Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 65

Case 1:13-cv-00696 Document 1 Filed 03/15/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 62

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. JODY SANSING; MICHELLE EDWARDSON; SUZANNE ROGERS; Plaintiffs, v. JOHN PATTERSON, individually; CITY OF CHERRY HILLS VILLAGE; Defendants. ________________________________________________________________________ CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT WITH REQUEST FOR TRIAL BY JURY ________________________________________________________________________ Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys, HOLLAND, HOLLAND EDWARDS, AND GROSSMAN, P.C., complain against Defendants and requests trial by jury as follows: I. INTRODUCTION 1. This is an action by former employees of Cherry Hills Village who were targeted and unlawfully terminated for speaking out about matters of public concern regarding corruption and functioning of local government, and for the pervasive hostile and discriminatory, including sexually discriminatory, workplace environment created by former Chief of Police and now City Manager John Patterson, which was tolerated, approved, and ratified by the City of Cherry Hills Village.

Case 1:13-cv-00696 Document 1 Filed 03/15/13 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 62

2. After 15 years of exemplary service, Plaintiff Jody Sansing was unconstitutionally and wrongfully terminated in June 2012 from his position as Acting Chief of Police/Deputy Police Chief in retaliation for his speaking out in opposition to the corrupt, discriminatory and hostile work environment Defendant Patterson created in Cherry Hills Village, in violation of his rights under the First Amendment, Title VII and related common law theories. 3. Plaintiff Michelle Edwardson was constructively discharged from her job as an Animal Control Officer at Cherry Hills Village on June 30, 2011 as a result of the pervasive abusive and sexually discriminatory hostile work environment she faced at work on a daily basis by Defendant Patterson, in violation of her rights under the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VII, and as part of a long standing pattern and practice of such conduct by this Defendant. 4. Plaintiff Suzanne Rogers was wrongfully terminated from her 17 year position as prosecuting attorney for Cherry Hills Village in December 2011 by Defendants, to punish and retaliate against her for actively speaking out as a private citizen by co-writing, crafting and causing the delivery of a whistleblowing message along with Plaintiff Edwardson to the Defendant City of Cherry Hills Village. This protected speech occurred in the form of a jointly written letter to the Mayor of Cherry Hills Village, speaking out regarding complaints of sexual discrimination, intolerable hostile work environment and corruption against Defendant Patterson. Ms. Rogers was retaliatorily terminated in violation of her rights under the First Amendment, including her right to speak out and petition for redress of grievances.

Case 1:13-cv-00696 Document 1 Filed 03/15/13 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 62

II. JURISDICTION, VENUE, AND NOTICE 5. This action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States, including Article III, Section 1 of the United States Constitution and is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, 42 U.S.C. 1988, and 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. The Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1343, 2201. 6. This case is jointly instituted in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391 as the judicial district in which all relevant events and omissions leading to these claims occurred and in which Defendants maintain offices and or reside. These Plaintiffs assert rights to relief involving numerous common questions of law and/or fact arising out of the same transactions, occurrences or series of transactions. 7. Supplemental pendent jurisdiction is based on 28 U.S.C. 1367 because the

violations of Federal law alleged are substantial and the pendent causes of action derive from a common nucleus of operative facts. 8. Timely Notice of Claims under the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act has been given by Jody Sansing to redress the conduct alleged in this lawsuit, which also violates state law. 9. Plaintiffs have complied with and exhausted the administrative requirements pertaining to Title VII claims of discrimination and retaliation. Plaintiffs filed timely Charges of Discrimination and Retaliation against Defendants with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) giving Defendants proper and sufficient notice of these charges. Michelle Edwardsons charge number is 541-2012-00787. Jody Sansings charge number is 541-2012-

Case 1:13-cv-00696 Document 1 Filed 03/15/13 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 62

02184. Suzanne Rogers charge number is 541-2012-02185, although she is not pursuing a claim under Title VII in this action. 10. Right to Sue letters were issued to all Plaintiffs on December 20, 2012 and received on or about December 26, 2012. III. PARTIES 11. Michelle Edwardson is a resident of the State of Colorado and a citizen of the United States of America. At all times relevant hereto, Michelle Edwardson was an employee of Cherry Hills Village and working as an Animal Control Officer and/or the Code Enforcement Officer. 12. Jody Sansing is a resident of the State of Colorado and a citizen of the United States of America. At all times relevant hereto, Jody Sansing was an employee of Cherry Hills Village and working as the Deputy Chief of Police and/or Acting Chief of Police. 13. Suzanne Rogers is a resident of the State of Colorado and a citizen of the United States of America. At all times relevant hereto, Suzanne Rogers was a contract employee of Cherry Hills Village and working in the position of a municipal criminal prosecutor for Cherry Hills Village. 14. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant John Patterson was acting under color of state law in his capacity as the Chief of Police/Acting City Manager employed by the Defendant Cherry Hills Village. Defendant Patterson is sued individually under federal and state law and was a moving force and final decision maker and/or delegated final decision maker in the complained of constitutional and statutory violations and resulting injuries. On information and belief, Defendant Patterson is a citizen of the United States and a resident of the State of Colorado.

