Leroy White Et Al V City of Dallas

Case 3:09-cv-02395-F Document 1 Filed 12/16/09 Page 1 of 29 PageID 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
LEROY WHITE, TERRENCE MARSHALL,

ARTURO GARZA, CLEMENT BERNARD,
FAYE JACKSON, JAMES YELLOWFISH,
JEWELL TAYLOR, KEVIN GILLUM,
KEVIN MCARTHUR, MARCUS GREER,
MICHEAL ROBERTS, RODERICK TOLOR,
and THAI NGUYEN; CIVIL ACTION NO.
Plaintiffs,
(JURY TRIAL DEMANDED)
v.
CITY OF DALLAS,
Defendant.
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs Leroy White (“White”), Terrence Marshall (“Marshall”), Arturo Garza
(“Garza” ), Clement Bernard (“Bernard”), Faye Jackson (“Jackson”), James Yellowfish
(“Yellowfish”), Jewell Taylor (“Taylor”), Kevin Gillum (“Gillum”), Kevin McArthur
(“McArthur”), Marcus Greer (“Greer”), Micheal Roberts (“Roberts”), Roderick Tolor (“Tolor”),
and Thai Nguyen (“Nguyen”) by and through their attorneys, bring this action for damages and
other legal and equitable relief from the Defendant’s violation of the laws proscribing
discrimination based on gender, race, color, national origin, and retaliation, stating the following
as Plaintiffs’ claims against the City of Dallas (“the City” or “Dallas”).

