bayside project is expected
to exceed One Billion dollars in public and private development in the City of Rowlett on
Lake Ray Hubbard.
(6) In November of 2016, before the City had even broken land to build a new radio tower,
the Director of Parks and Recreation to the City Manager Funderburk and Fire Chief Neil
Howard that the tower of being built on the wrong land. In December 2016, the
landowner reported to the City Manager and the Fire Chief verbally and in writing that
they were going to build on the wrong land. Then in or about January 2017, still prior to
construction, the Director of Development Services informed the Fire Chief at an
executive team meeting that the tower could not be constructed on that specific land
because of the fall zone. Ms. Wilson, immediately upon hearing that the wrong land was
being used at this executive team meeting, informed the City Manager that he should hire
someone to manage the tower project because the Fire Chief was not following
permitting laws and not abiding by City Policy and procedure. Despite these warnings
and in contravention of controlling City Policy and Procedures, they decided to keep
building on the land rather than admit their error. When it was determined that the radio
tower had been built on the wrong land, City Manager Funderburk contacted Ms. Wilson

and asked her to come up with funding to purchase the correct land. Ms. Wilson
contacted the City’s bond counsel and it was determined that bond funds issued for
development of a new fire station could be used to purchase the land if the new fire
station was built on the land. The purchase of the correct land would cost the taxpayers
an extra $500,000 because of the City Manager’s and Fire Chief’s intentional disregard of
the landowner’s warning and City Policy and Procedure. After the issue was presented to
council in executive session, City Attorney David Berman hired an investigator. The
City Manager then manipulated the investigator’s report in violation of his fiduciary duty,
and ethics before it was released to the public. The City Attorney then furthered the
cover-up by ordering the investigator to keep his investigation out of the public record.
On numerous occasions, including on August 24, 2017, Ms. Wilson reported to the City
Manager and City Attorney that this conduct was unlawful, unethical and fraudulent
because it defrauded the taxpayers out of $500,000 and the knowledge that the additional
$500,000 to acquire the correct land could have been avoided and she consistently
implored them to be transparent with the public up until she was terminated.
(7) Mayor Dana-Bashain (formerly a council member) campaigned to get her friend Pam
Liston appointed as the Chief Judge. Dana-Bashain and Liston own a boat together, and it
is also said they have a time share in Colorado together as well. This position of Chief
Judge is typically an hourly contract employee in small and medium sized cities. At the
behest of Mayor Dana-Bashain, the appointment for Rowlett’s Chief Judge was made as
a full-time employee at a salary of $155,000. Ms. Wilson complained to Funderburk that
this salary is higher than even what the judges in the City of Dallas earn, and the public
would be outraged if they knew what this appointment would actually cost the taxpayers.
City Manager Funderburk directed Ms. Wilson to put as little information as possible in
the FY2017 budget change to fund this new position and instructed her to place it on the
consent agenda so there would be no discussion in open council. Ms. Wilson again
complained to the City Manager, City Attorney and Human Resources Director that this
was unlawful and against City Policy Sections 2.1 (Ethics) and 2.2 (Conflict), and she
was instructed not to discuss this with anyone.
3.4. The conduct that Ms. Wilson reported violated City Policy and other laws such as
fraud and breach of fiduciary duty.
3.5. In every situation listed above the City of Rowlett and its top officers have not
conducted themselves in an ethical and professional manner, violating the basic City policy
standards memorialized in the City of Rowlett policy manual. Section 2.1 states:
2.1 Ethics: All employees of the City are expected to act in accordance
with the highest of ethical standards. Conducting oneself in such a
manner includes adherence to the law, policy and administrative
directives. All City employees should maintain the utmost standards of

personal integrity, truthfulness and fairness in carrying out their duties,

avoiding real or perceived improprieties in their roles as public servants
and never using their City positions or powers for personal or
professional gain for the employee, a relative or other person living in
the same household. All employees are expected to abide by the Code of
Ethics for Public Employees as found in the Rowlett Code of
Ordinances.
3.6. Section 2.2 states:
2.2 Conflict of Interest: (a) Employees should avoid an actual or

perceived conflict of interest. In a greater effort to avoid such
circumstances; no employee will have a monetary interest in any
exchange, purchase, or sale of property goods, or services with the City
outside of the scope of their official position. (b) No employee will
represent a group nor appear in front of the City Council or any other
City department, agency, commission or board on a matter related to
their official duties, except in their official capacity. This policy in no
way prohibits an individual from expressing his/her personal views or
opinions as an individual citizen of Rowlett in front of the Council. (c)
No employee will represent another individual or group in a court of law
or any other setting when the issue at hand is related to City business in
any way. (d) Employees will avoid any action that could create the
appearance of: using public office for private gain, giving preferential
treatment to any organization or person, impeding government efficiency
or economy, losing complete independence or impartiality of action,
making a government decision outside of official channels; or public loss
of confidence in the integrity of government.
3.7. Ms. Wilson was subjected to adverse actions, including termination after she
reported that Defendant had violated City Policy and common law. On numerous occasions
during her employment with the City of Rowlett, Ms. Wilson identified mismanagement of
public funds and informed the City Manager. Although the City Manager stated he would speak
to the City Council regarding the malfeasance, he did nothing. Many of the top city officers
engaged in outrageous misconduct which includes but is not limited to: mishandling taxpayer’s
money, patronage job appointments, overlooking and not investigating harassment, including
sexual harassment in the workplace and deceiving not only the City Council but the people of the
City of Rowlett.