Case 1:13-cv-00696 Document 1 Filed 03/15/13 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 62

15. Defendant Cherry Hills Village (hereinafter Defendant Cherry Hills or Cherry Hills) is a Colorado municipal corporation and is the legal public entity responsible for itself and for its agents and employees. This Defendant, at all times relevant hereto, was also the employer of the individual Defendant and is a proper local governmental entity to be sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983. This Defendant was also the employer of Michelle Edwardson and Jody Sansing for the purposes of Title VII at times relevant hereto. 16. Defendant Cherry Hills is properly sued directly under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for its own and its final or final delegated decision makers deliberately indifferent unconstitutional decisions, policies, practice, habits, customs, usages, training and supervision, ratification, approval, acquiescence, rubber stamping and intentional actions and failures, which were also moving forces in the complained of constitutional and statutory violations and resulting injuries. IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS 17. Plaintiffs incorporate all of the preceding paragraphs, as if they were fully set forth again at this point. 18. While Plaintiffs were employees and/or worked at Cherry Hills, Defendant Patterson was the Chief of Police and/or Acting City Manager. He is currently the City Manager of Cherry Hills. 19. Defendant Patterson, through threats, coercion, and retaliatory conduct aimed at instilling fear in all subordinates through abuses of power, created a wide-spread hostile work environment that continuously threatened and corruptly damaged the proper working operations in the Cherry Hills Police Department.

Case 1:13-cv-00696 Document 1 Filed 03/15/13 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 62

20. With respect to Michelle Edwardson, this corrupt environment also included a pervasively hostile work environment rife with sex discrimination and sex based inappropriate workplace conduct by Defendant Patterson. 21. After working for Cherry Hills Village for over ten years, Plaintiff Edwardson was constructively discharged from her position as an Animal Control Officer on June 30, 2011, due to the permeating and extreme hostile work environment that she endured on a daily basis, and was unable to correct despite multiple efforts, which was intolerably created and maintained by Defendant Patterson as part of a pattern and practice of sex/gender discrimination engaged in by him towards some female subordinates. 22. Following her constructive discharge, Ms. Edwardson, with the help of Plaintiff Rogers, sent a written whistleblowing complaint against John Patterson and upper level City management to the then mayor, Michael Wozniak, reporting the hostile, discriminatory and corrupt work environment generally, and particularly for Michelle Edwardson as a female employee. 23. Plaintiff Suzanne Rogers, who had been working as a Cherry Hills prosecutor for municipal violations for over 17 years, supported Ms. Edwardson in her complaints by encouraging her to come forward and by co-writing, crafting and editing the aforementioned whistleblowing complaint message to the Mayor petitioning the Defendant City for redress of grievances. 24. This complaint also constituted opposition of unlawful employment practices as described in 42 U.S.C. 2000e as well as constitutionally protected speech regarding important matters of public concern.

Case 1:13-cv-00696 Document 1 Filed 03/15/13 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 62

25. This letter to the Mayor led to a formal investigation by Cherry Hills, conducted by Greg Giesen who was hired by the City. 26. Investigator Giesen interviewed numerous Cherry Hills employees, including Plaintiff Jody Sansing. 27. As an express part of this investigation, all participating Cherry Hills employees were guaranteed and promised, in writing, anonymity by Mayor Wozniak, and that they would not be retaliated against for participating in this investigation. 28. Plaintiff Sansing came forward and spoke out during this Cherry Hills Village investigation after being so solicited to participate by then Mayor Wozniak. He reported the ongoing numerous abuses, unconstitutional conduct and corruption of power by Defendant Patterson for years, with the broader public concern purposes of correcting and ending this pattern of malfeasance, and also of opposing Title VII and Equal Protection violating discrimination by supporting Ms. Edwardsons specific hostile work environment complaints. 29. At the end of this City funded investigation, Investigator Giesen wrote and tendered a final written report to Cherry Hills, concluding that it was one of the worst working/hostile environments he had ever witnessed, and recommending the termination of Defendant Patterson. 30. Rather than terminate Defendant Patterson or address this known situation in any meaningful way, the Defendant City intentionally buried and squelched this report, rewarded Defendant Patterson by allowing him to continue to work and actually promoting him to permanent City Manager, while simultaenously allowing him to damage the distinguished careers of Plaintiffs Sansing and Rogers, just as he had devastated the career of Michelle Edwardson.