INTRODUCTION
1. This is an action brought by Plaintiffs seeking damages from Defendant the City of
Dallas for acts of intentional discrimination based on gender, race, color, and national origin, as
well as for acts of retaliation, because Plaintiffs engaged in protected activity. Defendant’s acts
of discrimination and retaliation are in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, as amended, 42
U.S.C. § 1981 et seq.; the 1991 Civil Rights Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a et seq.; Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.
2. Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which
confers original jurisdiction upon this Court for actions arising under the laws of the United
States, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1343(3) and 1343(4), which confer original jurisdiction
upon this Court in a civil action to recover damages or to secure equitable relief (i) under any Act
of Congress providing for the protection of civil rights; (ii) under the Declaratory Judgment
Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2201; and (iii) under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., as amended, 42 U.S.C. §
1981 et seq., as amended and 42 U.S.C. § 1981a et seq., as amended.
4. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3), inasmuch as this
judicial district lies in a State in which the unlawful employment practices occurred. Venue is
also proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) and (c), in that the Defendant
maintains offices, conducts business, and resides in this district, and a substantial portion of the
acts that make up the basis of the complaint occurred within this judicial district.
-2-
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
PARTIES
5. Plaintiff White is a person who has been aggrieved by Defendant’s actions. He is and
has been, at all relevant times, an African-American male citizen of the United States of America
and is a resident of the State of Texas.
6. Plaintiff Marshall is a person who has been aggrieved by Defendant’s actions. He is
and has been, at all relevant times, an African-American male citizen of the United States of
America and is a resident of the State of Texas.
7. Plaintiff Garza is a person who has been aggrieved by Defendant’s actions. He is and
has been, at all relevant times, a Hispanic male citizen of the United States of America and a
resident of the State of Texas.
8. Plaintiff Bernard is a person who has been aggrieved by Defendant’s actions. He is
9. Plaintiff Jackson is a person who has been aggrieved by Defendant’s actions. She is
and has been, at all relevant times, an African-American female citizen of the United States of
American and a resident of the State of Texas.
10. Plaintiff Yellowfish is a person who has been aggrieved by Defendant’s actions. He
is and has been, at all relevant times, an African-American male citizen of the United States of
11. Plaintiff Taylor is a person who has been aggrieved by Defendant’s actions. She
is and has been, at all relevant times, an African-American female citizen of the United States of
America and a resident of the State of Texas.
-3-
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
12. Plaintiff Gillum is a person who has been aggrieved by Defendant’s actions. He
13. Plaintiff McArthur is a person who has been aggrieved by Defendant’s actions.
He is and has been, at all relevant times, an African-American male citizen of the United States
of America and is a resident of the State of Texas.
14. Plaintiff Greer is a person who has been aggrieved by Defendant’s actions. He is
15. Plaintiff Roberts is a person who has been aggrieved by Defendant’s actions. He
16. Plaintiff Tolor is a person who has been aggrieved by Defendant’s actions. He is
and has been, at all relevant times, an African American male citizen of the United States of
17. Plaintiff Nguyen is a person who has been aggrieved by Defendant’s actions. He
is and has been, at all relevant times, an Asian-American male citizen of the United States of
18. Defendant City of Dallas is an incorporated city in Dallas County, Texas and an
employer conducting business in the State of Texas.
-4-
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
EXHAUSTION OF FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
19. On or about July 22, 2008, Plaintiff White filed a complaint of discrimination with
the EEOC, which was ultimately referred to the Department of Justice.
20. Plaintiff White was issued a Notice of Right to Sue by the Department of Justice on
or about September 23, 2009.
21. On or about July 22, 2008, Plaintiff Marshall filed a complaint of discrimination with
22. Plaintiff Marshall was issued a Notice of Right to Sue by the Department of Justice
on or about September 23, 2009.
23. On or about November 7, 2008, Plaintiff Garza filed a complaint of discrimination
with the EEOC, which was ultimately referred to the Department of Justice.
24. Plaintiff Garza was issued a Notice of Right to Sue by the Department of Justice on or
about September 23, 2009.
25. On or about November 13, 2007, Plaintiff Bernard filed a complaint of discrimination
26. Plaintiff Bernard was issued a Notice of Right to Sue by the Department of Justice on
27. On or about May 11, 2009, Plaintiff Jackson filed a complaint of discrimination with
28. Plaintiff Jackson was issued a Notice of Right to Sue by the Department of Justice on
-5-
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
29. On or about April 23, 2009, Plaintiff Yellowfish filed a complaint of discrimination
30. Plaintiff Yellowfish was issued a Notice of Right to Sue by the Department of Justice
31. On or about May 27, 2009, Plaintiff Taylor filed a complaint of discrimination with
32. Plaintiff Taylor was issued a Notice of Right to Sue by the Department of Justice on
33. On or about May 11, 2009, Plaintiff Gillum filed a complaint of discrimination with
34. Plaintiff Gillum was issued a Notice of Right to Sue by the Department of Justice on
35. On or about May 11, 2009, Plaintiff McArthur filed a complaint of discrimination
36. Plaintiff McArthur was issued a Notice of Right to Sue by the Department of Justice
37. On or about May 11, 2009, Plaintiff Greer filed a complaint of discrimination with
38. Plaintiff Greer was issued a Notice of Right to Sue by the Department of Justice on or
39. On or about May 27, 2009, Plaintiff Tolor filed a complaint of discrimination with the
EEOC, which was ultimately referred to the Department of Justice.
-6-
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
40. Plaintiff Tolor was issued a Notice of Right to Sue by the Department of Justice on or
41. On or about July 22, 2008, Plaintiff Roberts filed a complaint of discrimination with
42. Plaintiff Roberts was issued a Notice of Right to Sue by the Department of Justice on