Sexual Harassment, Hostile Work Environment, Gender Discrimination and Retaliation
3.8 Ms. Wilson was subjected to and reported the following sexual harassment and
sexually hostile work environment directly to Mr. Funderburk and Human Resources:
(1) Police Chief Mike Brodnax often talked about sex around Ms. Wilson, with the entire
executive team as witnesses, including describing his sexual preferences and being naked
at home. Ms. Wilson often asked him to stop, but he never did and on one occasion, he
even responded “that it was too bad if you don’t like it – that’s just who I am.”
(2) At a council meeting, Assistant Public Works Director Gary Enna had his first public
presentation. Mike Brodnax and Ms. Wilson were trying to determine a lady’s identity
who was at the council meeting, in the foyer. Mr. Brodnax stated he thought it was
Leighann Welk, and Ms. Wilson responded it was not her. He responded, “Well I don’t
know who she is but she sure does have a nice ass.” He was sitting behind the computer
at the action center near the front door of City Hall. Offended, Ms. Wilson told him,
“you’re awful,” and walked away. When Ms. Wilson complained to the City Manager,
she was told she was just anti-public safety.
3.9. Brandi Bull was working in the HR department when the City terminated Ms.
Wilson on September 13, 2017. Ms. Bull was a witness to the fact that at the time of Ms.
Wilson’s termination, the City of Rowlett terminated Ms. Wilson in proximate time to her
complaints about the above referenced conduct. The Defendant offered Ms. Wilson a Separation
Agreement and informed her that a refusal to sign the Separation Agreement would not result in
an involuntary termination. Human Resources Director Richard Jones also had confirmed this
information with the City Manager and City Attorney. Ultimately it is because Ms. Wilson did
not sign the Separation Agreement, and retained an attorney, that the City of Rowlett listed the
reason for termination as “Involuntary” for “Misconduct.”
3.10. The following similarly situated male employees were treated disparately and
better than Ms. Wilson:
(1) Mr. Proce, who was offered a Separation Agreement, is listed with the City Secretary
office as resigned with “no reason given”, and therefore eligible for rehire with the City
of Rowlett;

(2) Astonishingly, former Human Resources Director John Murray, whose termination was
recommended by an external investigator/attorney for good cause after a thorough
investigation into his sexual and workplace harassment, was listed as retiring from his
employment, and therefore eligible for rehire with the City of Rowlett;
(3) Tim Rogers, the former City Public Works Director, was terminated but allowed to resign
after his termination, no severance agreement was required, and he was eligible for rehire
with the City of Rowlett;
(4) Joe Beauchamp, the former City IT Director was terminated but allowed to resign after
his termination, no severance agreement was required, and he was eligible for rehire with
the City of Rowlett; and
(5) Alan Guard, the former City Director of Finance who served prior to Ms. Wilson, was
terminated but allowed to resign after his termination, no severance agreement was
required, and he was eligible for rehire with the City of Rowlett.
3.11. Unbelievably, the retaliation continued even after Ms. Wilson left her position as
Chief Financial Officer. After being asked to resign from the City, Ms. Wilson secured a seat in
the Leadership Rowlett class through the Rowlett Chamber of Commerce. The day after the first
meeting, Ms. Wilson received a call from the president of the Rowlett Chamber of Commerce,
Michael Gallops pulling her application and excusing her from the class. He stated that he had
received feedback from different sources that he could not disclose and after discussing the
situation with the leadership committee determined, “this was best.” Ms. Wilson questioned why
“this was best,” and Michael Gallops told Ms. Wilson his sources felt she would cause too much
disruption with the visits by the leadership committee’s members to the City departments.
3.12. Ms. Wilson was subsequently informed by a witness that City Manager Brian
Funderburk actually went to the Chamber of Commerce and told them to pull her application
from Leadership Rowlett. The City provides the Chamber with $50,000 to operate. The Chamber
could not afford to lose that funding, and so they complied with Mr. Funderburk’s demand. The
retaliation did not stop there. The City Secretary's office lists all terminations and reasons for
termination of city employees for the last three (3) years. Ms. Wilson and Ms. Bull were listed as