Case 1:13-cv-00696 Document 1 Filed 03/15/13 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 62

31. Cherry Hills further revealed, and/or through top level City officials intentionally, knowingly and/or recklessly allowed Defendant Patterson to learn the identities of the employees who participated in the investigation, and which employees reported wrongdoing by him, contrary to the written guarantee and promises it made to those employees through Mayor Wozniak. 32. Defendant Patterson and the Defendant City for a number of months began to summarily get rid of those people who reported his serious misconduct during or before the investigation, including but not limited to, Plaintiff Sansing and Plaintiff Rogers. 33. Contary to express promises and guarantees made to him, Plaintiff Sansing was terminated after over 15 years of dedicated service because of his participation in the investigation, in retaliation for his constitutionally protected speech and for his actively opposing and supporting Ms. Edwardsons Title VII complaints. 34. Plaintiff Rogers contract was terminated after over 17 years of dedicated service, because of her known active support of Ms. Edwardson, and in retaliation for her known constitutionally protected speech and conduct in petitioning for redress of grievances with Ms. Edwardson. 35. For clarity, relevant facts relating to the individual Plaintiffs are outlined separately below. MICHELLE EDWARDSON 36. Plaintiff Edwardson started working as an Animal Control Officer for Defendant Cherry Hills on or about April 17, 2000.

Case 1:13-cv-00696 Document 1 Filed 03/15/13 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 62

37. Before John Patterson became Chief of Police, Ms. Edwardson enjoyed her job immensely and excelled at it. She received many certificates and honors throughout her career. 38. In 2003, John Patterson became the Chief of Police. 39. John Patterson was reportedly felt by many people in the Police Department to be extremely emotionally labile with an explosive temper, to rule by instilling fear in subordinates regarding their job security, and to create extremely hostile working conditions for many of those he supervised, particularly female employees, and any employees that spoke out against unlawful actions by him and/or other police officers. 40. During 2004 and 2005, Ms. Edwardson worked as the Code Enforcement Officer as well as the Animal Control Officer. 41. While Defendant Patterson was not Plaintiff Edwardsons direct supervisor, as Chief of Police, he personally approved her time off, training requests, had input on annual evaluations, and clearly had the authority to fire her, as he repeatedly told her. 42. After Ms. Edwardson began working in this position of increased authority, Defendant Patterson began a severe and pervasive campaign of targeted sex based discriminatory hostility against her, yelling at her repeatedly in front of co-workers, demonstrating his authority over her through threats and abusive behavior, all the while making it clear to her that keeping her job meant her conforming to his assigned gender role as a less worthy and unequal female subordinate. 43. Defendant Patterson frequently made comments about his perceptions about her gender characteristics and her sexuality, such as repeatedly telling her she wasnt tough

Case 1:13-cv-00696 Document 1 Filed 03/15/13 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 62

enough, that a man could do her job better, and that she shouldnt use female charms to get what she wanted. 44. He also constantly made sexist comments such as: Youre not strong enough to stand up to a bunch of construction workers; You need to be tougher dont try to use your charm to get compliance, This job may be better suited for a man, they can see you coming from a mile away, and many other sexually discriminatory baseless comments about how Ms. Edwardson, as a woman, was not strong enough to handle this position. 45. Defendant Patterson also frequently demeaned, insulted and ridiculed Plaintiff Edwardson publicly. He would say things to her or in front of her like women think they can get whatever they want, women manipulate men, women make men crazy, women should not be officers and the like. 46. This abuse of Plaintiff Edwardson was part of a pattern and practice of sexual discrimination by Defendant Patterson towards some female subordinates. 47. On information and belief, the City of Silverthorne was successfully sued based on sex discrimination and/or other discriminatory conduct based on acts or omissions of the police department while Defendant Patterson was Chief of Police there. 48. On one occasion, in or around 2008, Ms. Edwardson properly inquired about reimbursement for travel expenses for attending a training course, for which she received a full scholarship. While being reimbursed for travel was commonplace, Mr. Patterson threatened to not let her attend the training simply because she requested that the City reimburse her travel expenses.