43. On or about May 11, 2009, Plaintiff Nguyen filed a complaint of discrimination with
44. Plaintiff Nguyen was issued a Notice of Right to Sue by the Department of Justice on
STATEMENT OF FACTS
A. WHITE
45. White is an African-American male employed as a High Voltage Control Electrician
for the City of Dallas Water Utilities.
46. Throughout his employment, White has been exposed to a hostile work environment
based on his race, color, and/or national origin.
47. For example, White heard his supervisor say that he was going to hire an African-
American to work as White’s assistant and that “he was gonna work the hell outta them niggers.”
48. White has been subjected to racially motivated threats, intimidation and harassment
including, but not limited to: verbal abuse, the constant threat of discharge, graffiti containing
racial epithets, and racially charged articles.
-7-
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
49. Throughout his employment and up until he went on Worker’s Compensation in June
2008, White has seen racial graffiti in the restrooms and walls in several of the Water Utilities’
buildings. White has repeatedly seen the word “nigger” and derogatory drawings of monkeys.
50. The City has engaged in a pattern and practice of disproportionate enforcement of
policies with regard to their minority employees, frustrating opportunities for advancement and
fundamentally altering the terms and conditions of White’s employment. The behavior and
productivity of White and other minority employees has been routinely subjected to more
rigorous scrutiny than their white counterparts and discipline imposed upon them has been more
severe.
51. The City has engaged in blatant segregation amongst its workforce whereby teams of
employees are assembled along racial lines. African-American employees are assigned to work
with African-American helpers/assistants and White employees are assigned to work with White
helpers/assistants.
52. White has opposed these discriminatory practices on his own behalf and on behalf of
other similarly situated minority employees. In response, White has lost opportunities, been
unfairly targeted, given disciplinary “write ups”, been denied both voluntary and required
certification classes and has been subjected to further harassment, intimidation, and retribution.
53. White has made several written complaints of discrimination. By way of example,
but not limitation, on February 5, 2007, White was publicly identified as a “troublemaker” and
called in to a department meeting. At the meeting, White’s complaints of discrimination and
retaliation were disparaged, mocked and met with retaliatory animosity. White complained
about the incident in writing to the City’s Director of Human Resources.
-8-
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
54. Soon thereafter, on at least two separate occasions, White was subjected to additional
retaliation in response to his complaints when he was denied additional training that he was
entitled to receive.
55. On or about March 30, 2008, White was denied a promotion. The promotion was
given instead to a white employee without White’s education, experience or credentials. No
legitimate business reason was given.
B. MARSHALL
56. Plaintiff Marshall is an African-American male employed as an Instrumentation Tech
by the City of Dallas Water Utilities.
57. Throughout his employment, Marshall has been exposed to a hostile work
environment based on his race, color, and/or national origin. For example, on or about October
10, 2007, Marshall and a Nigerian employee were called “monkeys” by a white City employee.
58. Marshall has been subjected to racially motivated threats, intimidation and
harassment including, but not limited to: verbal abuse, the constant threat of discharge, graffiti
containing racial epithets, and racially charged articles.
59. Throughout his employment, Marshall has seen racial graffiti in the restrooms of the
City’s Water Utilities buildings. Specifically, but not by way of limitation, Marshall has seen the
word “nigger” written on the bathroom wall of the Greenville Pumping Station.
policies with regard to Marshall and other minority employees, frustrating opportunities for
advancement and fundamentally altering the terms and conditions of Marshall’s employment.
-9-
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
61. The behavior and productivity of Marshall and other minority employees has been
routinely subjected to more rigorous scrutiny than his white counterparts and discipline imposed
has been more severe.
62. Further, the City has engaged in blatant segregation amongst its workforce whereby
teams of employees are assembled along racial lines. African-American employees are assigned
to work with African-American helpers/assistants and White employees are assigned to work
with White helpers/assistants.
63. Marshall has opposed these discriminatory practices on his own behalf and on behalf
of other similarly situated minority employees. In response, Marshall has lost opportunities,
been unfairly targeted, given disciplinary “write ups”, and has been subjected to further
harassment, intimidation, and retribution.
64. Marshall has made several written complaints of discrimination, harassment, and
retaliation. In 2006, Marshall complained that his employee evaluation had been altered and his
signature had been forged. The City ultimately hired a Forensic Document Examiner to
investigate Marshalls’ claim. The Forensic Document Examiner found evidence that the
signature on Marshall’s evaluation had been forged and was “not a genuine signature of Mr.
Marshall.”
65. On October 8, 2007, Marshall wrote to the Manager of the City’s Pumping Division
and complained about racist slurs, harassment, and forgeries committed against him. Marshall
copied the Pump and Division Manager for the City, as well as two employees within the City’s
Human Resources Department and the City Attorney.
-10-
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
66. On November 17, 2007, Marshall complained that he had been called a “monkey” in
writing to the City’s Assistant Director of the Water Utilities Department, and copied two
employees within the City’s Human Resources Department. No City employees have been
terminated as a result of these instances of racial harassment.
67. In response to Marshall’s complaints, Marshall has been subjected to retaliation. In
early January 2008, Marshall was told that if he “didn’t write any more letters” he could be
trained as an Electrician’s Assistant and transferred away from the plant where he had been
subjected to racism and retaliatory animosity. In order to escape the hostile work environment in
which he was forced to work, Marshall accepted the transfer. Over his written protests,
