Murray V Fouts

Case 2:19-cv-13010-GAD-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/14/19 PageID.
1 Page 1 of 22
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
GREGORY MURRAY, Case No. 2:19-cv-13010
Plaintiff,
v.
JURY DEMAND
CITY OF WARREN, MAYOR JAMES
FOUTS, AND FORMER POLICE
COMMISSIONER JERE GREEN,
Defendants.
JONATHAN R. MARKO (P72450)

MARKO LAW, PLLC
Attorneys for Plaintiff
27735 Jefferson
St. Clair Shores, MI 48081
313.777.7528 phone
313.771.5785 fax
[email protected]
_____________________________________________________________________________
A civil action against the above named Defendants arising out of

the same or substantially similar transactions or occurences has
previously been filed in the Court. The case number is 17-11260
and the assigned judge is the Honorable Terence G. Berg.
______________________________________________________________________________
COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff Gregory Murray (“Plaintiff”) through his attorneys, Marko Law
PLLC, for his Complaint against Defendant City of Warren; Mayor James Fouts,
Former Police Commissioner Jere Green (acting in their individual capacity),
(collectively, “Defendants”), states as follows:
1
Case 2:19-cv-13010-GAD-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/14/19 PageID.2 Page 2 of 22
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,
42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. (“Title VII”), and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of
1991, for unlawful employment practices and creating a hostile work
environment on the basis of race, to provide appropriate relief to Plaintiff, an
employee of Defendants who was adversely affected by such practices.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants subjected him to a hostile work environment
that altered the terms and conditions of his employment because of his race.
Plaintiff further alleges that these actions deprived his of certain civil rights to
which he was entitled, in violation of Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of
1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42
U.S.C. § 1983.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and
1343(a)(3). This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
2000e-5(f)(1), 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 1985, and 42
U.S.C. § 1988.
3. Venue is proper in this Court because the discrimination and retaliation
practices hereafter alleged to be unlawful were committed within the
jurisdiction of this District.
2
PARTIES
4. Plaintiff is African American. Plaintiff began his employment with the
Defendant City of Warren on January 6, 2017.
5. Plaintiff was the first African American Diversity and Inclusion Coordinator to
ever be employed in the history of the Defendant City of Warren.
6. At all times herein, all the individually named and identified Defendants acted
under color of state law, within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
7. At all times herein, all the individually named and identified Defendants acted
pursuant to a conspiracy to deprive the Plaintiff of his constitutional rights
based on invidious racial animus.
8. At all times herein, Defendants attempted and, indeed, did deprive Plaintiff of
his rights to make and enforce his contract of employment, such as is enjoyed
by white persons, within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
9. At all relevant times, each Defendant has been an “employer” of Plaintiff within
the meaning of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b).
10. At all relevant times, Plaintiff has been an “employee” of Defendants within
the meaning of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(f).
FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS
11. Since Plaintiff’s employment began as the first African American Diversity and
Inclusion Coordinator, in the Defendant City of Warren, Plaintiff has been
3
constantly subjected to the Defendant City of Warren’s custom, policy and
practice of racial discrimination and disparate treatment due to lack of training
and other conduct by the Defendants Mayor Fouts and other department heads.
12. Defendant City of Warren has a notorious history of racially discriminatory
practices customs and policies against African Americans. That custom, policy,
and practice of racial discrimination has been publicly evidenced, for example,
through racially disparaging and insulting comments reportedly made by the
Defendant Mayor Fouts and Defendant Former Police Commissioner Green
and other Department Heads of the Defendant City of Warren.
13. The customs, practices, and policies of unlawful racial and gender
discrimination by the Defendant City of Warren, particularly in its police and
fire department, has also been evidenced by its failure to correct, discipline,
retrain and/or supervise the individual Defendants herein, the Warren Police
and Fire Department (Departments) supervisors and knowledge–through the
notice and knowledge provided to the highest level and final policy makers
within the Department—of the following series of events, among others, and
widespread throughout the Department.
14. Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant City of Warren was to institute
diversity and inclusion training throughout Defendant City of Warren Police,
Fire and other Departments.
4
15. Because of Defendant City of Warren history of past customs, practices, and
policies of unlawful racial, gender and other discrimination Plaintiff was
employed to examine past and current customs, practices, and policies of
unlawful racial, gender, and other discrimination and develop training and
policy that would promote diversity.
16. Plaintiff was additionally charged to promote diversity and inclusion in the City