10

Case 1:13-cv-00696 Document 1 Filed 03/15/13 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 62

49. He became irate, shut the door to his office and attempted to physically intimidate Ms. Edwardson, standing over her and shouting things like: All you women are the same! It is never enough, is it? You get the training, but now you want more? You are constantly trying to manipulate things to get your way! You think you can bat your eyes and get men to do what you want? I know women like you! You are all the same! You make me sick! I may not even let you go to the training now! Get the fuck out of my office! 50. Ms. Edwardson would frequently leave Defendant Pattersons office in tears as a result of these types of physically intimidating and sexistly demeaning comments and outbursts. 51. Such sexually discriminatory and debasing incidents occurred at least weekly, and sometimes more frequently, throughout her employment once Mr. Patterson arrived. 52. Often after outbursts, similar to an abusive relationship cycle, Mr. Patterson would become briefly overly ingratiating. For example, after one such blow up, Mr. Patterson gave Ms. Edwardson a necklace, making her very uncomfortable. 53. As part of this sex based discrimination and targeting, Mr. Patterson also routinely stared at Ms. Edwardson intensely and in a domineering way during daily briefings, often making her very uncomfortable. 54. It was also common for him to make inappropriate sexual jokes during these briefings and talk about the short skirts on the women there or at a recent conference. 55. On another occasion, in February 2011, Mr. Patterson berated Ms. Edwardson when a male resident complained that she wouldnt take care of his coyote problem. 56. Defendant Patterson screamed at Ms. Edwardson, sexistly yelling things such as: You dont know how to talk to people, especially men!

11

Case 1:13-cv-00696 Document 1 Filed 03/15/13 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 62

57. Plaintiff Jody Sansing, then Deputy Chief of Police, attempted to defend Ms. Edwardson, stating you know how residents can be, some of them just dont want to be told no. 58. Around one month later, in March 2011, Ms. Edwardson was in a meeting with Plaintiff Sansing and Chief Patterson regarding the neighborhood coyote problem. Mr. Patterson again openly demeaned and objectified women. 59. Thus, after asking Plaintiff Sansing to close the door, he loudly commented on the breast size of one of the women residents, stating Did you see that womans enormous breasts?! They were so huge, I couldnt stop looking at them. 60. He always tried to dress women down, reducing them to sexual objects, including Ms. Edwardson, by telling inappropriate jokes, by referring to females simply as skirts, or by saying hateful misogynistic things to or in front of her like Women suck the life out of you. 61. Defendant Patterson also used sexist and disparaging language to male employees that he felt were displaying female characteristics he perceived to be weak. 62. For example, Chief Patterson made fun of former Officer Brian Sapp, calling him a sissy and a gay sailor. 63. Defendant Patterson also frequently expressed hostility towards Ms. Edwardsons, criticizing her status as a single mother. 64. After she became the full time Animal Control Officer in 2007, and continuing thereafter, Defendant Patterson frequently punitively changed her schedule without any meaningful notice as part of his continuous gender power control games, precisely because she

12

Case 1:13-cv-00696 Document 1 Filed 03/15/13 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 62

told him how difficult it was for her to arrange for childcare and to harass her for being a women in such a position. 65. He did not do this to other similarly/equally situated male workers. 66. Rather, Mr. Patterson maliciously singled Ms. Edwardson out for this aspect of his sex based discriminatory conduct because he knew it interfered with her parenting as a single mother. 67. Although Ms. Edwardson continued to be commended by her direct supervisors for her exemplary work, Defendant Patterson continued to demean and harass Ms. Edwardson for her female status in front of other workers on a routine basis. 68. Ms. Edwardson felt constantly verbally and emotionally abused but felt trapped in her job due to being a single mother and dependent on her salary. She was always being threatened by Mr. Patterson, who discriminated against her in the terms and conditions of her job, repeatedly making it clear he was going to fire her one of these days. 69. Many employees witnessed this long pattern and practice of sex based discriminatory abuse, including but not limited to, Sergeant Curt Wood, Officer Steve Hart, Sergeant John Reynolds, Officer Brian Sapp, Deputy Chief of Police Jody Sansing, Code Enforcement Officer Chuck Friend, Karen Proctor, and Kerri Gillett. 70. Many people knew about Defendant Pattersons misconduct but felt there was nothing they could do to intervene because he abused his power and they legitimately feared retaliatory termination. 71. Indeed, former Human Resources Director for Cherry Hills, Kerri Gillett, has expressed her fear that her husband, who is currently employed as a police officer with the

13

Case 1:13-cv-00696 Document 1 Filed 03/15/13 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 62