Defendant demoted Marshall and cut his pay.
68. Although Marshall was transferred to the East Side Purification Division and trained
as an Electrician’s Assistant, none of the training he received was under the supervision of a
Master Electrician, as required by the Texas Occupations Code. Accordingly, the training
Marshall received will not count towards the 8,000 hours needed to become a Master Electrician.
Similarly situated white employees have not faced this situation. Marshall’s repeated written
complaints to the City of Dallas have been ignored.
C. GARZA
69. Plaintiff Garza is a Hispanic male who is employed at the City of Dallas Water
Treatment Plant by the City of Dallas Water Utilities.
70. Garza has been subject to discrimination in the form of a hostile work environment
based on his race, color and/or national origin.
-11-
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
71. Garza has made numerous complaints about the discrimination and retaliation he has
suffered, including a grievance related to the City’s discriminatory hiring and promotion
practices.
72. Plaintiff Garza’s complaints to the City have been met with increased hostility and
retaliatory animosity.
73. Throughout his employment, Garza has been repeatedly subjected to racially
offensive remarks, singling him out and mocking him based on his race. For example, Garza and
two other minority employees of the City are disparagingly referred to as “the three Amigos.”
74. Garza has also been subjected to racially motivated threats, intimidation, harassment
and unequal treatment including, but not limited to: verbal abuse, disparate compensation, the
constant threat of discharge, and pranks designed to humiliate and embarrass Garza based upon
his race, color and/or national origin.
75. The City has failed to adequately respond to Garza’a complaints of racial hostility.
By failing to address these discriminatory, offensive and threatening practices, the City’s
management has effectively condoned them and allowed them to continue.
76. Furthermore, Garza has suffered retaliation for helping another minority employee of
the City of Dallas bring charges of discrimination and retaliation against the City. For his
assistance to the other minority employee, Garza has been accused of “being a trouble maker.”
77. The City has engaged in a pattern and practice of disproportionate enforcement of its
policies with regard to Garza because of Garza’s race, color, national origin, and in retaliation for
his engaging in protected activity, frustrating Garza’s opportunities for advancement and
fundamentally altering the terms and conditions of his employment.
-12-
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
78. The behavior and productivity of Garza has been routinely subjected to more rigorous
scrutiny than his White counterparts and the discipline imposed upon him has been more severe.
79. For example, another City employee fell asleep at work and incorrectly released
ammonia into the City’s water supply. Garza found the employee asleep and shut off the
ammonia to the water supply. The employee that fell asleep and released the ammonia was
never reprimanded. However, Garza was reprimanded for the incident.
80. Garza has opposed the discriminatory practices of the City. In response to his
opposition to these practices, he has been retaliated against, lost opportunities, been unfairly
targeted, and subjected to further harassment, intimidation, and retribution.
D. BERNARD
81. Bernard is an African-American male currently employed as an Instrumentation
Supervisor for the Southside Wastewater Plant of the City of Dallas Water Utilities.
82. Throughout his employment, Bernard has been exposed to a hostile work
environment based on his race and color.
83. Bernard has been subjected to racially motivated threats, intimidation and harassment
including, but not limited to: verbal abuse, the threat of discharge, graffiti containing racial
epithets, and racially charged articles.
84. Throughout his employment, Bernard has seen racial graffiti in the restrooms and
walls in several of the Water Utilities’ buildings. Bernard has repeatedly seen the word “nigger”
and derogatory drawings of monkeys. Bernard was exposed to multiple instances of a
hangman’s noose being displayed on City property.
-13-
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
85. Bernard was unfairly denied a promotion by the Assistant Manager of Maintenance
for the Southside Wastewater Treatment Plant, who passed along the questions and answers
related to the interview process to another candidate. When the cheating was exposed, the
Assistant Manager sought to bribe another City employee to discredit Bernard. When the
bribery was exposed, the Assistant Manager was transferred to another facility instead of being
terminated. To this day, Bernard has not been promoted to the position.
fundamentally altering the terms and conditions of Bernard’s employment. The behavior and
productivity of Bernard and other minority employees has been routinely subjected to more
rigorous scrutiny than their white counterparts and discipline imposed has been more severe.
87. Bernard has opposed these discriminatory practices on his own behalf and on behalf
of other similarly situated minority employees. In response, Bernard has lost opportunities, been
unfairly targeted, and has been subjected to further harassment, intimidation, and retribution.
88. For example, but not by way of limitation, subsequent to Bernard filing his charge of
discrimination with the EEOC, the Assistant Director of the Wastewater Department told five
white employees of the Wastewater Department on or about August 13, 2009 that they would
“lose their jobs” unless Bernard “dropped his lawsuit.” The next day, two of the white
employees met Bernard at the entrance to the Southside Wastewater Administration Building at
6:30 a.m. and confronted him about the Assistant Director’s threatening comments. Bernard felt
intimidated and harassed by the actions of the Assistant Director of the Wastewater Department,
and feared for retaliation at the hands of his co-workers.
-14-
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
E. JACKSON
89. Jackson is an African-American female employed in the Wastewater Division for the
City of Dallas Water Utilities.
90. Jackson has been exposed to a hostile work environment based on her gender, race,
and color.
91. Jackson has been subjected to racially motivated threats, intimidation, harassment and
unequal treatment including, but not limited to: verbal abuse, disparate compensation, the
constant threat of discharge, the prominent display of a noose, graffiti containing racial epithets
and pranks designed to humiliate and embarrass Jackson based upon her gender, race and color.
