COMPLAINT against DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA with Jury Demand ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0090-3447818) filed by MARK ROBINSON. (Attachments: # 1 Summons, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet)(Bezdicek, Jennifer) (Entered: 08/27/2013)
No tags have been applied so far. Sign in to add some.
There was a problem locating the requested document.
Page 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Mark
Robinson
15627 Chadsey
)
)
)
Lane
Brandywineo MD
20613
)
Plaintiff,
v.)
Case
No. 13-1297
)
)
)
)
The District of Columbia
4414th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
)
)
)
Defendant.
A.ND
COMPLAINT
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
)
COMPLAINT
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL ON ALL ISSUES
COMES NOW Mark Robinson (hereinafter "Plaintiff'), by and through his undersigned
counsel, and alleges against the District of Columbia (hereinafter "Defendant") claims including
violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,as amended by the Civil Rights Act of
1991, and violations of the Federal
Civil Rights Act of 1866,42 U.S.C. $ 1981. Additionally,
Plaintiff sets forth claims under the DC Whistleblower Protection Act, DC ST $
Plaintiff sets forth 'the facts, claims and seeks relief
a
1
-6
15
.5
1.
follows:
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1.
This court has original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $ 133 1, federal question
jurisdiction.
2.
This courl also has supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $ 1367.
3.
Venue in this court is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $ 1391, as Defendant's
misconduct that give rise to Plaintiff s claims occurred in the District of Columbia.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONSPage 2 4.
Plaintiff is an African-American male.
5.
Plaintiff started employment with Defendant
as a police
officer at the
Metropolitan Police Department ("MPD") on April 23,1990.
6.
Plaintiff became Sergeant in 2004.
t.
In November 2006, Plaintiff was detailed to Automated Traffic Enforcement Unit
("ATEU").
8.
In January 2010, Plaintiff informed MPD that Program Manager Lisa Sutter, a
white female, was misappropriating govemment funds and had an improper relationship with a
non-profi t organization.
9.
On or about July 10, 2010, an investigation was started regarding what Plaintiff
reported, and despite significant evidence supporting Plaintiffls complaint, including invoices,
restaurant receipts, witnesses, and e-mail admissions, the investigation was ended for insufficient
facts.
10.
On or about November 29,2010, Ms. Sutter reduced Plaintiff s end of the year
performance evaluation from a 45 (Significantly Exceeds Expectation) for the year before, to a
34 (Exceeds Expectation), giving Plaintiff a rating of 2 (Does Not Meet Expectations) in several
categories. Ms. Sutter provided no documentation or justification for her evaluation.
11.
In2011, Plaintiff was chastised in front of his co-workers and subordinates by
Lisa Sutter on multiple occasions, clearly in response to Plaintiff
12.
s
reporting of her wrongdoing.
On or about June2,20lI, Plaintiff submitted a Complaint to the MPD's Internal
Affairs Division (IAD) about Ms. Sutter improperly voiding citations for certain individuals.
Again, Plaintiff s complaint resulted in no disciplinary action.Page 3 13'
on or about July 27,2011, Plaintifls duties and responsibilities were changed,
wherein, he was n0 longer allowed to supervise subordinates, complete
field assignments, or
interact with contractors and city agencies.
14.
Despite the fact that Plaintiff s duties were changed, Sergeant Schaeffer, a
Caucasian male and an officer similarly situated to
Plaintifl was still allowed to perform the
aforementioned duties.
15.
On or about November
I8,20Ii
and December 6,
20I1,Ms. Sutter sent e-mails
to Plaintiff s subordinates and officials stating that Plaintiff could no longer sign overtime slips,
while Sergeant Schaeffer was still authorized to approve and sign such overtime slips.
16.
On or about November 29,2011, Plaintiff notified MPD that Ms. Sutter set up
Portable Speed Unit (PSU) Sites incorrectly and she was required by MPD to turn them off until
they were brought into compliance.
17
.
On or about December 8, 2071, Plaintiff complained of discrimination to his
superiors at the MPD.
18.
On or about December 12,2071, Plaintiff was summoned to MPD/IAD due to
Complaints filed against him by Ms. Sutter, clearly in retaliation for his reporting her wrongful
activities. Both Complaints were later dismissed for lack of factual support.
19.
On or about December 14,2071, Plaintiff missed a scheduled training
appointment at a gun range, for which he received a PD 750 Dereliction of Duty, requiring
corrective action.
20.