Cherry Hills Police Department, will be retaliated against and their livelihood threatened if she speaks the truth in this matter without being compelled to testify. When she worked at Cherry Hills, she was overtly afraid to take formal complaints against John Patterson, even though it was a core component of her job as the head of Human Resources. 72. Plaintiff Edwardson confided in Plaintiff Suzanne Rogers over the years about Chief Pattersons conduct. She told her about the various abusive and sexist things he would say to her, that he yelled at her loudly in front of other people, and that he would frequently demean her as a woman officer. Plaintiff Rogers often recommended that she complain to Human Resources and to EEOC. 73. Throughout her employment and up to her very last day, Ms. Edwardson complained to Kerri Gillett, the Defendant Citys Human Resources Director, telling her that she felt abused and discriminated against by Mr. Patterson based on her sex. 74. Kerri Gillett, however, was prohibited by Defendant Patterson from doing her job as Human Resources Director. 75. Defendant Patterson went to so far to subvert, undermine and squelch complaints in this regard and to actually instruct Ms. Gillett that she must come and inform him about what is discussed during closed door meetings immediately afterwords and to go get a supervisor when an employees comes to [her] with an issue, according to Ms. Gillett in a 2011 memo. 76. Ms. Gillett thus was subversively required by this Defendant to refuse to investigate or act to protect Ms. Edwardsons rights as an employee to complain against him. 77. Instead, Ms. Gillett told Ms. Edwardson when she would complain to her that she herself would be fired even for simply doing her job and investigating. She also told Ms.

14

Case 1:13-cv-00696 Document 1 Filed 03/15/13 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 62

Edwardson that she needed to just play his game. In fact, Ms. Gillett has written that John Patterson was so powerful in these regards as to be untouchable. 78. Ms. Gillett also told other employees and/or former employees at Cherry Hills Village similar things about not being able to investigate or intervene in complaints against Mr. Patterson, including but not limited to, Sergeant Jake Campbell and Officer Brian Sapp. 79. Sergeant Jake Campbell was also told by John Patterson something boastful to the effect of: there is nothing one of your officers discusses with HR that you and I dont need to immediately know about, making it clear that any time a subordinate went to HR it should be immediately brought to Mr. Pattersons attention. 80. On one occasion when Brian Sapp complained to Ms. Gillett about the situation at work, he heard Mr. Patterson yell he is not to talk to human resources without being accompanied by a supervisor! 81. Ms. Gillett often burst into tears because John Patterson exploded on her and demanded to know what employees had told her. She also would appear frightened during interviews because Mr. Patterson would pace outside the office. 82. Ms. Gillett has also stated that she herself, as HR Director, personally experienced retaliation for supporting former employee Heather Vigils complaint of gender discrimination against the Defendant City. 83. Thus she has stated that she was feeling threatened for doing what she felt was the proper thing to do as HR to protect Cherry Hills, because high level City management was making her feel like she was interfereing with the way they wanted to handle the matter. At that

15

Case 1:13-cv-00696 Document 1 Filed 03/15/13 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 62

time, Ms. Gillett was unmarried with a child to support, and the threat of being fired caused her enormous upset, which she shared inter alia, with Plaintiff Sansing. 84. HR Director Gillett was consciously aware on behalf of the Defendants, at all times relevant hereto, that Defendant Patterson and Cherry Hills, as part of this pattern and practice, was actively discriminating against some women based on their gender status, including but not limited to Heather Vigil and Karen Proctor in addition to Ms Edwardson. 85. Ms. Proctor had also made Ms. Gillett aware of a long list of gender discrimination complaints that Ms. Proctor believed were sufficient to justify her own sexual discrimination/harassment lawsuit. 86. Ms. Gillett herself made two formal complaints against John Patterson for his mistreatment of her, which also went nowhere. 87. Ms. Edwardson was so distraught about her working conditions and the abusive environment within her department that she went to a counselor while employed at Cherry Hills. She discussed the horrifying conditions of her employment and the sex-based discrimination she was subjected to constantly. She also discussed the fact that she and other workers were afraid of Mr. Patterson, and was counseled on how to cope with the situation so as to be able to attempt to keep this important job. 88. Ms. Edwardson became so miserable in her job and the conditions were so objectively unreasonable that she was finally forced to consider leaving her job. 89. Ms. Edwardson found potential alternative employment in Larkspur, Colorado, but still wanted to stay at her job at Cherry Hills if she could be freed of Defendant Pattersons abuse.

16

Case 1:13-cv-00696 Document 1 Filed 03/15/13 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 62

90. She still did not want to quit this job that she loved and had tried to stay at for several years in the City of Cherry Hills Village with a good salary and benefits. She did not want to move cities or uproot herself and her daughter to another house, another life, and an entirely new school system. 91. Ms. Edwardson thus made a last ditch effort to get attention and redress for the hostile sexually discriminatory working environment, giving notice of her intent to resign in June 2011, hoping that such action would cause and spur meaningful changes that would allow her to stay, but still, no one intervened. 92. Up to the very last moment of her employment, if any one had promised Plaintiff that there would be essential changes to end the sex based hostility by Defendant Patterson, she would have stayed, rather than finally accepting her constructive discharge/termination and taking another job that required her to move cities. 93. On June 30, 2011 Ms. Edwardson learned that even threatening resignation would not spurn any change. 94. Thus, In her exit interview documentation, Ms. Edwardson explicitly listed that she was leaving because of the working conditions and Defendant Pattersons intimidation, specifically his unequal treatment, hostility and sexual harassment of her. 95. In the exit questionnaire, she responded absolutely do not agree to the statements: Morale is very positive within the City and Morale is very positive within your department. 96. Ms. Edwardson also answered Yes to the question [w]ere there any incidents of sexual harassment, discrimination, or other unacceptable behaviors that you were aware of?