92. Throughout her employment, Jackson has seen racial graffiti or comments in the
chlorine area of the Water Utilities’ building. Jackson has been forced to work near the “SS
Redneck”, a boat which was parked on Water Utilities’ grounds.
93. Jackson has also witnessed a noose displayed on City property as well as graffiti
regarding the KKK.
policies with regard to their female and minority employees, frustrating opportunities for
advancement and fundamentally altering the terms and conditions of Jackson’s employment.
95. The behavior and productivity of Jackson has been routinely subjected to more
rigorous scrutiny than her white counterparts and the discipline imposed upon her has been more
sever.
96. Jackson has opposed these discriminatory practices on her behalf and on behalf of
other similarly situated females and minority employees. In response, Jackson has lost
-15-
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
opportunities, been unfairly targeted, and has been subjected to further harassment, intimidation,
and retribution.
F. YELLOWFISH
97. Yellowfish is an African-American male currently employed as a Water Plant
Operator for the City of Dallas Water Utilities.
98. Throughout his employment, Yellowfish has been exposed to a hostile work
99. Yellowfish has been subjected to racially motivated threats, intimidation and
harassment including, but not limited to: verbal abuse, the threat of discharge, graffiti containing
racial epithets, and the prominent display of offensive signs or symbols.
100. In 2008, Yellowfish offered testimony on behalf of another City minority employee
who had been discriminated against by the City. In response to Yellowfish’s testimony, he
suffered retaliation, was ostracized and harassed, and labeled a “trouble maker”.
101. A City employee hacked into Yellowfish’s personal email account and retrieved
private emails regarding his testimony. These emails were then posted on the City’s message
board for all City employees to read. Upon information and belief, this was done to encourage
and incite further retaliation against Yellowfish by his co-workers.
policies with regard to their Yellowfish and other minority employees, frustrating opportunities
for advancement and fundamentally altering the terms and conditions of Yellowfish’s
employment. The behavior and productivity of Yellowfish has been routinely subjected to more
rigorous scrutiny than his white counterparts and discipline imposed him has been more severe.
-16-
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
103. For example, but not by way of limitation, in June of 2008, Yellowfish arrived at
work to find that chlorine levels in the City’s water supply were too low. Yellowfish
immediately corrected the problem. Despite the fact that Yellowfish arrived after the problem
had occurred and he corrected it, Yellowfish was reprimanded for the incident. However, the
white employee on duty at the time the incident occurred was never reprimanded.
104. Yellowfish has opposed the discriminatory practices of the City on his own behalf
and on behalf of others. In response, he has lost opportunities, been unfairly targeted, and has
been subjected to further harassment, intimidation, and retribution.
G. TAYLOR
105. Taylor is an African-American female employed in the Liquids Division for the City
of Dallas Water Utilities.
106. Taylor has been exposed to a hostile work environment based on her gender, race,
and color.
107. Taylor has been subjected to racially motivated threats, intimidation, harassment and
unequal treatment including, but not limited to: verbal abuse, disparate compensation, the
constant threat of discharge, the prominent display of a noose, graffiti containing racial epithets,
and pranks designed to humiliate and embarrass Jackson based upon her gender, race and color.
108. Taylor has twice been denied for promotions that were ultimately offered to less
qualified white employees.
109. Taylor has been singled out based on her race and gender. She has been mockingly
referred to by co-workers as “black eyed Susie”.
-17-
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
110. During her employment, Taylor has been forced to work near the “SS Redneck”, a
boat parked on Water Utilities’ grounds.
111. Taylor has witnessed a noose displayed on City property. After Taylor and other City
employees complained about the noose, it was removed, only to be replaced with a larger noose
a few days later. Taylor also has seen Confederate Flags displayed on City property and
witnessed racially charged graffiti in the City Water Utilities storeroom.
112. Taylor had been retaliated against for having raised issues of race and gender
discrimination. In fact, Taylor and other City employees were told that if legal claims were
pursued against the City, the City would privatize its water utilities operation, resulting in the
termination of all Water Utilities employees. Upon information and belief this was done to
harass, intimidate and retaliate against Taylor and the Plaintiffs.
policies with regard to their female and minority employees, frustrating opportunities for
advancement and fundamentally altering the terms and conditions of Taylor’s employment.
114. The behavior and productivity of Taylor has been routinely subjected to more
rigorous scrutiny than her white counterparts and the discipline imposed upon her has been more
sever.
115. Taylor has opposed these discriminatory practices on her behalf and on behalf of
other similarly situated females and minority employees. In response, Taylor has lost
and retribution.
-18-
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
H. GILLUM
116. Gillum is an African-American male currently employed as a Liquids Operator for
the Wastewater Division of the City of Dallas Water Utilities.
117. Throughout his employment, Gillum has been exposed to a hostile work environment
based on race, color, and/or national origin. For example, but not by way of limitation, Gillum
was told by his supervisor that he and other African-Americans “all look alike.”
118. Gillum has been subjected to racially motivated threats, intimidation and harassment
epithets, and the prominent display of offensive signs or symbols.
fundamentally altering the terms and conditions of employment. The behavior and productivity
of minority employees are routinely subjected to more rigorous scrutiny than their white
counterparts and discipline imposed for those violations are more severe.
120. Gillum has opposed these discriminatory practices on his own behalf and on behalf of
other similarly situated minority employees. In response, Gillum has lost opportunities, been
I. MCARTHUR
121. McArthur is an African-American male employed by the Wastewater Division of the
City of Dallas Water Utilities.
122. Throughout his employment, McArthur has been exposed to a hostile work