"Involuntary Termination" for "Misconduct." They were the only two employees to ever be
terminated for misconduct.
IV. CAUSES OF ACTION
COUNT I: Sexual Harassment and Sexually Hostile Work Environment in Violation

of Title VII - 42 U.S.C. §2000e et. seq.
4.1. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations set forth in all of
the above paragraphs of this complaint.
4.2. As discussed in more detail supra, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant as Plaintiff's
employer subjected her to a sexually hostile work environment in violation of § 42 U.S.C. §
2000e-2 et seq.
4.3. Plaintiff is a member of a protected class – female. As discussed in more detail in
supra, Plaintiff was subjected to unwelcome verbal conduct of a sexual nature which continued
between September 21, 2015 until Defendant terminated Plaintiff on September 13, 2017. 42
U.S.C. § 2000e(f).
4.4. Defendant is an employer within the meaning of Title VII. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b).
4.5. All conditions precedent to filing this action for discrimination under federal law
have been met. Plaintiff timely filed her charge of discrimination on the basis of race with the
EEOC, and the EEOC has within ninety (90) days of filing this lawsuit issued Notice of Right to
Sue to Plaintiff, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A hereto.
4.6. Defendant has violated Title VII, as amended, by harassing Plaintiff and/or
creating a hostile work environment, and/or discriminating and/or retaliating against Plaintiff in
connection with compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment because of
Plaintiff's gender, and because Plaintiff engaged in protected activity, including reporting
violations of Title VII.

4.7. Defendant has engaged in a single, continuous course of conduct of
discrimination and retaliation against Plaintiff because of her gender in order to destroy Plaintiff,
her career, and her professional life.
4.8. Defendant maliciously and recklessly violated its own established rules and
procedures to inflict pain and suffering upon the Plaintiff.
4.9. Defendant allowed a sexually hostile work environment that targeted female
employees to persist and the following is a list of some examples.
4.10. Plaintiff was subjected to and reported sexual harassment and a sexually hostile
work environment directly to Mr. Funderburk and Human Resources.
4.11. For example, on numerous occasions Police Chief Mike Brodnax often talked
about sex around Plaintiff, with the entire executive team as witnesses, including describing his
sexual preferences and being naked at home. Plaintiff often asked him to stop, and he never did
and on one occasion, he even responded “that it was too bad if you don’t like it – that’s just who
I am.”
4.12. In another example, at a council meeting, Assistant Public Works Director Gary
Enna had his first public presentation. Mike Brodnax and Plaintiff were trying to determine a
lady’s identity who was at the council meeting, in the foyer. Mr. Brodnax stated he thought it
was Leighann Welk, and Plaintiff responded it was not her. He responded, “Well I don’t know
who she is but she sure does have a nice ass.” He was sitting behind the computer at the action
center near the front door of City Hall. Offended, Plaintiff told him, “you’re awful,” and walked
away. When Plaintiff complained to the City Manager, she was told she was just anti-public
safety.

4.13. Plaintiff complained about the sexual conduct, in accordance with policy as
denoted in Section 12.2 of the City Employee Manuel by reporting the harassment and hostile
work environment to both the City Manager and Human Resources, but her complaints were all
ignored. Defendant failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent the aforementioned and
described sexual harassment and sexually hostile work environment from occurring.
4.14. Plaintiff would not have been subjected to the harassment but for her gender, as
evidenced by the type of sexual acts, remarks and conduct directed towards her.
4.15. Plaintiff was an exceptional employee for the City of Rowlett, as evidenced
by the praise she received from Mr. Funderburk in her January 2017 performance review as
having “the potential to be one of the best Chief Financial Officers in Texas.” Funderburk
also stated: “Kim’s knowledge and expertise, and her willingness to grow and learn
provided significant benefits for the City in FY2016 . . .”
4.16. The harassment of which Plaintiff complains was severe and pervasive and
altered the terms and conditions of her employment and created a hostile and abusive work
environment.
4.17. On more than one occasion, Plaintiff complained of such harassment to
supervisors and other management employees. Defendant knew or should have known about the
harassment and failed to take prompt remedial action and the harassment and sexually hostile
work environment continued unabated until Plaintiff was terminated.
4.18. As discussed in more detail in, supra, Defendant failed to exercise reasonable care
to prevent the aforementioned and described sexual harassment and sexually hostile work
environment from occurring. Defendant further failed to exercise reasonable care to correct
promptly the aforementioned and described sexually harassing behavior.

4.19. By the aforesaid acts and omissions of Defendant, Plaintiff has been directly and
legally caused to suffer actual damages including, but not limited to, loss of earnings and future
earning capacity, attorneys' fees, costs of suit and other pecuniary losses not presently
ascertained.
4.20. As a further direct and legal result of the acts and conduct of Defendant, and each
of them, as aforesaid, Plaintiff has been caused to and did suffer and continues to suffer severe
anguish, humiliation, embarrassment, fright, shock, pain, discomfort, and anxiety. The exact
nature and extent of said injuries is presently unknown to Plaintiff, who will seek leave of Court
to assert the same when they are ascertained. Plaintiff does not know at this time the exact
duration or permanence of said injuries, but is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that
some if not all of the injuries are reasonably certain to be permanent in character.
4.21. Plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorney fees and costs under Title VII, 42
U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k).
4.22. Such discrimination by Defendant against Plaintiff was intentional. Accordingly,
Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages from Defendant for back pay, front pay, past and future
pecuniary losses, emotional pain and suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life and
other nonpecuniary losses. Further, this discrimination was done by Defendant with malice or
with reckless indifference to Plaintiff's federally protected rights. Plaintiff is therefore also
entitled to recover punitive damages.
4.23. Plaintiff requests relief as described in the Prayer for Relief below.
COUNT II: Retaliation in Violation of Title VII - 42 U.S.C. §2000e et. seq.