On or about December 18, 2011, Plaintiff was involuntarily detailed to the Special
Events Branch (SEB), being told that ATEU was being civilianized. As a result, plaintiff s salary
was significantly reduced.Page 4 2L
On or about July 11,2\I2,Plaintiff met with Chairman Phil Mendelson at his
office and reported the multiple violations involving Ms. Sutter and MPD's reluctance to
properly investigate or discipline.
22.
On or about September 24,2012, Plaintiff testified at a council hearing before
Chairman Phil Mendelson regarding multiple violations involving Ms. Sutter.
23.
On or about October 8,2012, Plaintiff was told that he could not participate in the
overtime program with ATEU, while other swom officers were allowed to.
24.
On or about January 2013, Plaintiff appeared on the local news to report the
wrongdoing that was going on within the MPD's Automated Traffic Enforcement Unit.
25.
Plaintiff continued to request to participate in the overtime program and was
consistently denied.
26.
On or about July 30, 2013, Plaintiff filed a grievance with his union, asking to go
back to ATEU as it was not civilianized as claimed and a sworn officer had taken over his iob.
His request was denied.
27.
Plaintiff filed complaints with the EEOC in August of 2011 and December of
2011 claiming discrimination and retaliation. He received his Right to Sue Letter and proceeded
with this suit.
COUNT I
-
DISPARATE TREATMENT DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF
TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF
28.
if fully
1964
Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the allegations of the previous paragraphs
as
set forth herein.
29.
In order to establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment discrimination under
Title VII, plaintiff must establish that "(1) [he] is a member of
a protected class;
(2) [he] sufferedPage 5 an adverse employment action; and (3) the unfavorable action gives
rise to an inference
of
discrimination." Stellarv. Mineta,284F.3d135,145 (D.C. Cir. Z})2)(internal
citationomitted).
30.
Plaintiff is
31.
Plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action when his duties were restricted,
a member
of a protected class (African-American).
when he became the subject of unsubstantiated complaints and ridicule by Ms. Sutter, and when
he was involuntarily detailed out to a different branch under the guise of civilianizing the unit,
wherein his salary was significantly reduced.
32'
The unfavorable actions give rise to an inference of discrimination as a Caucasian
officer was allowed to perform the duties that Plaintiff was not allowed to perform and another
Caucasian employee was not disciplined for her well documented misconduct while Plaintiff was
disciplined for actions far less significant.
COUNT II _ RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF TITLE
VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS
ACT OF 1964
33.
if fully
Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the allegations of the previous paragraphs
as
set forth herein.
34.
In order to establish aprimafacie
case
of retaliation under Title VII, an employee
must show that the employee engaged in a protected activity, that the employee suffered adverse
employment decisions, and that there was a causal connection between the protected activity and
the adverse employment action. See Carter-Obayuwanav. Howard University,T64 A.2d,779
(D.C.2001).
35.
Plaintiff engaged in a protected activity by reporting discrimination and
misconduct by his supervisor to Defendant, and by filing Complaints with EEOC.Page 6 36'
Plaintiff suffered adverse employment decisions
as he received a
lower than usual
performance evaluation, became the subject of unsubstantiated,complaints,
his duties were
reduced, and he was involuntarily detailed out to another branch, as a result of which
his salary
was signifi cantly reduced.
37
'
There is a causal connection between the protected activities and the adverse
employment decisions, as they are close in time and proximity, and involve the same people.
COUNT
III _ UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL
CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866,42 U.S.C. S 1981
38.
if fully
Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the allegations of the previous paragraphs
as
set forth herein.
39.
The Supreme Court recently stated in Domino'sPizza,Inc. v. McDonald. 546
U.S. 470, 47 5 (2006), that;
Among the many statutes that combat racial discrimination, $ 1981, originally 1 of the
$
Civil Rights Act of 1866,14 Stat.27, has a specific function: It protects the equal right of "all
persons within the jurisdiction of the United States" to "make and enforce contracts" without
respect to race. The statute currently defines "make and enforce contracts" to "include the
making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all
benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractualrelationship." $ 1981(b).
40.
Plaintiff s right to make and enforce
41.
Plaintiff is
42.
Plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action as he received
a member
a contract has been
infringed.
of a protected class (African-American).
a
lower than usual
performance evaluation, became the subject of unsubstantiated complaints, his duties were
reduced, and he was involuntarily detailed out to another branch, as a result of which his salary
was significantly reduced because of his race.Page 7 43'
Plaintiff was denied the right to equal treatment by Defendant
as a result of his
race (African-American), as Plaintiff was restricted in his duties while
a Caucasian officer
similarly situated to Plaintiff was not.