-19-
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
123. McArthur has six times been denied promotions in favor of less qualified white
employees. He has been required to periodically retake civil service exams, while white
employees have not been required to do so.
124. One occasion, when McArthur was denied a promotion, he was told by City
management that he had failed an exam necessary for the promotion. Shortly thereafter,
McArthur received notice by mail that he had passed the exam. When he informed City
management that he had passed the exam, he was told that there had been a mistake and he
should not have passed the exam. Management then refused to provide further explanation or
consider McArthur for promotion.
125. McArthur has been subjected to racially motivated threats, intimidation and
harassment including, but not limited to: verbal abuse, the threat of discharge, graffiti containing
racial epithets, and the prominent display of offensive signs or symbols.
126. McArthur has regularly seen Confederate flags displayed on City property. In fact,
City employees have been permitted to wear Confederate bandanas with their City uniforms.
fundamentally altering the terms and conditions of McArthur’s employment. The behavior and
productivity of McArthur has been routinely subjected to more rigorous scrutiny than his white
counterparts and discipline imposed on him has been more severe.
128. On one occasion, McArthur was reprimanded for asking a white employee to return
items to McArthur which belonged to McArthur. However, the white employee, who admitted
-20-
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
to taking McArthur’s property at work, was never reprimanded or asked by the City to return the
items.
129. McArthur has been subjected to additional retaliation and harassment when flyers
were circulated stating that the City Water Utilities would be privatized if the Plaintiffs’
allegations of discrimination and retaliation against the City were not dropped. These statements
directly threatened McArthur’s job and incited additional racial hostility and retaliatory
animosity among the McArthur’s co-works and superiors.
130. McArthur has opposed the discriminatory practices of the City on his own behalf and
on behalf of other similarly situated minority employees. In response, McArthur has lost
and retribution.
J. GREER
131. Greer is an African-American male employed as waste water operator with the City
132. Throughout his employment Greer has been exposed to a hostile work environment
based on his race and color.
133. Greer has been subjected to a workplace tainted by racially motivated threats,
intimidation and harassment including, but not limited to: verbal abuse, the constant threat of
discharge, graffiti containing racial epithets, and racially charged articles.
134. For example, but not by way of limitation, Greer and several other employees of the
City of Dallas Water Utilities witnessed a noose displayed on City property. Several employees
complained to the City’s management.
-21-
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
policies with regard to Greer and other their minority employees, frustrating opportunities for
advancement and fundamentally altering the terms and conditions of Greer’s employment.
136. The behavior and productivity of Greer has been routinely subjected to more rigorous
scrutiny than his white counterparts and discipline imposed upon him has been more severe.
137. Further, Greer has been forced to work in an environment where employees are
segregated along racial lines. African-American employees are assigned to work with African-
American helpers/assistants and White employees are assigned to work with White
helpers/assistants. The City’s segregation of its workforce has caused increased racial tension
and discrimination against minorities.
138. Additionally, the City has failed to promote Greer and minorities into positions of
leadership.
139. Greer’s has opposed these discriminatory practices on behalf of other similarly
situated minority employees. His opposition has been met with institutional resistance and
retribution in the form of lost opportunities, increased oversight, scrutiny, discipline as well as
further harassment, intimidation, and retribution.
K. ROBERTS
140. Roberts is an African-American male employed as a Section Supervisor for the City
141. Throughout his employment, Roberts has been exposed to a hostile work environment
-22-
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
142. Roberts has been subjected to racially motivated threats, intimidation and harassment
including, but not limited to: verbal abuse, the constant threat of discharge, and graffiti
containing racial epithets.
143. In addition to this hostile work environment, the City has engaged in a pattern and
practice of disproportionate enforcement of policies with regard Roberts frustrating opportunities
for advancement and fundamentally altering the terms and conditions of his employment. The
attendance, behavior and productivity of Roberts has been routinely subjected to more rigorous
scrutiny than his white counterparts and discipline imposed upon him has been more severe than
his white counterparts.
144. Furthermore, Roberts, and other similarly situated employees, are held to different
standards and subjected to unequal terms and conditions of employment. For example, Roberts
and other minority employees have been routinely given lower performance evaluation scores as
compared to similarly-performing White counterparts.
145. Moreover, Roberts is paid less than his white counterparts for the same or similar
work, despite Roberts’ seniority and superior performance. Roberts has complained of this
discriminatory pay disparity.
146. Additionally, but not by way of limitation, Roberts has been denied the power to
discipline the white subordinates who failed to follow his directives. When white subordinates
refuse to follow directives or discipline from Roberts, white upper management immediately
protects the white subordinates and disciplines Roberts.
147. Roberts has opposed these discriminatory practices on his own behalf and on behalf
of other similarly situated minority employees. In response, Roberts has lost opportunities, been
-23-
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
unfairly targeted, given disciplinary “write ups”, and has been subjected to further harassment,
intimidation and retribution.
148. On or about August 13, 2009, Roberts and the other Plaintiffs where threatened with
termination if they did not drop their claims. Specifically, the Assistant Director of the
Wastewater Department told City employees that the City’s Water Utilities operations were in
danger of being privatized if the allegations of discrimination and retaliation were not dropped.
Not only did this statement threaten the Plaintiffs’ jobs for pursing their claims against the City,