4.25. Defendant has retaliated against Plaintiff for engaging in protected activities by
reporting an environment hostile to Plaintiff based upon gender by committing the retaliatory
acts of denying Plaintiff advancement, threatening Plaintiff with termination, subjecting Plaintiff
to a hostile work environment, and terminating Plaintiff. Defendant has thereby intentionally
engaged in unlawful employment practices prohibited by 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq. and 29 U.S.C.
§ 623(d).
4.26. All conditions precedent to filing this action for discrimination and retaliation
under federal law have been met. Plaintiff timely filed her charge of retaliation based upon
protected activities.
4.27. Defendant has engaged in a single continuous course of conduct of retaliation
against Plaintiff because of Plaintiff's protected complaints of discrimination and harassment
based upon gender and sexual harassment, and by subjecting Plaintiff to a hostile environment in
order to destroy Plaintiff, her career, and her personal life.
4.28. Plaintiff was a target of discrimination and retaliation by top city officers for the
City of Rowlett after she participated in numerous protected activities that fall within the
purview of Title VII, as discussed in detail above and summarized below.
4.29. When Plaintiff complained to the City Manager Funderburk about the sexual
harassment and inappropriate behavior, Mr. Funderburk never initiated an investigation into
Plaintiff’s complaints. Further and unbelievably, in response to Plaintiff’s numerous complaints,
Mr. Funderburk informed Plaintiff that she was “anti-public safety.”
4.30. Then, within a close time proximity to Plaintiff’s complaints to Mr. Funderburk
about the sexually fueled inappropriate behavior, she was abruptly and unexpectedly terminated
on September 13, 2017.

4.31. Plaintiff was never provided a reason for her termination when her employment
ended abruptly and unlawfully on September 13, 2017. Instead she was asked to sign a
separation agreement releasing the City from liability. Because Plaintiff did not sign the
Separation Agreement and retained an attorney, the City of Rowlett listed the reason for
termination as “Involuntary” for “Misconduct.”
4.32. Plaintiff’s termination being classified as Involuntary and for Misconduct was
blatant retaliation for her reporting the unlawful conduct described in detail supra and retaliatory
for refusing to sign the Separation Agreement and retaining an attorney in this matter. By listing
her as being terminated for misconduct the City of Rowlett not only blacklisted her from
obtaining employment in the public sector but damaged her reputation and credibility making it
hard to obtain employment in the private sector too.
4.33. The retaliation continued even after Plaintiff left her position as Chief Financial
Officer. After being asked to resign from the City, Plaintiff secured a seat in the Leadership
Rowlett class through the Rowlett Chamber of Commerce. The day after the first meeting,
Plaintiff received a call from the president of the Rowlett Chamber of Commerce, Michael
Gallops, who informed her that he was pulling her application and excusing her from the class.
Plaintiff subsequently learned from reliable sources that Mr. Funderburk visited the Chamber of
Commerce and told them to pull her application from Leadership Rowlett.
4.34. This termination was also in violation of City policy. Plaintiff was terminated in
direct violation of City of Rowlett Policy, specifically Section 14.1 (D)(3) of the Defendant’s
operative Employee Manuel, as follows:
The Director of Human Resources is authorized to terminate an

employee for conduct-related matters and policy violations. In those
instances, Department Directors will conduct the Pre-Disciplinary
Conference and provide their written recommendation with justification.

If the termination is a Department Director, including the Director of

Human Resources, for conduct-related matters and policy violations, the
Assistant City Manager will conduct the Pre-Disciplinary Conference
and provide his written recommendation with justification. If the
termination is the Assistant City Manager, the City Manager may assign
a Department Director to this task or may, at his option, conduct the
Pre-Disciplinary himself….
4.35. As discussed in detail above, Plaintiff took the proper steps in the process of
complaining about the sexual harassment and inappropriate behavior. Also, as described in
detail above, Mr. Funderburk and the City retaliated against Plaintiff by subjecting her to a
hostile work environment and terminating her without cause and all of these adverse actions took
place in temporal proximity to her instances of protected activities.
earning capacity, attorneys' fees, costs of suit and other pecuniary loss not presently ascertained,
for which Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend when ascertained.
4.37. As a further direct and legal result of the acts and conduct of Defendant, as
aforesaid, Plaintiff has been caused to and did suffer and continues to suffer severe emotional
and mental distress, anguish, humiliation, embarrassment, fright, shock, pain, discomfort, and
anxiety. The exact nature and extent of said injuries is presently unknown to Plaintiff, who will
seek leave of Court to assert the same when they are ascertained. Plaintiff does not know at this
time the exact duration or permanence of said injuries, but is informed and believes, and thereon
alleges, that some if not all of the injuries are reasonably certain to be permanent in character.
4.38. Plaintiff has been generally damaged in an amount within the jurisdictional limits
of this Court.