44.
obj
Defendant acted in a discriminatory manner that a reasonable person would find
ectively unreasonable.
45'
Defendant authorized, directed, and participated in this discriminatory conduct.
COUNT IV _ VIOLATION OF THE DC WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ACT
46.
DC Code $ 1-615.53(a) provides that "A supervisor shall not take, or threaten to
take, aprohibited personnel action or otherwise retaliate against an employee because of the
employee's protected disclosure or because of an employee's refusal to comply with an illegal
order."
47.
Plaintiff engaged in whistleblower activities on multiple occasions by reporting
the waste, fraud, abuse and other wrongful actions that Ms. Sutter had engaged in to the Intemal
Affairs Department, to Chairman Phil Mendelson which prompted Plaintiff to testify in a council
hearing, and also by going on the news and reporting the wrongdoing within the MPD's
Automated Traffi c Enforcement Unit.
48.
As a result of Plaintiff s actions in reporting the wrongdoing, he was stripped of
duties, denied the benefit of overtime, and involuntarily detailed to another unit, which clearly
violates the DC Whistleblower Protection Act.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Mark Robinson, prays for judgment against Defendant for not less than
S750,000 as follows:
a. That judgment be entered in his favor against Defendant;
b.
For liquidated damages in an amount to be proven at trial;Page 8 c'
For unliquidated damages for pain and suffering in an amount
to be prove n at trial;
d.
For other general and special damages in an amount to be proven attrial;
e.
For attomey's fees and other costs of brining suit;
f.
For prejudgment interest;
g.
For such other relief that the court deems just and proper.
REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff respectfully requests that all matters contained in this Complaint be tried by
Jury.
Respectfully Submitted,
THE BEZDICEK LAW FIRM
Dated: August 27,2013
By:
L. Bezdicek, Esq. [Bar # 979041]
t NW" Suite 700
ington, DC 20001
(202) 617-0707
jb ezdic ek@bezdi cekl aw. com
PDF Page 1
PlainSite Cover Page
PDF Page 2
Case 1:13-cv-01297-ESH Document 1 Filed 08/27/13 Page 1 of 8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Mark
Robinson
15627 Chadsey
)
)
)
Lane
Brandywineo MD
20613
)
Plaintiff,
v.)
Case
No. 13-1297
)
)
)
)
The District of Columbia
4414th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
)
)
)
Defendant.
A.ND
COMPLAINT
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
)
COMPLAINT
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL ON ALL ISSUES
COMES NOW Mark Robinson (hereinafter "Plaintiff'), by and through his undersigned
counsel, and alleges against the District of Columbia (hereinafter "Defendant") claims including
violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,as amended by the Civil Rights Act of
1991, and violations of the Federal
Civil Rights Act of 1866,42 U.S.C. $ 1981. Additionally,
Plaintiff sets forth claims under the DC Whistleblower Protection Act, DC ST $
Plaintiff sets forth 'the facts, claims and seeks relief
a
1
-6
15
.5
1.
follows:
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1.
This court has original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $ 133 1, federal question
jurisdiction.
2.
This courl also has supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $ 1367.
3.
Venue in this court is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $ 1391, as Defendant's
misconduct that give rise to Plaintiff s claims occurred in the District of Columbia.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
PDF Page 3
Case 1:13-cv-01297-ESH Document 1 Filed 08/27/13 Page 2 of 8
4.
Plaintiff is an African-American male.
5.
Plaintiff started employment with Defendant
as a police
officer at the
Metropolitan Police Department ("MPD") on April 23,1990.
6.
Plaintiff became Sergeant in 2004.
t.
In November 2006, Plaintiff was detailed to Automated Traffic Enforcement Unit
("ATEU").
8.
In January 2010, Plaintiff informed MPD that Program Manager Lisa Sutter, a
white female, was misappropriating govemment funds and had an improper relationship with a
non-profi t organization.
9.
On or about July 10, 2010, an investigation was started regarding what Plaintiff
reported, and despite significant evidence supporting Plaintiffls complaint, including invoices,
restaurant receipts, witnesses, and e-mail admissions, the investigation was ended for insufficient
facts.
10.
On or about November 29,2010, Ms. Sutter reduced Plaintiff s end of the year
performance evaluation from a 45 (Significantly Exceeds Expectation) for the year before, to a
34 (Exceeds Expectation), giving Plaintiff a rating of 2 (Does Not Meet Expectations) in several
categories. Ms. Sutter provided no documentation or justification for her evaluation.
11.