it incited additional racial hostility and retaliatory animosity among the Plaintiffs’ co-workers
and superiors.
L. TOLOR
149. Tolor is an African-American male currently employed as a Senior Plant Mechanic
for the Wastewater Division of the City of Dallas Water Utilities.
150. Throughout his employment, Tolor has been exposed to a hostile work environment
151. Tolor has been subjected to racially motivated threats, intimidation and harassment
epithets, and racially charged articles.
152. Throughout his employment, Tolor has seen racial graffiti in the restrooms and walls
in several of the Water Utilities’ buildings. Tolor has repeatedly seen the word “nigger” and
derogatory drawings of monkeys.
-24-
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
fundamentally altering the terms and conditions of Tolor’s employment. The behavior and
productivity of Tolor and other minority employees has been routinely subjected to more
rigorous scrutiny than their white counterparts and discipline imposed has been more severe.
154. Tolor has opposed these discriminatory practices on his own behalf and on behalf of
other similarly situated minority employees. In response, Tolor has lost opportunities, been
155. For example, but not by way of limitation, the Assistant Manager of Maintenance for
the Southside Wastewater Treatment Plant sought to bribe Tolor to discredit another City
employee’s claims that the Assistant City Manager cheated in connection with the promotion
process. When the bribery was exposed, the Assistant Manager was transferred to another
facility instead of being terminated. This incident was indicative of the harassment, intimidation,
and retribution suffered by Tolor at the hands of the City.
M. NGUYEN
156. Nguyen is an Asian-American male currently employed as an Instrumentation Tech
for the Wastewater Division of the City of Dallas Water Utilities.
157. Throughout his employment, he has been exposed to a hostile work environment
based on his race, color, and/or national origin.
158. Nguyen is paid less than his white counterparts for the same or similar work, despite
his seniority and superior performance. Nguyen has complained of the discriminatory pay
disparity, but the City has failed to address his complaints.
-25-
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
159. Nguyen has been subjected to racially motivated threats, intimidation and harassment
including, but not limited to: racially motivated verbal abuse, the threat of discharge, graffiti
containing racial epithets, and prominent display of offensive signs or symbols.
160. Nguyen has witnessed the display of a noose on City property. He has seen graffiti
and drawings referencing the KKK, and has been forced to work near the “SS Redneck”, a boat
which was parked on Water Utilities’ grounds.
161. Nguyen’s employment has been threatened and he has suffered retaliatory animosity
due to his complaints of discrimination and retaliation against the City. For example, but not by
way of limitation, in August 2009 Nguyen and other City employees were told that if
discrimination claims were pursued against the City, the City would privatize its water utilities
operation, resulting in the termination of all Water Utilities employees. Upon information and
belief this was done in order to harass, intimidate and retaliate against Nguyen and the other
Plaintiffs.
fundamentally altering the terms and conditions of employment. The behavior and productivity
of minority employees are routinely subjected to more rigorous scrutiny than their white
counterparts and discipline imposed for violations are more severe.
163. Nguyen has opposed these discriminatory practices on his own behalf and on behalf
of other similarly situated minority employees. In response, Nguyen has lost opportunities, been
-26-
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
CAUSES OF ACTION
Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et. seq. of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
as amended and 42 U.S.C § 2000e et. seq.
164. Each Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations contained in the paragraphs
above, as if fully set forth herein.
165. The conduct alleged herein violates Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et. seq as
Defendant has engaged in the practice of discrimination and retaliation against each of the
Plaintiffs.
166. Each Plaintiff’s requests for relief are set forth below.
42 U.S.C. §1981
167. Each Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations contained in the paragraphs
above, as if fully set forth herein.
168. The conduct alleged herein violates Section 1981 of the United States Code as the
Defendant has engaged in the practice of discrimination and retaliation against the Plaintiffs.
169. Each of the Plaintiff’s requests for relief is set forth below.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against the Defendant as follows:
• Preliminary and permanent injunctions against the Defendant and their officers, agents,
successors, employees, representatives, and any and all persons acting in concert with
them, from engaging in each of the unlawful practices, policies, customs, and usages set
forth herein;
-27-
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
• A judgment declaring that the practices complained of herein are unlawful and in
violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 et seq.; the 1991
Civil Rights Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a et seq.; Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, as amended and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.
• Granting an order restraining Defendant from any retaliation in any form against
Plaintiffs for participation in this litigation;
• All damages which Plaintiffs have sustained as a result of Defendant’s conduct, including
back pay, front pay, general and special damages for lost compensation, and job benefits
they would have received but for Defendant’s discriminatory practices, and for emotional
distress, humiliation, embarrassment, and anguish;
• Front pay to the Plaintiffs until such time as they can be placed into the same position,
title and grade they would now occupy but for Defendant’s discriminatory practices;
• Exemplary and punitive damages in an amount commensurate with Defendant’s ability
and so as to deter future malicious, reckless and/or intentional conduct;
• Awarding Plaintiffs their costs and disbursements incurred in connection with this action,
including reasonable attorneys’ fees, expert witness fees and other costs;
• Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, as provided by law; and
• Granting Plaintiffs other and further relief as this Court finds necessary and proper.
-28-
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
Dated: December 16, 2009 Respectfully submitted,
DiNovo Price Ellwanger & Hardy LLP