4.39. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the Defendant, by
engaging in the aforementioned acts and by ratifying such acts, engaged in willful, malicious,
intentional, oppressive and despicable conduct, and acted with willful and conscious disregard of
Plaintiff’s rights, welfare, and safety, thereby justifying an award of punitive and exemplary
damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
4.40. As a result of Defendant's harassing and discriminatory acts as alleged herein,
Plaintiff is entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit as provided in Title VII of the
Civil Rights of 1964, as amended.
4.41. Plaintiff also requests relief as described in the Prayer for Relief below.
COUNT III: Gender Discrimination in Violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq.
4.43. The foregoing conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42
U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq., which makes discrimination against employees on the basis of sex
illegal.
4.44. Plaintiff was subjected to comments and actions made against her on the basis of
her gender.
4.45. Comments and actions the Plaintiff was subjected to by Defendant’s employees
include, the City Secretary's office lists all terminations and reasons for termination for the last
three (3) years. Plaintiff (terminated on September 13, 2017) and Brandi Bull (terminated on
October 6, 2017), both female employees, were listed as “Involuntary Termination” for
“Misconduct.” They were the only two employees to ever be terminated for misconduct.

4.46. The following similarly situated male employees were treated disparately and
better than Ms. Wilson:
(1) Mr. Proce, who was offered a Separation Agreement, is listed with the City Secretary
office as resigned with “no reason given”, and therefore eligible for rehire with the City
of Rowlett;
(2) Astonishingly, former Human Resources Director John Murray, whose termination was
recommended by an external investigator/attorney for good cause after a thorough
investigation into his sexual and workplace harassment, was listed as retiring from his
employment, and therefore eligible for rehire with the City of Rowlett;
(3) Tim Rogers, the former City Public Works Director, was terminated but allowed to resign
after his termination, no severance agreement was required, and he was eligible for rehire
with the City of Rowlett;
(4) Joe Beauchamp, the former City IT Director was terminated but allowed to resign after
his termination, no severance agreement was required, and he was eligible for rehire with
the City of Rowlett; and
(5) Alan Guard, the former City Director of Finance who served prior to Ms. Wilson, was
terminated but allowed to resign after his termination, no severance agreement was
required, and he was eligible for rehire with the City of Rowlett.
4.46. Defendant is in violation of gender discrimination against Plaintiff. She was
treated unfavorably specifically because she was a woman, even though she was an exceptional
employee with the same skills and success as other similarly situated male employees.
4.47. By listing her as being terminated for misconduct the City of Rowlett not only
blacklisted her from obtaining employment in the public sector but damaged her reputation and
credibility making it hard to obtain employment in the private sector too.
ascertained.

of this Court.
4.51. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the Defendant by
engaging in the aforementioned acts and/or in ratifying such acts, engaged in willful, malicious,
the rights, welfare and safety of Plaintiff, thereby justifying the award of punitive and exemplary
4.52. As a result of Defendant’s conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiff is entitled to
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit as provided in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, as amended.
COUNT IV: Sexual Harassment and Sexually Hostile Work Environment in Violation of
Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code
4.55. As discussed in more detail supra, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant as Plaintiff's
employer subjected her to sexual harassment and a sexually hostile work environment in
violation of Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code commonly referred to as the Texas Commission
on Human Rights Act. Texas courts have defined sex discrimination to include sexual
harassment.

4.56. Plaintiff is a member of a protected class – female. As discussed in more detail in
supra, Plaintiff was subjected to unwelcome verbal conduct of a sexual nature which continued
between September 21, 2015 until Defendant terminated Plaintiff on September 13, 2017.
4.57. Defendant has violated Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code, as amended, by
harassing Plaintiff and/or creating a hostile work environment, and/or discriminating and/or
retaliating against Plaintiff in connection with compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of
employment because of Plaintiff's gender, and because Plaintiff engaged in protected activity,
including reporting violations of Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code.
4.58. Defendant has engaged in a single, continuous course of conduct of
discrimination and retaliation against Plaintiff because of her gender in order to destroy Plaintiff,
her career, and her professional life.
4.59. Defendant maliciously and recklessly violated its own established rules and
procedures to inflict pain and suffering upon the Plaintiff.
4.60. Plaintiff was subjected to and reported sexual harassment and sexually hostile
work environment directly to Mr. Funderburk and Human Resources.
4.61. For example, on numerous occasions Police Chief Mike Brodnax often talked
about sex around Plaintiff, with the entire executive team as witnesses, including describing his
sexual preferences and being naked at home. Plaintiff often asked him to stop, and he never did
and on one occasion, he even responded “that it was too bad if you don’t like it – that’s just who
I am.”
4.62. In another example, at a council meeting, Assistant Public Works Director Gary
Enna had his first public presentation. Mike Brodnax and Plaintiff were trying to determine a
lady’s identity who was at the council meeting, in the foyer. Mr. Brodnax stated he thought it