In2011, Plaintiff was chastised in front of his co-workers and subordinates by
Lisa Sutter on multiple occasions, clearly in response to Plaintiff
12.
s
reporting of her wrongdoing.
On or about June2,20lI, Plaintiff submitted a Complaint to the MPD's Internal
Affairs Division (IAD) about Ms. Sutter improperly voiding citations for certain individuals.
Again, Plaintiff s complaint resulted in no disciplinary action.
PDF Page 4
Case 1:13-cv-01297-ESH Document 1 Filed 08/27/13 Page 3 of 8
13'
on or about July 27,2011, Plaintifls duties and responsibilities were changed,
wherein, he was n0 longer allowed to supervise subordinates, complete
field assignments, or
interact with contractors and city agencies.
14.
Despite the fact that Plaintiff s duties were changed, Sergeant Schaeffer, a
Caucasian male and an officer similarly situated to
Plaintifl was still allowed to perform the
aforementioned duties.
15.
On or about November
I8,20Ii
and December 6,
20I1,Ms. Sutter sent e-mails
to Plaintiff s subordinates and officials stating that Plaintiff could no longer sign overtime slips,
while Sergeant Schaeffer was still authorized to approve and sign such overtime slips.
16.
On or about November 29,2011, Plaintiff notified MPD that Ms. Sutter set up
Portable Speed Unit (PSU) Sites incorrectly and she was required by MPD to turn them off until
they were brought into compliance.
17
.
On or about December 8, 2071, Plaintiff complained of discrimination to his
superiors at the MPD.
18.
On or about December 12,2071, Plaintiff was summoned to MPD/IAD due to
Complaints filed against him by Ms. Sutter, clearly in retaliation for his reporting her wrongful
activities. Both Complaints were later dismissed for lack of factual support.
19.
On or about December 14,2071, Plaintiff missed a scheduled training
appointment at a gun range, for which he received a PD 750 Dereliction of Duty, requiring
corrective action.
20.
On or about December 18, 2011, Plaintiff was involuntarily detailed to the Special
Events Branch (SEB), being told that ATEU was being civilianized. As a result, plaintiff s salary
was significantly reduced.
PDF Page 5
Case 1:13-cv-01297-ESH Document 1 Filed 08/27/13 Page 4 of 8
2L
On or about July 11,2\I2,Plaintiff met with Chairman Phil Mendelson at his
office and reported the multiple violations involving Ms. Sutter and MPD's reluctance to
properly investigate or discipline.
22.
On or about September 24,2012, Plaintiff testified at a council hearing before
Chairman Phil Mendelson regarding multiple violations involving Ms. Sutter.
23.
On or about October 8,2012, Plaintiff was told that he could not participate in the
overtime program with ATEU, while other swom officers were allowed to.
24.
On or about January 2013, Plaintiff appeared on the local news to report the
wrongdoing that was going on within the MPD's Automated Traffic Enforcement Unit.
25.
Plaintiff continued to request to participate in the overtime program and was
consistently denied.
26.
On or about July 30, 2013, Plaintiff filed a grievance with his union, asking to go
back to ATEU as it was not civilianized as claimed and a sworn officer had taken over his iob.
His request was denied.
27.
Plaintiff filed complaints with the EEOC in August of 2011 and December of
2011 claiming discrimination and retaliation. He received his Right to Sue Letter and proceeded
with this suit.
COUNT I
-
DISPARATE TREATMENT DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF
TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF
28.
if fully
1964
Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the allegations of the previous paragraphs
as
set forth herein.
29.
In order to establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment discrimination under
Title VII, plaintiff must establish that "(1) [he] is a member of
a protected class;
(2) [he] suffered
PDF Page 6
Case 1:13-cv-01297-ESH Document 1 Filed 08/27/13 Page 5 of 8
an adverse employment action; and (3) the unfavorable action gives
rise to an inference
of
discrimination." Stellarv. Mineta,284F.3d135,145 (D.C. Cir. Z})2)(internal
citationomitted).
30.
Plaintiff is
31.
Plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action when his duties were restricted,
a member
of a protected class (African-American).
when he became the subject of unsubstantiated complaints and ridicule by Ms. Sutter, and when
he was involuntarily detailed out to a different branch under the guise of civilianizing the unit,
wherein his salary was significantly reduced.
32'
The unfavorable actions give rise to an inference of discrimination as a Caucasian
officer was allowed to perform the duties that Plaintiff was not allowed to perform and another
Caucasian employee was not disciplined for her well documented misconduct while Plaintiff was
disciplined for actions far less significant.
