Coleman v. City of Toledo
Coleman v. City of Toledo
Coleman v. City of Toledo
PageID #: 1
NOW COMES the Plaintiff, Sammie L. Coleman, Jr., by and through his undersigned
attorney, Norman A. Abood, and for his Complaint against the City of Toledo states as follows:
I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT.
1. Plaintiff, Sammie L. Coleman, Jr. is an African American male who has been employed by
the City of Toledo since October 24, 1994, in the City of Toledo, Division of Streets,
Bridges and Harbor. During his tenure with the City of Toledo, he has been repeatedly and
wrongfully denied promotions based on his race and in retaliation for his having engaged
about July 5, 2017, Mr. Coleman filed a charge of race-based discrimination against the
City of Toledo for having refused to promote him to the position of Alternate General
Foreman and instead promoting a less qualified Caucasian to that position. By decision
Case: 3:21-cv-01834-JRK Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/27/21 2 of 12. PageID #: 2
issued April 26, 2018, the Ohio Civil Rights Commission found there was probable cause
to believe the city had engaged in discriminatory and retaliatory practices against Mr.
Coleman on the issue of Mr. Coleman’s disqualification concerning the Alternate General
Foreman position. Despite this finding of probable cause, no lawsuit was filed.
2. Mr. Coleman continued to seek advancement to the Alternate General Foreman position
and on or about October 7, 2019, was again denied such promotion with its attendant higher
wage and benefit rates in favor of a less qualified Caucasian. Consequently, on or about
October 24, 2019, Mr. Coleman filed another complaint of race-based discrimination and
retaliation with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission and the U.S. Equal Employment
TOL72(40192)1024201/22A-2020-00282C.
3. On August 28, 2020, the Ohio Civil Rights Commission issued its Letter of Determination
finding it probable that the City of Toledo had engaged in an unlawful discriminatory
practice based on race and in retaliation for Mr. Coleman having engaged in a protected
activity (opposing the City’s discriminatory promotion practices). On June 29, 2021, the
U.S. Department of Justice Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued its notice
of right to institute civil action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended,
42 U.S.C. 2000e, et seq., against the City of Toledo, Division of Streets, Bridges & Harbor.
4. Mr. Coleman brings this action seeking redress for the economic and personal injuries
arising from the City of Toledo’s unlawful discriminatory and retaliatory acts against him
in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2 (Title VII), 42
U.S.C. §§s1981 (Equal Rights under the Law), 1988 (Civil Rights Attorney Fee Award
5. Plaintiff repeats and reiterates each and every allegation set forth in hereinabove as if fully
rewritten herein.
6. Plaintiff, Sammie L. Coleman, Jr. (“Sammie Coleman”) is an African American male who
at all times relevant hereto has resided within the City of Toledo, Lucas County, Ohio.
7. Plaintiff, Sammie Coleman, is a member of a protected class under the civil rights laws of
9. The Defendant City is an entity, whether licensed or not, whether incorporated or not, and
has been doing business within the County of Lucas, State of Ohio, at all times material
herein.
10. This action arises under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2 (Title
VII), 42 U.S.C. §§s1981 (Equal Rights under the Law), and 1988 (Civil Rights Attorney
Fee Award Act of 1976), as well as O.R.C. §4112.02 (Unlawful Discriminatory Practices).
11. This Court has original jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331 (Federal
12. Plaintiff timely filed a Charge of race-based discrimination and retaliation for engaging in
a protected activity with the OCRC and EEOC through the OCRC Toledo Field Office on
00282C.
Case: 3:21-cv-01834-JRK Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/27/21 4 of 12. PageID #: 4
13. On August 28, 2020, the Ohio Civil Rights Commission issued its Letter of Determination
finding probable cause to believe that the Sammie Coleman had been denied promotion to
the Alternate Gen. Foreman position based on his race and in retaliation for having
14. A true and accurate copy of the August 28, 2020 Ohio Civil Rights Commission Letter of
15. After Mr. Coleman withdrew his charge from the Ohio Civil Rights Commission, the Ohio
civil rights commission issued a second Letter of Determination with a Notice of Right to
16. A true and accurate copy of the October 22, 2020 Ohio Civil Rights Commission Notice
of Right to Sue \is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit 2.