of Warren work force, including the police department, the fire department and
all other city departments and functions by developing and enforcing policies
and programs to attract, retain and promote a diverse work force in which
employees’ value and respect differences in the workplace, and in interactions
with the public.
17. Additionally, Plaintiff was to investigate or assist in the investigation of
inappropriate, improper or illegal activities that impair diversity and inclusion
in the police department, the fire department and other city departments and
functions, and where appropriate, recommend necessary remedial actions.
18. When Plaintiff began to investigate the following incidents, his efforts were
thwarted by Defendants past customs, practices, and policies of unlawful racial
and gender discrimination;
a) Barbara Beyer admitted responsibility for her repeated use of the
racially derogatory word, "Nigger," in the presence of Officer
5
Desheila Howlett, no definitive disciplinary action was imposed
against her until several weeks after the incident. Due to the severity
of the conduct, which Plaintiff believed violated civil rights laws,
Plaintiff recommended immediate dismissal of Ms. Beyer.
Plaintiff’s recommendation was rejected by Defendant Fouts.
Instead, Beyer only received an unpaid two-week suspension that
was imposed only after she had received her annual longevity
(bonus) check.
b) Shawn Johnson repeatedly used inappropriate racial slurs,
including—among other things-- telling an African American co-
worker Desheila Howlett that she looked like the image on the
gorilla glue bottle:
Plaintiff recommended that Johnson immediately be terminated. Again,
Defendant Fouts rejected Plaintiff’s recommendation. Instead of imposing
discipline appropriate to the serious nature of the racial discrimination and animus,
6
Shawn Johnson’s racial misconduct was swept under the rug and nearly a year-and-
a-half after the incidents, Johnson attended a one-day diversity training with
Plaintiff.
c) Around September of 2017, Plaintiff received a complaint from the
former Director of the Michigan Department of Deaf, Blind, and
Hard of Hearing, alleging that Warren police officers violated
federal state and civil rights laws by denying African American
residents access to an interpreter, as required by law. As part of his
job duties, Plaintiff conducted an investigation into the civil rights
violations and found that the Warren police did indeed violate civil
rights laws. Plaintiff reported the violations to Defendant Fouts, the
police chief, and the City Attorney. Defendant Fouts demanded that
Plaintiff cease any further engagement with Warren police officers
relative to his investigation, thus effectively preventing Plaintiff
from performing his job duties and properly investigating civil
rights violations.
d) In early 2017 it came to Plaintiff’s attention that a Warren fire
department official, referred to firefighter Jose Suarez as the
station’s “house nigger”. The official was not disciplined for this
discriminatory harassment. When Plaintiff discovered the violation,
7
he recommended immediate termination to Defendant Fouts.
Defendants rejected this recommendation.
e) In August 2017, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC) came in to the City of Warren to conduct a training.
Defendant Fouts mocked a person with disabilities at the training in
front of his executive staff including the Plaintiff, by “flailing his
hands” and disparagingly mimicked a person with Tourette’s
syndrome. Plaintiff confronted Defendant Fouts immediately after
the training about his inappropriate behavior. As a result of
Plaintiff’s complaint, Defendant Fouts prohibited Plaintiff from
conducting further trainings.
f) Plaintiff attempted to form a diversity commission to address the
illegal discriminatory practices of the City of Warren. Defendant
Fouts prevented Plaintiff from forming the diversity commission to
address racial and discriminatory practices and policies in the City
of Warren.
19. When addressing the institutional racism and the lack of training within the
Defendant City of Warren, Plaintiff was ignored then retaliated against even
though he had been hired by Defendant City of Warren to address unlawful
racial and gender discriminatory employment practices are institutional within
8
the Defendant City of Warren and City of Warren Police and Fire Departments.
20. When Plaintiff reported unlawful discrimination to Defendant Mayor Fouts.
Plaintiff was told by Defendant Fouts to ignore it until after the elections
because Warren voters might vote the Defendant Mayor Fouts out of office if
he allowed Plaintiff to address unlawful discrimination.
21. Plaintiff identified and reported to former Police Chief Green that unlawful
discrimination had occurred at the Defendant City of Warren police
Department. Former Police Chief Green refused to address the unlawful
discrimination. Plaintiff assisted the victims of that discrimination in filing a
complaint against the Defendant City of Warren Police Department. That
Plaintiff was retaliated against as a result of assisting in identifying and filing a
complaint of unlawful discrimination.
22. It is not surprising that the Defendant City of Warren was not addressing illegal
and institutional racism, gender and other discrimination considering Defendant
Mayor Fouts comment or the years for example:
a) Regarding African Americans “blacks do look like

chimpanzees.”
b) Regarding women “Think I want to date a f****** 60-year-

old hag?
c) And "hateful dried-up c****."
d) And having a romantic relationship with a subordinate

employee, who received substantial increase in her
9
compensation from the City during that relationship.
e) Asking to speak with African American Detroit Mayor