was Leighann Welk, and Plaintiff responded it was not her. He responded, “Well I don’t know
who she is but she sure does have a nice ass.” He was sitting behind the computer at the action
center near the front door of City Hall. Offended, Plaintiff told him, “you’re awful,” and walked
away. When Plaintiff complained to the City Manager, she was told she was just anti-public
safety.
4.63. Plaintiff complained about the sexual conduct, in accordance with policy as
denoted in Section 12.2 of the City Employee Manuel by reporting the harassment and hostile
work environment to both the City Manager and Human Resources, but her complaints were all
ignored. Defendant failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent the aforementioned and
described sexual harassment and sexually hostile work environment from occurring.
4.64. Plaintiff would not have been subjected to the harassment but for her gender, as
evidenced by the type of sexual acts, remarks and conduct directed towards her.
4.65. Plaintiff was an exceptional employee for the City of Rowlett, as detailed
supra.
4.66. The harassment of which Plaintiff complains was severe and pervasive and
altered the terms and conditions of her employment and created a hostile and abusive work
environment.
4.67. On more than one occasion, Plaintiff complained of such harassment to
supervisors and other management employees. Defendant knew or should have known about the
harassment and failed to take prompt remedial action and the harassment and sexually hostile
work environment continued unabated until Plaintiff was terminated.
4.68. Defendant failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent the aforementioned
behavior and described sexual harassment and sexually hostile work environment from

occurring. Defendant further failed to exercise reasonable care to correct promptly the
aforementioned and described sexually harassing behavior.
ascertained.
of this Court.
4.72. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the Defendant by
engaging in the aforementioned acts and/or in ratifying such acts, engaged in willful, malicious,
the rights, welfare and safety of Plaintiff, thereby justifying the award of punitive and exemplary
4.73. As a result of Defendant’s conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiff is entitled to
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit as provided in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, as amended.

COUNT V: Retaliation in Violation of Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code
4.76. As discussed in more detail supra, Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant as
Plaintiff’s employer retaliated against her for engaging in protected activity in violation of
Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code commonly referred to as the Texas Commission on Human
Rights Act (i.e. reporting and objecting to sexual harassment and a sexually hostile work
environment).
4.77. Plaintiff opposed a discriminatory practice when she complained about sexual
harassment and a sexually hostile work environment. In spite of performing her duties in a
professional manner and following Defendant’s policies, Plaintiff’s complaints were ignored by
Defendant, and Plaintiff was terminated.
4.78. Defendant has engaged in a single continuous course of conduct of retaliation
against Plaintiff because of Plaintiff's protected complaints of discrimination and harassment
based upon gender and sexual harassment, and by subjecting Plaintiff to a hostile environment in
order to destroy Plaintiff, her career, and her personal life.
4.79. Plaintiff was a target of discrimination and retaliation by top city officers for the
City of Rowlett after she participated in numerous protected activities that fall within the
purview of Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code.
4.80. When Plaintiff complained to the City Manager Funderburk about the sexual
harassment and inappropriate behavior, Mr. Funderburk never initiated an investigation into

Plaintiff’s complaints. Further and unbelievably, in response to Plaintiff’s numerous complaints,
Mr. Funderburk informed Plaintiff that she was “anti-public safety.”
4.81. Within a close time proximity to Plaintiff’s complaints to Mr. Funderburk about
the sexually fueled inappropriate behavior, she was abruptly and unexpectedly terminated on
September 13, 2017.
4.82. Plaintiff was never provided a reason for her termination when her employment
ended abruptly and unlawfully on September 13, 2017. Instead Plaintiff was asked to sign a
separation agreement releasing the City from liability. Because Plaintiff did not sign the
Separation Agreement and retained an attorney, the City of Rowlett listed the reason for
termination as “Involuntary” for “Misconduct.”
Gallops, who informed her that he was pulling her application and excusing her from the class.

4.85. This termination was also in violation of City policy. Plaintiff was terminated in
direct violation of City of Rowlett Policy, specifically Section 14.1 (D)(3) of the Defendant’s
operative Employee Manuel.
4.86. As discussed in detail above, Plaintiff took the proper steps in the process of
complaining about the sexual harassment and inappropriate behavior. Also, as described in
detail above, the City retaliated against Plaintiff by subjecting her to a hostile work environment
and terminating her without cause and all of these adverse actions took place in temporal
proximity to her instances of protected activities.
earning capacity, attorneys' fees, costs of suit and other pecuniary loss not presently ascertained,
for which Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend when ascertained.
4.88. As a further direct and legal result of the acts and conduct of Defendant, as
aforesaid, Plaintiff has been caused to and did suffer and continues to suffer severe emotional
and mental distress, anguish, humiliation, embarrassment, fright, shock, pain, discomfort, and
anxiety. The exact nature and extent of said injuries is presently unknown to Plaintiff, who will
seek leave of Court to assert the same when they are ascertained. Plaintiff does not know at this
time the exact duration or permanence of said injuries, but is informed and believes, and thereon
alleges, that some if not all of the injuries are reasonably certain to be permanent in character.
of this Court.
4.90. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the Defendant, by
engaging in the aforementioned acts and by ratifying such acts, engaged in willful, malicious,