17. By correspondence dated June 29, 2021, the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights
Division issued Mr. Coleman issued its Notice of Right to Sue in case no. 22A20200282.
18. A true and accurate copy of the June 29, 2021 U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights
Division Notice of Right to Sue in case no. 22A20200282 is attached hereto and made a
19. The Court has original jurisdiction over Title VII claims filed within 90 days of a charging
party’s (Plaintiff herein) receipt of the EEOC’s right to sue letter and, thus, this Court has
20. The Court has pendent jurisdiction over discriminatory practice claims arising under
21. Venue for this action properly lies in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio, Western Division (Toledo), pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §1391(b) because the
Case: 3:21-cv-01834-JRK Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/27/21 5 of 12. PageID #: 5
Defendant is located within the State of Ohio and this judicial district (29 U.S.C.
§1391(b)(1)), the claims at issue arose in this judicial district (29 U.S.C. §1391(b)(2)) and
IV. FACTS
22. Plaintiff repeats and reiterates each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through
23. On or about October 24, 1994, the Defendant City of Toledo hired Sammie Coleman to
24. During his term of employment with the City, Plaintiff has been repeatedly exposed to acts
of discrimination, including, but not limited to being told he would never be promoted so
long as he wore is hair in an afro style, being referred to as “Mokey” and “Don King”, and
being subjected to unjustified discipline which has also been different than the disciplinary
25. Subsequent to being hired by the City of Toledo, Mr. Coleman has sought promotion to
the position of temporary Alternate Gen. Foreman, a position paying a higher wage and
26. Since being hired, Sammie Coleman has been repeatedly passed over, on more than one
occasion, for promotion and has been denied assignment to the temporary Alternate Gen.
Foreman position.
27. The Alternate Gen. Foreman position is a position within the City of Toledo commonly
28. The City recognizes Local 7, AFSCME (AFL-CIO) Ohio Council 8 (“Local7”), as having
jurisdiction over and being the sole and exclusive bargaining agent for the employees for
29. The Collective Bargaining Agreement between the City and Local 7 is codified in the
30. The Local 7 Agreement with the City governs the process by which a Local 7 member
31. TMC 2117.51 specifies that in the event an alternate is needed for a “Local 2058” position
the City may choose among those employees in the next lower classification/salary group
with valid approved alternate paperwork and willing to accept the appointment.
32. A Local 2058 position falls under the Agreement between the City and the Supervisory,
Supervisors and Ohio Council 8 of the American Federation of State, County and
33. Pursuant to TMC 2117.51, seniority and whether an employee is currently in a disciplinary
step are factors to be considered in assigning a Local 7-member to a Local 2058 position.
34. Despite Sammie Coleman having more seniority, the City chose another employee who is
Caucasian, instead of Mr. Coleman, to fill the temporary Alternate Gen. Foreman position,
which Caucasian accepted the position on October 7, 2019 and received a wage increase.
35. The Caucasian chosen over Sammie Coleman was also in disciplinary mode, on a Last
Chance Agreement and had been in disciplinary mode since October 5, 2017.
Case: 3:21-cv-01834-JRK Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/27/21 7 of 12. PageID #: 7
36. By utilizing Plaintiff’s disciplinary record against him at the same time as not utilizing a
37. The City has a history of choosing this particular Caucasian employee over African-
American employees for assignment to the temporary Alternate Gen. Foreman position.
38. By denying plaintiff assignment to the temporary alternate Gen. Foreman position, the city
39. In addition to holding Plaintiff to a different, i.e., higher standard of performance for
qualification for promotion and/or assignment to the temporary alternate Gen. Foreman
position then a similarly situated Caucasian employee, the City retaliated against Plaintiff
for having engaged in protected activity, i.e., opposing the City’s discriminatory.
Employment practices.
40. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s discriminatory actions against Plaintiff as
aforesaid, Plaintiff has suffered a loss of employment opportunity, loss of income, loss of
41. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s discriminatory actions against Plaintiff as
aforesaid, Plaintiff has suffered severe emotional, psychological and physical duress,
42. Plaintiff has timely exhausted all administrative remedies available to him in the pursuit of
44. As detailed herein above, Defendant’s acts of discrimination against Plaintiff were
purposeful and undertaken with the discriminatory intent to deprive Plaintiff of his rights
45. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s wrongful and discriminatory actions as
aforesaid, Plaintiff has suffered discrimination, including, but not limited to, the loss of
employment opportunities, in violation of the United States laws and the laws of the State
of Ohio.
46. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s wrongful and discriminatory actions as
aforesaid, Plaintiff has been denied due process of law in violation of the United States
47. 42 U.S.C. §1988(b) allows for the award of attorney fees in an action to enforce 42
U.S.C.§§s 1981-1983, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d
et seq.).
48. 42 U.S.C. §1988(c) allows for the award of expert fees as part of an attorney’s fee award
COUNT ONE
(42 U.S.C. §1981)
49. Plaintiff repeats and reiterates each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through
50. At all times material herein, Plaintiff was qualified for the position of employment he held
51. Caucasian employees of the same employer as Plaintiff, having the same or similar
qualifications as Plaintiff were not subjected to the racially charged hostile work
52. 42 U.S.C. §1981 prohibits intentional race discrimination in the making and enforcing of
contracts involving both public and private actors and provides a cause of action for both
53. As detailed above, Plaintiff belongs to an identifiable class of persons who are and have
54. As detailed above, Defendant knew of and refused to timely remediate the racially charged
55. Defendant intended to and in fact did discriminate against Plaintiff on the basis of his
opportunities for which he was qualified in retaliation for his undertaking the protected
57. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s wrongful and discriminatory actions as
aforesaid, Plaintiff suffered a materially adverse change in the terms and/or conditions of
his employment with the City in violation of the United States laws and the laws of the
State of Ohio.
58. As detailed above, Defendant’s discriminatory conduct towards Plaintiff (1) abridged
Plaintiff’s right to contract with the City free from discrimination, and/or (2) to have and
enjoy the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of her property
and punitive damages, as well an award of attorney fees and costs reasonably incurred
herein.
COUNT TWO
(42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a)(1), Title VII)
60. Plaintiff repeats and reiterates each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through
61. 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits employers from discriminating against any individual
62. At all times material herein, Defendant was Plaintiff’s employer for purposes of Plaintiff
63. Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff by exposing him to, promoting and refusing to
stop the racially charged, hostile work environment to which he was exposed because he
employment and retaliation for his undertaking the protected activity, i.e., challenging the
aforesaid, Plaintiff is entitled to judgment against the City for actual, compensatory and
punitive damages, as well an award of attorney fees and costs reasonably incurred herein.
COUNT THREE
(Unlawful Discrimination under O.R.C. §4112.02)
66. Plaintiff repeats and reiterates each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through
67. Pursuant to O.R.C. §4112.02, “It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice: (A) for any
employer, because of the race, color, religion, sex, military status, national origin,
disability, age, or ancestry of any person, to discharge without just cause, to refuse to hire,
or otherwise to discriminate against that person with respect to higher, tenure, terms,
employment.”
69. Defendant unlawfully discriminated against Plaintiff because of his race and/or gender
employment and/or refusing to timely remediate the racially charged hostile work
70. Defendant unlawfully discriminated against Plaintiff by wrongfully denying him advance
in employment in retaliation for his undertaking a protected activity, i.e., challenging the
71. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s discrimination against Plaintiff in violation
compensatory and punitive damages, as well an award of attorney fees and costs reasonably
incurred herein.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendant for actual, compensatory
and punitive damages, reasonable attorney fees and costs, including but not limited to expert fees,
all in such amount as shall be shown at trial upon the merits hereof, and for such other and further
JURY DEMAND