Kwame Kilpatrick, “I want to speak to that nigger”
COUNT I
Violation of Title VII – Discrimination Based on Race
23. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 22.
24. At all relevant times, there was in effect a federal statute, the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., which provides:
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer –
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or discharge any individual, or otherwise

to discriminate against any individual with respect to his
compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment,
because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national
origin; or
(2)to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for

employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive
any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise
adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such
individual’s race, color, religion, sex or national origin.
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a).
25. Defendants were aware, or should have been aware, of Title VII and that it is
illegal to treat an employee differently because of the employee’s race.
26. During Plaintiff’s employment with Defendants, he was subjected to acts of
racial discrimination by Defendants’ employees, supervisors, and Mayor.
27. This illegal discrimination created a hostile and abusive work environment for
Plaintiff.
10
28. Defendants’ actions as set forth above were willful, intentional and/or made in
reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s rights.
29. Defendants’ conduct as described above constitutes a willful violation of Title
VII.
30. Plaintiff was subjected to adverse employment actions, including being
unlawfully terminated and/or constructively discharged.
31. Plaintiff was retaliated against for engaging in protected activities, including
but not limited to civil rights investigations and insisting on compliance with
civil rights laws.
32. As a direct and proximate result of the unconstitutional and illegal acts of the
Defendants, as alleged herein, Plaintiff has sustained a violation of his right to
a work environment free of unlawful racial discrimination and, as a result, is
entitled to damages as set forth in the damages section of his complaint.
COUNT II
Violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983 – Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection
33. Plaintiff herein re-alleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1-30 above:
34. At all times herein, the individually named and identified Defendants herein
intentionally discriminated against the Plaintiff based on his race in all manner
of ways as set forth herein all in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983;
35. As a direct and proximate result of the unconstitutional acts of the Defendants
as alleged herein, Plaintiff has sustained a violation of his right to equal

11
protection of the law and, as a result, is entitled to damages as set forth in the
damages section of his complaint.
COUNT III
Violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983 – Fourteenth Amendment Due Process
36. Plaintiff herein re-alleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1-33 above:
37. At all times herein Defendants owed to Plaintiff a duty to protect his both from
the antagonism, and racism.
38. Defendants purposely refused and failed to provide the necessary help and
assistance to eliminate the institutional discrimination based on past customs,
practices, and policies of unlawful racial, gender and other discrimination.
39. The Defendants aforementioned failure and refusal was based on the antagonism
and hostility to the Plaintiff based on his race.
40. In so doing the Defendants purposely refused and failed to provide the necessary
help and assistance to eliminate the institutional discrimination based on past
customs, practices, and policies of unlawful racial, gender and other
discrimination. As such, these Defendants violated the rights of Plaintiff to
substantive due process, as secured by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United
States Constitution and by 42 U.S.C. §1983.
12
COUNT IV
Violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983 – Monell Liability – City Of Warren
42. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1-41 above;
43. At all times herein, the Defendant City of Warren maintained a series of
policies, customs, and practices which individually and collectively constituted
a moving force in the constitutional violations asserted herein, including but not
limited to:
a. Direct humiliating, outrageous, racist, and belittling antagonism
toward African Americans.
b. Failure to train its employees as to the mandatory requirement that
racist, sexist and other discriminatory practices are inexcusable and
will be responded to with outright discharge;
c. Failure to train its employees with regard to the use of hostile
statements and verbalisms directed against African Americans,
women and persons with protected disabilities;
d. Failure to address known complaints of actions and remarks by its
police officers directed at African Americans, women and persons
with protected disabilities;
e. Failure, amounting to a refusal, to discipline its employees for
engaging in humiliating, outrageous, racist, and belittling actions