Plaintiff’s rights, welfare, and safety, thereby justifying an award of punitive and exemplary
4.91. As a result of Defendant’s harassing and discriminatory acts as alleged herein,
Plaintiff is entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit as provided in Title VII of the
Civil Rights of 1964, as amended.
COUNT VI: Violation of the Texas Whistleblower Protection Act, Tex. Gov’t Code §§
554.001, et. seq.
4.94. As described in detail, supra, Plaintiff discovered and reported the following
violations of the law and City Policy: (1) Miscalculation of Property Taxes; (2) Provision of
Inaccurate Information in the Senior Tax Freeze 11 Cent Statement; (3) Errors in Permit
Revenue in FY2017 Budget; (4) Cell Service Contracts without City Council Approval; (5)
Overpaying for private placement of PID bonds; (6) Manipulation of a report about an extra cost
to the taxpayers of $500,000 for a radio tower; (7) Permitting Judge Liston’s hiring at an
astronomical rate and in a manner to deceive the public; and (8) Failure to investigate complaints
of Police Chief Mike Brodnax’s sexual harassment.
4.95. Plaintiff reported all of the violations described above to City Manager Mr.
Funderburk and the City Attorney (and on a couple occasions to the Assistant City Manager,
Executive Staff, and Human Resources) and informed them that the aforementioned actions
constituted violations of the City Policy and the law, such as fraud and breach of fiduciary duty.

4.96. The Texas Whistleblower Act waives sovereign immunity when the public
employee alleges a violation of Chapter 554 of the Government Code. A violation under Chapter
554 occurs when a governmental entity retaliates against a public employee for making a good
faith report of a violation of law to an appropriate law enforcement authority.
4.97. Plaintiff, while employed by the city as a public employee, notified the City
Manager and City Attorney on more than one occasion (and in some instances to the Assistant
City Manager, Executive Staff, and Human Resources), of the following violations of policy and
law that she had discovered and requested to be corrected: (1) Miscalculation of Property Taxes;
(2) Provision of Inaccurate Information in the Senior Tax Freeze 11 Cent Statement; (3) Errors in
Permit Revenue in FY2017 Budget; (4) Cell Service Contracts without City Council Approval;
(5) Overpaying for private placement of PID bonds; (6) Manipulation of a report about an extra
cost to the taxpayers of $500,000 for a radio tower; (7) Permitting Judge Liston’s hiring at an
astronomical rate and in a manner to deceive the public; and (8) Failure to investigate complaints
of Police Chief Mike Brodnax’s sexual harassment.
4.98. Plaintiff’s good faith reports to the City Manager and City Attorney (and on a
couple occasions to the Assistant City Manager, Executive Staff, and Human Resources)
regarding the misconduct and unlawful activities described in detail supra were clearly protected
activity under Chapter 554 of the Government Code.
4.99. On September 13, 2017, Defendant terminated Plaintiff’s employment in
violation of Section 14.1 (D)(3) of the Defendant’s operative Employee Manuel and in direct
retaliation to her protected conduct and thereby violated Chapter 554. Defendant’s stated reasons
for terminating Plaintiff’s employment are neither true nor valid, but are clearly a pretext on
unlawful retaliation in violation of Chapter 554. Further, Defendant would not have terminated

Plaintiff had the Plaintiff not reported Defendant’s violations of the City Policy and the law,
including fraud and breach of fiduciary duty.
4.100. Plaintiff has exhausted all administrative appeals required by Defendant before
filing this suit and all such conditions precedent have been met. Under Sections 14.1 (D)(4) and
15.1 of the Defendant’s operative Employee Manuel, employees can, but are not required to,
appeal the decision to terminate.
4.101. Plaintiff provided proper and timely notice to Defendant pursuant to the Texas
Tort Claims Act, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 101.101.
4.102. Plaintiff's report to City Manager was the appropriate law enforcement agency to
whom such a report should be made to trigger the protection of the Texas Whistleblower's Act.
The City of Rowlett Policy Manuel defines the City Manager as the employee who “leads,
directs and coordinates all City operations and staff. The City Manager is, in effect, the Chief
Executive Officer, who answers to the ‘Board of Directors,’ the Mayor and City Council, elected
by the citizens of Rowlett.” Plaintiff believed in good faith that both the City Manager, Assistant
City Manager and the Executive Staff were authorized to regulate under, enforce, investigate, or
prosecute a violation of the state’s sexual harassment and other laws and policies.
4.103. Plaintiff suffered adverse actions, such as being subjected to a hostile work
environment wherein she was continuously ridiculed and criticized without cause by City
Officials and wherein her job was often threatened by City Officials. And the adverse actions
took place within a close temporal proximity to each of the reports of unlawful conduct.
4.104. Plaintiff was terminated by Defendant on September 13, 2017, which was only
three (3) weeks after she complained yet again about the cell service contract violations to the
City Manager and only two (2) days after the City Manager stated he was going to find a way to

fire her. Defendant failed to adhere to established city and departmental policies in its treatment
of Plaintiff subsequent to the report, and Defendant exhibited discriminatory treatment toward
Plaintiff in comparison to similarly situated employees.
Gallops, who informed him that he was pulling her application and excusing her from the class.
4.107. The City Manager was the proper government law enforcement agent for Plaintiff
to report the city policy violations and unlawful conduct. It was not until after Plaintiff was
terminated that she discovered City Manager Funderburk was exploiting his position as City
Manager to promote his own agenda and retaliate against Plaintiff for her reports. Mr.
Funderburk neither investigated any claims and financial miscalculations nor did he go to the
City Attorney or City Council about blatant violations of City policy.

