Coleman v. City of Toledo

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 12

Case: 3:21-cv-01834-JRK Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/27/21 1 of 12.

PageID #: 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
(TOLEDO)

SAMMIE L. COLEMAN, JR. ) CASE NO.


841 COLBURN ST. )
TOLEDO, OH 43609 ) JUDGE: HON.
)
PLAINTIFF, )
V. )
)
CITY OF TOLEDO )
ATTN.: DALE EMCH, ESQ. )
DIRECTOR OF LAW )
640 JACKSON ST. )
TOLEDO, OH 43604 )
)
DEFENDANT. )
__________________________________/ ____________________________________/

COMPLAINT WITH DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL ENDORSED HEREUPON


__________________________________________________________________________

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

in a protected activity (opposing the City’s discriminatory promotion practices). On or

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

Opportunity Commission. The case was assigned case number

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

Act of 1976), as well as O.R.C. §4112.02 (Unlawful Discriminatory Practices).


Case: 3:21-cv-01834-JRK Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/27/21 3 of 12. PageID #: 3

II. THE PARTIES

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

the United States and the State of Ohio.

8. The Defendant, (hereinafter referred to as the “City”), operates as a municipality, organized

and existing under the laws of the State of Ohio.

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.

III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

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

Question Jurisdiction) and 28 U.S.C. §1343(a) (Civil Rights Jurisdiction).

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

October 24, 2019, which was assigned charge no. TOL72(40192)1024201/22A-2020-

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

previously filed a charge with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission.

14. A true and accurate copy of the August 28, 2020 Ohio Civil Rights Commission Letter of

Determination is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit 1.

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

Sue dated October 22, 2020.

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

part hereof as Exhibit 3.

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

jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Title VII claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(f)(3).

20. The Court has pendent jurisdiction over discriminatory practice claims arising under

O.R.C. §4112.02 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1343(a)(3).

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

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(f)(3) because the unlawful employment practices were

committed in this judicial district.

IV. FACTS

22. Plaintiff repeats and reiterates each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through

21 hereinabove as if fully rewritten herein.

23. On or about October 24, 1994, the Defendant City of Toledo hired Sammie Coleman to

work in the City of Toledo’s Division of Streets, Bridges and Harbor.

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

practices applied to Caucasian employees.

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

having enhanced benefits over his position of employment.

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

referred to as a “Local 2058” position.


Case: 3:21-cv-01834-JRK Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/27/21 6 of 12. PageID #: 6

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

the City working in Mr. Coleman’s job classification.

29. The Collective Bargaining Agreement between the City and Local 7 is codified in the

Toledo Municipal Code (“TMC”) Chapter 2117.

30. The Local 7 Agreement with the City governs the process by which a Local 7 member

obtains a Local 2058 position.

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,

Technical and Professional Employees Local No. 2058 Communications Operator

Supervisors and Ohio Council 8 of the American Federation of State, County and

Municipal Employees, which agreement is codified in TMC Chapter 2106.

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

Caucasian employee’s disciplinary record as a criterion for selection of the Caucasian

candidate, the City held Plaintiff to a stricter standard for promotion.

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

manipulated plaintiff’s hours of employment (seniority) thereby impairing his eligibility

for promotion to a permanent Gen. Foreman position.

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

benefits, and incurred significant and ongoing attorney fees.

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,

mental anguish, embarrassment, humiliation and damages to reputation.

42. Plaintiff has timely exhausted all administrative remedies available to him in the pursuit of

redress of the wrongs perpetrated upon her by Defendant as aforesaid.

43. As detailed above, Defendant targeted Plaintiff with racial bias.


Case: 3:21-cv-01834-JRK Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/27/21 8 of 12. PageID #: 8

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

under federal and state law.

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

laws and the laws of the State of Ohio.

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

in an action to enforce 42 U.S.C.§§s 1981-1981 (a).

COUNT ONE
(42 U.S.C. §1981)

49. Plaintiff repeats and reiterates each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through

48 hereinabove as if fully rewritten herein.

50. At all times material herein, Plaintiff was qualified for the position of employment he held

and the positions for which he sought with Defendant.

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

environment and/or discriminatory promotional practices as was Plaintiff.


Case: 3:21-cv-01834-JRK Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/27/21 9 of 12. PageID #: 9

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

race-based employment discrimination and retaliation.

53. As detailed above, Plaintiff belongs to an identifiable class of persons who are and have

been subject to discrimination based on their race and sex.

54. As detailed above, Defendant knew of and refused to timely remediate the racially charged

hostile work environment to which Plaintiff was subjected

55. Defendant intended to and in fact did discriminate against Plaintiff on the basis of his

status as an African American male.

56. Defendant unlawfully discriminated against Plaintiff by denying him employment

opportunities for which he was qualified in retaliation for his undertaking the protected

activity, i.e., challenging the City’s discriminatory employment practices.

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

as is enjoyed by white citizens.

59. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s discriminatory conduct in violation of 42

U.S.C. §1981 towards Plaintiff, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of actual, compensatory


Case: 3:21-cv-01834-JRK Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/27/21 10 of 12. PageID #: 10

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

59 hereinabove as if fully rewritten herein.

61. 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a)(1) prohibits employers from discriminating 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.

62. At all times material herein, Defendant was Plaintiff’s employer for purposes of Plaintiff

maintaining an action against Defendant pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a)(1).

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

is an African American female.

64. Defendant unlawfully discriminated against Plaintiff by denying him advancement in

employment and retaliation for his undertaking the protected activity, i.e., challenging the

City’s discriminatory employment practices.

65. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s discrimination against Plaintiff as

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

65 hereinabove as if fully rewritten herein.


Case: 3:21-cv-01834-JRK Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/27/21 11 of 12. PageID #: 11

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,

conditions, or privileges of employment, or any matter directly or indirectly related to

employment.”

68. Defendant City is an Ohio employer.

69. Defendant unlawfully discriminated against Plaintiff because of his race and/or gender

and/or age by discriminating against him as aforesaid, by denying him advancement in

employment and/or refusing to timely remediate the racially charged hostile work

environment in which Plaintiff was forced to work as a condition of his employment.

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

City’s discriminatory employment practices.

71. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s discrimination against Plaintiff in violation

of O.R.C. §4112.02 as aforesaid, Plaintiff is entitled to judgment against Defendant for

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

relief as Court may deem just or equitable.

Dated: September 27, 2021 Respectfully Submitted,


THE LAW OFFICE OF NORMAN A. ABOOD
Case: 3:21-cv-01834-JRK Doc #: 1 Filed: 09/27/21 12 of 12. PageID #: 12

/s/ Norman A. Abood


Norman A. Abood (OH. Sup. Ct. #0029004)
101 Broadcast Building
136 N. Huron Street
Toledo, OH 43604
Phone: 419-724-3700
Fax: 419-724-3701
E-Mail: Norman@nabood.com
- Attorney for Plaintiff, Jacqueline Bell

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff demands trial by jury on all issues so triable herein.

/s/ Norman A. Abood


Norman A. Abood

You might also like