13
directed at African Americans, women and persons with protected
disabilities.
44. These customs, policies, and practices of the Defendant City of Warren were a
moving force in the constitutional violations inflicted by the individual
Defendants upon the Plaintiff, as set forth herein, above;
damages section of his complaints.
COUNT V
Violation of 42 U.S.C. §1985 – Conspiracy Invidious Racial Animus
47. At all times, herein, these Defendants agreed and conspired to violate the
Plaintiff’s rights secured by the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution;
48. This agreement and conspiracy, and the actions undertaken pursuant to this
agreement and conspiracy, were so done based upon an invidious racial animus
directed at the Plaintiff;
49. As such the Defendants violated Plaintiff’s rights that are guaranteed and made
actionable under 42 U.S.C. §1985;
14
COUNT VI
Violation of 42 U.S.C. §1981 – The Right To Make And Enforce Contracts
52. At all times herein the Plaintiff had entered into a contract of employment with
the Defendant, City of Warren.
53. These Defendants undertook, instead, to turn that contract into an employment
situation wherein the Plaintiff was subjected to a racially hostile and toxic work
environment that inflicted upon his humiliation, and racism, as set forth above
herein–whereby his right to make and enforce his contract with the City of
Warren was afflicted, diminished, and undermined thereby creating a situation
where Plaintiff’s rights were far less than and not the same as those enjoyed by
white persons, in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1981;
as alleged herein, Plaintiff has sustained a violation of his right to make and
enforce contracts and, as a result, is entitled to damages as set forth in the
damages section of our complaint.
15
COUNT VII
COMMON LAW BREACH OF CONTRACT
56. At all times herein the Plaintiff had entered into a contract of employment
with the Defendant, City of Warren on January 6, 2017.
57. That Defendant City of Warren breached that contract by adding additional
duties to Plaintiff’s job that were not include in the contract job description,
refusing to allow Plaintiff to do his job that was defined in the job description
and thwarting his ability to institute policy and procedure that would address
the institutional discrimination that he was hired to address and resolve.
58. That Defendant City of Warren and Mayor Fouts breached the contract with
Plaintiff by refusing to allow Plaintiff to fulfill his contractual obligation
being more concerned with political fallout in upsetting Warren citizens.
59. As a direct and proximate result of the breach of contract Defendants as
alleged herein, Plaintiff has sustained damages as set forth in the damages
section of our complaint.
COUNT VIII
PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL
61. Defendant City of Warren and Defendant Mayor Fouts made a clear and
unambiguous promise to Plaintiff that in his position as Diversity and
16
Inclusion Coordinator he would be able to address the institutional racism
that exist at the Defendant City of Warren Police, Fire and other
departments.
62. Plaintiff reasonably and justifiably relied on said promises and put his trust
in Defendant City of Warren and Defendant Mayor Fouts that it would fulfill
its promises.
63. Defendant City of Warren and Defendant Mayor Fouts did not perform its
promise to allow Plaintiff to address the institutional racism that exist in the
Defendant City of Warren’s Police, Fire and Other Departments, being more
concerned with political fallout in upsetting votes.
64. Plaintiff’s reliance on Defendants promises was a substantial factor in
causing Plaintiff’s harm as alleged herein.
65. As a direct and proximate result of Promissory Estoppel, Defendants as
alleged herein, Plaintiff has sustained damages as set forth in the damages
section of our complaint
COUNT IX
VIOLATION OF MICHIGAN ELLIOT-LARSEN CIVIL RIGHTS
ACT- DISPARATE TREMANT
67. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was an employee and Defendants were an
“employer” within the meaning of Michigan’s Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights
17
Act (“ECLRA”), MCL 37.2101, et seq.
68. At all relevant times, under the ELCRA, Plaintiff had a right to employment
free from discrimination based on his race.
69. Defendants, through its agents, representatives, and employees, was
predisposed to discriminate on the basis of race and acted in accordance with
that predisposition.
70. Defendants, through its agents, representatives, and employees, treated Plaintiff
differently from similarly situated Caucasian employees in the terms and
conditions of employment, on the unlawful basis of race.
71. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful actions, Plaintiffs have
suffered and continues to suffer injuries and damages.
COUNT X
VIOLATION OF MICHIGAN ELLIOT-LARSEN CIVIL RIGHTS ACT
73. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was an “employee” and Defendant was an
“employer” within the meaning of ECLRA, MCL 37.2101, et seq.
74. Plaintiff was subjected to unwelcome conduct due to his race.
75. Plaintiff complained about the unwelcome conduct, stating that it was based on
his racial status.
76. The Defendant violated Plaintiff’s rights under the ELCRA by allowing the
unwelcome conduct to affect a term or condition of employment, including
18
unreasonably interfering with Plaintiff’s work performance, and thus creating an
intimidating and hostile work environment.
77. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant’s unlawful actions, Plaintiff has
sustained and continues to sustain injuries and damages.
COUNT XI
VIOLATION OF MICHIGAN ELLIOT-LARSEN CIVIL RIGHTS ACT
RETALIATION
79. Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff for filing complaints regarding Defendants’
discriminatory and unlawful practices.
80. Defendants’ actions were intentional, with reckless indifference to Plaintiff’s
rights and sensibilities.
81. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s actions, Plaintiff has suffered and
continues to suffer damages and injuries.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff request that this Court enter judgment against Defendants,
providing the following relief:
a. Back-pay, with prejudgment interest;
b. Front-pay;
c. Compensatory damages in whatever amount that Plaintiff is found to
be entitled;
d. An injunction requiring Defendants to cease and desist all unlawful
racial and within the City Warren;
19
e. An injunction barring Defendant from taking any further
discriminatory or retaliatory actions or omissions against Plaintiff;
f. An award of reasonable attorney’s fees, expenses, and costs;
g. Other appropriate nondiscriminatory measures to overcome the above
described discrimination; and
h. Such other and further relief that the Court deems appropriate.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Jonathan R. Marko