COUNT II _ RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF TITLE
VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS
ACT OF 1964
33.
if fully
Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the allegations of the previous paragraphs
as
set forth herein.
34.
In order to establish aprimafacie
case
of retaliation under Title VII, an employee
must show that the employee engaged in a protected activity, that the employee suffered adverse
employment decisions, and that there was a causal connection between the protected activity and
the adverse employment action. See Carter-Obayuwanav. Howard University,T64 A.2d,779
(D.C.2001).
35.
Plaintiff engaged in a protected activity by reporting discrimination and
misconduct by his supervisor to Defendant, and by filing Complaints with EEOC.
PDF Page 7
Case 1:13-cv-01297-ESH Document 1 Filed 08/27/13 Page 6 of 8
36'
Plaintiff suffered adverse employment decisions
as he received a
lower than usual
performance evaluation, became the subject of unsubstantiated,complaints,
his duties were
reduced, and he was involuntarily detailed out to another branch, as a result of which
his salary
was signifi cantly reduced.
37
'
There is a causal connection between the protected activities and the adverse
employment decisions, as they are close in time and proximity, and involve the same people.
COUNT
III _ UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF THE FEDERAL
CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866,42 U.S.C. S 1981
38.
if fully
Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the allegations of the previous paragraphs
as
set forth herein.
39.
The Supreme Court recently stated in Domino'sPizza,Inc. v. McDonald. 546
U.S. 470, 47 5 (2006), that;
Among the many statutes that combat racial discrimination, $ 1981, originally 1 of the
$
Civil Rights Act of 1866,14 Stat.27, has a specific function: It protects the equal right of "all
persons within the jurisdiction of the United States" to "make and enforce contracts" without
respect to race. The statute currently defines "make and enforce contracts" to "include the
making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all
benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractualrelationship." $ 1981(b).
40.
Plaintiff s right to make and enforce
41.
Plaintiff is
42.
Plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action as he received
a member
a contract has been
infringed.
of a protected class (African-American).
a
lower than usual
performance evaluation, became the subject of unsubstantiated complaints, his duties were
reduced, and he was involuntarily detailed out to another branch, as a result of which his salary
was significantly reduced because of his race.
PDF Page 8
Case 1:13-cv-01297-ESH Document 1 Filed 08/27/13 Page 7 of 8
43'
Plaintiff was denied the right to equal treatment by Defendant
as a result of his
race (African-American), as Plaintiff was restricted in his duties while
a Caucasian officer
similarly situated to Plaintiff was not.
44.
obj
Defendant acted in a discriminatory manner that a reasonable person would find
ectively unreasonable.
45'
Defendant authorized, directed, and participated in this discriminatory conduct.
COUNT IV _ VIOLATION OF THE DC WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ACT
46.
DC Code $ 1-615.53(a) provides that "A supervisor shall not take, or threaten to
take, aprohibited personnel action or otherwise retaliate against an employee because of the
employee's protected disclosure or because of an employee's refusal to comply with an illegal
order."
47.
Plaintiff engaged in whistleblower activities on multiple occasions by reporting
the waste, fraud, abuse and other wrongful actions that Ms. Sutter had engaged in to the Intemal
Affairs Department, to Chairman Phil Mendelson which prompted Plaintiff to testify in a council
hearing, and also by going on the news and reporting the wrongdoing within the MPD's
Automated Traffi c Enforcement Unit.
48.
As a result of Plaintiff s actions in reporting the wrongdoing, he was stripped of
duties, denied the benefit of overtime, and involuntarily detailed to another unit, which clearly
violates the DC Whistleblower Protection Act.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Mark Robinson, prays for judgment against Defendant for not less than
S750,000 as follows:
a. That judgment be entered in his favor against Defendant;
b.
For liquidated damages in an amount to be proven at trial;
PDF Page 9
Case 1:13-cv-01297-ESH Document 1 Filed 08/27/13 Page 8 of 8
c'
For unliquidated damages for pain and suffering in an amount
to be prove n at trial;
d.
For other general and special damages in an amount to be proven attrial;
e.
For attomey's fees and other costs of brining suit;
f.
For prejudgment interest;
g.
For such other relief that the court deems just and proper.
REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiff respectfully requests that all matters contained in this Complaint be tried by
Jury.
Respectfully Submitted,
THE BEZDICEK LAW FIRM
Dated: August 27,2013
By:
L. Bezdicek, Esq. [Bar # 979041]
t NW" Suite 700
ington, DC 20001
(202) 617-0707
jb ezdic ek@bezdi cekl aw. com
Back to 