400 South Zang Blvd.
Suite 1202
Dallas, Texas 75208
(214) 948-3334
(214) 853-9410 (fax)
By: /s/ Jay D. Ellwanger__________

Jay D. Ellwanger
Texas State Bar No. 24036522
OF COUNSEL:
James Vagnini
Valli Kane & Vagnini, LLP
600 Old Country Road, Suite 519
Garden City, New York 11530
(516) 203-7180
(516) 706-0248 (fax)
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
-29-
ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Leroy White Et Al V City of Dallas

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

Leroy White Et Al V City of Dallas

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 3:09-cv-02395-F Document 1 Filed 12/16/09 Page 1 of 29 PageID 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

LEROY WHITE, TERRENCE MARSHALL,

Plaintiffs Leroy White (“White”), Terrence Marshall (“Marshall”), Arturo Garza

(“Garza” ), Clement Bernard (“Bernard”), Faye Jackson (“Jackson”), James Yellowfish

(“Yellowfish”), Jewell Taylor (“Taylor”), Kevin Gillum (“Gillum”), Kevin McArthur

as Plaintiffs’ claims against the City of Dallas (“the City” or “Dallas”).

2. Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1981 et seq., as amended and 42 U.S.C. § 1981a et seq., as amended.

4. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3), inasmuch as this

and is a resident of the State of Texas.

6. Plaintiff Marshall is a person who has been aggrieved by Defendant’s actions. He is

America and is a resident of the State of Texas.

resident of the State of Texas.

8. Plaintiff Bernard is a person who has been aggrieved by Defendant’s actions. He is

America and is a resident of the State of Texas.

American and a resident of the State of Texas.

America and is a resident of the State of Texas.

America and a resident of the State of Texas.

America and is a resident of the State of Texas.

of America and is a resident of the State of Texas.

America and is a resident of the State of Texas.

America and is a resident of the State of Texas.

America and is a resident of the State of Texas.

America and is a resident of the State of Texas.

employer conducting business in the State of Texas.

EXHAUSTION OF FEDERAL ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

the EEOC, which was ultimately referred to the Department of Justice.

or about September 23, 2009.

the EEOC, which was ultimately referred to the Department of Justice.

on or about September 23, 2009.

23. On or about November 7, 2008, Plaintiff Garza filed a complaint of discrimination

about September 23, 2009.

or about September 23, 2009.

the EEOC, which was ultimately referred to the Department of Justice.

or about September 23, 2009.

on or about September 23, 2009.

the EEOC, which was ultimately referred to the Department of Justice.

or about September 23, 2009.

the EEOC, which was ultimately referred to the Department of Justice.

or about September 23, 2009.

on or about September 23, 2009.

the EEOC, which was ultimately referred to the Department of Justice.

about September 23, 2009.

EEOC, which was ultimately referred to the Department of Justice.

about September 23, 2009.

the EEOC, which was ultimately referred to the Department of Justice.

or about September 23, 2009.

the EEOC, which was ultimately referred to the Department of Justice.

or about September 23, 2009.

45. White is an African-American male employed as a High Voltage Control Electrician

for the City of Dallas Water Utilities.

based on his race, color, and/or national origin.

racial epithets, and racially charged articles.

called in to a department meeting. At the meeting, White’s complaints of discrimination and

about the incident in writing to the City’s Director of Human Resources.

given instead to a white employee without White’s education, experience or credentials. No

legitimate business reason was given.

56. Plaintiff Marshall is an African-American male employed as an Instrumentation Tech

by the City of Dallas Water Utilities.