17

Case 1:13-cv-00696 Document 1 Filed 03/15/13 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 62

97. She specifically complained that there were frequent inappropriate comments about women officers and other women made by upper management. 98. Kerri Gillett went over Ms. Edwardsons written exit interview in person on June 30, 2011. 99. In this lengthy two-hour exit interview, Ms. Edwardson again complained about the pervasively hostile and abusive discriminatory working environment created by John Patterson. 100. Ms. Edwardson told Ms. Gillett on June 30, 2011 that she would stay in her job if

Human Resources would meaningfully help her end the intolerable conditions created by Chief/Acting City Manager Patterson. 101. Ms. Gillett again told Ms. Edwardson that there was nothing meaningful that

could be done to change or even investigate these conditions involving Defendant Patterson. 102. With this understanding that even her resignation threat and sex based

discriminatory complaints would and could not lead to investigation and managerial changes, the working conditions became so utterly intolerable that no reasonable person would stay. 103. Ms. Edwardson was thus forced out/constructively discharged and terminated

from her position as Animal Control Officer on June 30, 2011, the last day she worked. 104. Even during the exit interview on June 30, 2011, the sexually hostile working

environment and intimidating harassment of this Plaintiff by Defendant Patterson actively and pugnaciously continued up to the moment she left the office. 105. Thus, throughout the interview, Mr. Patterson was pacing back and forth outside

the door and whistling loudly to abusively intimidate, harass, scare and distract Plaintiff from

18

Case 1:13-cv-00696 Document 1 Filed 03/15/13 USDC Colorado Page 19 of 62

stating her complaints about him at that exact time and to deter Ms. Gillett from acting on those complaints. 106. In keeping with his pattern of requiring immediate disclosure of complaints

against him, as aforealleged, Plaintiff Edwardson heard Defendant Patterson say loudly to Pam Broyles, who sits outside the door where they were, to tell Kerri Gillett to come see him immediately after Plaintiff Edwardson left. 107. Plaintiff Edwardson asked Ms. Gillett not to give Defendant Patterson the exit

interview until she had driven out of the parking lot because she was physically scared of him as he aggressively continued the hostile environment against her even on her very last day, as he had done to her on many other days. 108. As a result of Defendants actions and omissions, Ms. Edwardson has suffered

significant financial and emotional losses. 109. Ms. Edwardson made $54,000 a year at Cherry Hills and has been unable to find

other sustainable employment despite applying for numerous jobs in the animal field, including vet technicians and non-profit shelters. She has gone back to school to change careers, and has incurred substantial economic losses. 110. Plaintiff took a job at Crooked Willow Farms in Larkspur, CO as the Zoology

manager in their new exotic animal zoo that they were building. 111. After six months, Plaintiff was laid off for reasons personal to the owners and

unrelated to her job performance. 112. Plaintiff was then essentially homeless, until she found a cottage to rent, which

she could barely afford because her only income at the time was unemployment benefits.

19

Case 1:13-cv-00696 Document 1 Filed 03/15/13 USDC Colorado Page 20 of 62

113.

Prior thereto, Cherry Hills opposed Plaintiff Edwardsons claim for unemploment

benefits, falsely claiming she had left voluntarily. 114. Thereafter, Plaintiff challenged such assertion and won in an appeal at a hearing

that the City did not even attend or defend. 115. Plaintiff has since obtained an Aesthetican license and is currently a commission

employee at a day spa in Greenwood Village, with no health insurance or other benefits for her or for her daughter. 116. 117. 118. She makes under $250 every two weeks from her spa work. She also sometimes works part-time as a private investigator. Plaintiff cannot afford to pay her bills even with this part-time work. Although

she is still looking, she has been unable to find substantial employment and is currently living on minimal part-time pay and part-time unemployment benefits. 119. Because of the Defendants conduct complained of herein, Ms. Edwardson has

also suffered greatly emotionally. 120. She has had to move three times in the last year and a half, which has been very

stressful for her and her daughter. 121. After her constructive discharge, Ms. Edwardson met with Plaintiff Rogers and

decided they could not stand by as someone as mentally manipulative and potentially dangerous as Defendant Patterson held such a high position of power unchallenged, where he would continue this pattern of abuse. She wanted to protect their former and current co-workers, future employees, and the citizens of Cherry Hills.