MARKO LAW, PLLC
27735 Jefferson Ave
313.777.7528 phone
313.771.5785 fax
[email protected]
Dated October 14, 2019
20
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHISN DIVISION
GREGORY MURRAY,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF WARREN;
Defendants.

MARKO LAW, PLLC
27735 Jefferson
313.777.7528 phone
313.771.5785 fax
[email protected]
______________________________________________________________________________
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff Gregory Murray (“Plaintiff”) through his attorneys, Marko Law
PLLC and hereby demands a jury trial in this cause.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Jonathan R. Marko

MARKO LAW, PLLC
27735 Jefferson Ave
313.777.7528 phone
313.771.5785 fax
[email protected]
Dated October 14, 2019
21
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on October 14, 2019, I presented the foregoing paper
to this Court’s ECF System which will send notification of such filing to
the above listed attorneys of record.
/s/ Marissa A. Williams
22

Murray V Fouts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Murray V Fouts

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

Murray V Fouts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:19-cv-13010-GAD-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/14/19 PageID.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

GREGORY MURRAY, Case No. 2:19-cv-13010

JONATHAN R. MARKO (P72450)

A civil action against the above named Defendants arising out of

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff Gregory Murray (“Plaintiff”) through his attorneys, Marko Law

Former Police Commissioner Jere Green (acting in their individual capacity),

(collectively, “Defendants”), states as follows:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1991, for unlawful employment practices and creating a hostile work

environment on the basis of race, to provide appropriate relief to Plaintiff, an

employee of Defendants who was adversely affected by such practices.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants subjected him to a hostile work environment

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and

1343(a)(3). This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

2000e-5(f)(1), 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 1985, and 42

3. Venue is proper in this Court because the discrimination and retaliation

practices hereafter alleged to be unlawful were committed within the

jurisdiction of this District.

4. Plaintiff is African American. Plaintiff began his employment with the

Defendant City of Warren on January 6, 2017.

ever be employed in the history of the Defendant City of Warren.

under color of state law, within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

pursuant to a conspiracy to deprive the Plaintiff of his constitutional rights

based on invidious racial animus.

by white persons, within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1981.

the meaning of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b).

the meaning of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(f).

FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

Inclusion Coordinator, in the Defendant City of Warren, Plaintiff has been

constantly subjected to the Defendant City of Warren’s custom, policy and

practice of racial discrimination and disparate treatment due to lack of training

12. Defendant City of Warren has a notorious history of racially discriminatory

through racially disparaging and insulting comments reportedly made by the

Defendant Mayor Fouts and Defendant Former Police Commissioner Green

and other Department Heads of the Defendant City of Warren.

discrimination by the Defendant City of Warren, particularly in its police and

and Fire Department (Departments) supervisors and knowledge–through the

widespread throughout the Department.

14. Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant City of Warren was to institute

diversity and inclusion training throughout Defendant City of Warren Police,

Fire and other Departments.

policies of unlawful racial, gender and other discrimination Plaintiff was

employed to examine past and current customs, practices, and policies of

policy that would promote diversity.

employees’ value and respect differences in the workplace, and in interactions

with the public.

17. Additionally, Plaintiff was to investigate or assist in the investigation of

inappropriate, improper or illegal activities that impair diversity and inclusion

functions, and where appropriate, recommend necessary remedial actions.

thwarted by Defendants past customs, practices, and policies of unlawful racial

and gender discrimination;

a) Barbara Beyer admitted responsibility for her repeated use of the

racially derogatory word, "Nigger," in the presence of Officer

Desheila Howlett, no definitive disciplinary action was imposed

of the conduct, which Plaintiff believed violated civil rights laws,