4.108. Consequently, Plaintiff is entitled to damages in the form of lost wages, attorney's
fees and liquidated damages.
V. ATTORNEYS’ FEES
5.1. It was necessary for Plaintiff to hire the undersigned attorney to file this lawsuit.
Upon judgment, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorney fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. §
1988, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5 et seq, and 29 U.S.C. 209 sec. 107(a)(3).
VI. JURY TRIAL
6.1. Trial by jury is demanded.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff prays that Defendant be cited to appear
and answer herein, and that on final trial, Plaintiff have and recover the following relief against
Defendant:
(1) Judgment for actual damages in the amount of past and future lost earnings and
benefits and damages to past and future earnings capacity;
(2) Judgment for back pay and front pay as allowed by law;
(3)Judgment for past and future pecuniary losses, emotional pain and suffering,
inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life and other nonpecuniary losses;
(4) Damages for past and future mental anguish, emotional distress, and physical distress;
(5) Exemplary damages in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact;
(6) Prejudgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum legal rate;
(7) All costs of Court;
(8) Attorneys' fees;
(9) Such other and further relief to which Plaintiff may be justly entitled.
Dated: August 1, 2018 Respectfully Submitted,
Andrea S. Loveless
Texas State Bar No. 24041889
1301 Ballinger Street
Fort Worth, Texas 76102
(949) 679-4690
Fax (949) 666-7424
andrea@lovelesslawfirm.com
Attorney for Plaintiff

Case 3:18-cv-02003-C Document 1-1 Filed 08/01/18 Page 1 of 1 PageID 30
EXHIBIT A
Case 3:18-cv-02003-C Document 1-2 Filed 08/01/18 Page 1 of 1 PageID 31

Kimberly Wilson Rowlett Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kimberly Wilson Rowlett Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 3:18-cv-02003-C Document 1 Filed 08/01/18 Page 1 of 29 PageID 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

show the Court as follows:

State of Texas, who resides at 7518 Spicewood Drive, Garland, TX 75044.

Plaintiff’s Original Complaint 1

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

supplemental jurisdiction of the common law claims.

III. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff’s Original Complaint 2

the City Council about these glaring errors.

Plaintiff’s Original Complaint 3

Plaintiff’s Original Complaint 4

fraud and breach of fiduciary duty.

Plaintiff’s Original Complaint 5

personal integrity, truthfulness and fairness in carrying out their duties,

3.6. Section 2.2 states:

2.2 Conflict of Interest: (a) Employees should avoid an actual or

Plaintiff’s Original Complaint 6

Sexual Harassment, Hostile Work Environment, Gender Discrimination and Retaliation

reason for termination as “Involuntary” for “Misconduct.”

better than Ms. Wilson:

Plaintiff’s Original Complaint 7

Plaintiff’s Original Complaint 8

terminated for misconduct.

IV. CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT I: Sexual Harassment and Sexually Hostile Work Environment in Violation

the above paragraphs of this complaint.

employer subjected her to a sexually hostile work environment in violation of § 42 U.S.C. §

4.3. Plaintiff is a member of a protected class – female. As discussed in more detail in

Sue to Plaintiff, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A hereto.

connection with compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment because of

violations of Title VII.

Plaintiff’s Original Complaint 9

4.7. Defendant has engaged in a single, continuous course of conduct of

her career, and her professional life.

procedures to inflict pain and suffering upon the Plaintiff.

employees to persist and the following is a list of some examples.

work environment directly to Mr. Funderburk and Human Resources.

Plaintiff’s Original Complaint 10

provided significant benefits for the City in FY2016 . . .”

4.17. On more than one occasion, Plaintiff complained of such harassment to

work environment continued unabated until Plaintiff was terminated.

promptly the aforementioned and described sexually harassing behavior.

Plaintiff’s Original Complaint 11

4.22. Such discrimination by Defendant against Plaintiff was intentional. Accordingly,

entitled to recover punitive damages.

the above paragraphs of this complaint.

Plaintiff’s Original Complaint 12

4.27. Defendant has engaged in a single continuous course of conduct of retaliation

against Plaintiff because of Plaintiff's protected complaints of discrimination and harassment

order to destroy Plaintiff, her career, and her personal life.

purview of Title VII, as discussed in detail above and summarized below.

Plaintiff’s complaints. Further and unbelievably, in response to Plaintiff’s numerous complaints,

Mr. Funderburk informed Plaintiff that she was “anti-public safety.”

on September 13, 2017.

Plaintiff’s Original Complaint 13

termination as “Involuntary” for “Misconduct.”

hard to obtain employment in the private sector too.

operative Employee Manuel, as follows:

The Director of Human Resources is authorized to terminate an

Plaintiff’s Original Complaint 14

If the termination is a Department Director, including the Director of