20

Case 1:13-cv-00696 Document 1 Filed 03/15/13 USDC Colorado Page 21 of 62

122.

They decided Ms. Edwardson would write a letter to Cherry Hills Mayor

Wozniak complaining about Mr. Pattersons abusive conduct and hostile work enviornment on July 5, 2011. 123. Plaintiff Suzanne Rogers, Cherry Hills prosecuting attorney, speaking out as a

citizen on these obvious matters of public concern, co-wrote, crafted and edited this whistleblowing letter signed by Ms. Edwardson. 124. The letter specifically stated:

During the last six years, the City has been an extremely difficult place to work. I have been humiliated in front of others, yelled and screamed at in a very demeaning manner, my personal character has been attacked more times than I can count, I have been disciplined for many things that I have never done, but have never been given an opportunity to explain myself or to even ask questions as to why I was being treated so harshly, and if I tried to I would be disciplined or yelled at even harsher, I was told to have someone else take care of my daughter when she is sick, otherwise I would get fired . . . All of this harsh treatment I have had to endure was solely because of one person, Chief/City Manager John Patterson. 125. The letter further reported to Mayor Wozniak that Plaintiff Edwardson was told

by another employee, that Chief/City Manager Patterson, treated [Ms. Edwards] the way he did because [she is] a strong, independent woman, that couldnt be controlled and that was threatening to him. 126. She and Ms. Rogers also spoke up in an effort to protect Ms. Edwardsons former

co-workers and bring the larger public concern issue of John Pattersons abuse and corruption to the Mayors and Citys attention, reporting: At this time I do not want to go in to more details of any of those things right now because I feel that it is just a small glimpse of how things are run in the City on a day-to day basis. . . The reason that almost every employee in the City ... is looking for a new job is mostly because of one person. Chief/City Manager John Patterson.

21

Case 1:13-cv-00696 Document 1 Filed 03/15/13 USDC Colorado Page 22 of 62

127.

As Plaintiff Edwardson was no longer working there, she did not go into

significant detail about her own situation, although she included with the letter the entirety of her written exit interview at the suggestion of Plaintiff Rogers. 128. The letter also brought the unlawful retaliation and fears of the employees to the

Mayors attention as well, stating: I can say with no hesitancy, that if every employee of the City were able to speak freely without the fear of losing their jobs or suffering any type of retaliation, the honest truth would come out and changes would be necessary. . .The HR department is supposed to be the place where employees can go with grievances, but HR is directly under the Chief/City Manager and she has also stated to me, and others, that she can do nothing without losing her job over it. 129. The letter requested that an independent investigation be conducted since Human

Resources was clearly under the control of Chief Patterson, who was both the Chief of Police and the Acting City Manager. 130. As aforealleged, Defendant Cherry Hills did in fact hire an independent

investigator, Greg Giesen, to conduct an investigation into the issues raised in the letter cowritten by Plaintiffs Edwardson and Rogers and signed by Plaintiff Edwardson. 131. As set forth in more detail below, Mr. Giesen issued a report concluding that

Defendant Patterson had created the worst hostile work environment he had ever seen, and recommending that John Patterson be immediately terminated for his intolerable misconduct and abuse of the power of his office. 132. Instead of acting to end this problem, the Defendant City, through its top leaders,

consciously and deliberately decided to ignore and cover up the Giesen recommendations, bury

22

Case 1:13-cv-00696 Document 1 Filed 03/15/13 USDC Colorado Page 23 of 62

and conceal this report, promote Mr. Patterson to City Manager, and systematically get rid of the employees who spoke out and blew the whistle against Mr. Patterson as part of the continuing violations identified expressly in Ms. Edwardsons complaints to the Mayor and EEOC Charge of Discrimination. 133. As plead herein, this pattern and practice of continuing violations of Title VII

continued thereafter in the form of the retaliatory terminations of Plaintiff Sansing, Plaintiff Rogers and others for their roles in opposing discrimination and the creation of a hostile work environment against this Plaintiff by John Patterson. 134. Defendant City and its leaders thus acquiesced, ratified and tolerated this series of

wrongful acts and continuing Title VII violations involving retaliatory or forced discharge of workers who came forward to complain about hostile and discriminatory work environments including Plaintiffs, Brian Sapp, Jake Campbell, Kerri Gillett and others. 135. This decision and cover up is still continuing. JODY SANSING 136. 137. Jody Sansing worked for the Cherry Hills Police Department for 15 years. Before his retaliatory termination, Mr. Sansing was serving as the Acting Chief of

Police, having served as the Deputy Chief of Police. 138. During his entire employment with Cherry Hills, Mr. Sansing was an exemplary

employee who served as a model for how law enforcement should operate, particularly in his Deputy and Acting Chief roles.

23

Case 1:13-cv-00696 Document 1 Filed 03/15/13 USDC Colorado Page 24 of 62

139.

Plaintiff Sansing witnessed Defendant Pattersons clear deviant behaviors and his

widespread abuses of authority, abuses that disrupted the effective functioning of the police department and compromised the integrity of the department. 140. These abuses included, but were not limited to, ignoring, ratifying and/or

tolerating unlawful and/or unconstitutional conduct by fellow law enforcement, misusing City resources for his own personal gain, and using his position of authority to intimidate his employees. 141. Any time Plaintiff Sansing attempted to question any such abuses, Defendant

Patterson would become angry and have loud and intimidating outbursts, making it clear that subordinates better keep quiet or they would lose their job. 142. Other employees of Cherry Hills also witnessed this unethical and corrupt

conduct of Chief Patterson, including but not limited to Sergeant Jake Campbell, Steve Hart and Brian Sapp. 143. For example, John Patterson had a department wide meeting in the courtroom. In

that meeting, he told employees they needed to get their D.U.I. stats up. 144. At that time, a female officer named Jennifer Dignam was known around the

department as the Chiefs girl because she got a lot of D.U.I.s and received special treatment that other Officers would not get from Chief Patterson. 145. During Officer Brian Sapps shifts with Officer Dignam, however, he witnessed

her use her P.B.T. (Portable Breath Test) before she asked the suspected D.U.I. drivers to exit the vehicle and consent to voluntary roadside maneuvers. Officer Dignams conduct was plainly illegal and widely known around the department.

24

Case 1:13-cv-00696 Document 1 Filed 03/15/13 USDC Colorado Page 25 of 62

146.

Despite Mr. Sapp bringing this issue up with Officer Dignam, she continued to

P.B.T. people before getting consent to conduct voluntary roadside maneuvers. 147. Officer Sapp was not comfortable supervising someone who refused to conform

to D.U.I. standard protocol. 148. He therefore reported to Sergeant Wood and Sergeant Campbell that Officer

Dignam continuously misused her P.B.T. 149. The next day, Sergeant Campbell told Officer Sapp that Sergeant Wood had

reviewed the tapes and that Officer Dignam was indeed using her P.B.T. illegally. Sergeant Campbell told Officer Sapp that he was nervous to report this behavior higher up because Defendant Patterson always commented about how many D.U.I.s Dignam gets and felt like this would set him off. 150. Shortly thereafter, Defendant Patterson called Brian Sapp into his office, became

very serious in his demeanor and yelled If you fuck with her, your fucking with me! He then retaliatory told him he was concerned about his productivity, making it clear he would be targeted and retaliated against for complaining against Officer Dignam. 151. Another time, there was an investigation conducted into a person regarding his

potential involvement in some unsolved crimes. An officer with Cherry Hills wanted to fill out an arrest warrant for the suspect. 152. While Mr. Sansing believed that this suspect may well have been involved in the

unsolved crimes, he nevertheless objected to and spoke out about the filing of an arrest warrant on the basis that it lacked probable cause and needed further investigation.

25

Case 1:13-cv-00696 Document 1 Filed 03/15/13 USDC Colorado Page 26 of 62

153.

Sergeant Jake Campbell joined Mr. Sansing in his objection that the police had

not conducted enough investigation to file an arrest warrant. 154. True to form, Defendant Patterson became very angry. He was friends with the

officer who had conducted the investigation and wanted the suspect charged, plain and simple, regardless of Mr. Sansing or Mr. Campbells objections that such warrant was unconstitutional. 155. Mr. Patterson told Mr. Sansing and Mr. Campbell that they didnt know what they

were doing, that they knew the suspect was guilty, that that knowledge was enough and that the case should move forward. Mr. Sansing reiterated that the constitutional standard was not whether he suspected guilt, and he didnt believe there was enough evidence to prosecute yet. 156. charged. 157. In this process of that criminal trial, Defendant Patterson and officers under his The arrest warrant went forward over these objections and the person was

control even tried to obstruct an investigator from the Public Defenders office from serving subpoenas on a detective and another officer who were involved in the case. 158. Thus, the investigator was falsely told that the involved officers were not

working. When the investigator spoke to Defendant Patterson, he was extremely rude, telling him that he was the enemy and wanted to know what kind of B.S. he was trying to pull. 159. The investigator responded that he was simply trying to serve two subpoenas and

made mention that word on the street was that the police department was in total disarray. 160. This comment sent Defendant Patterson into a tailspin and he came around the

desk, yelling at the investigator and told him to get the fuck out of his office.

26

Case 1:13-cv-00696 Document 1 Filed 03/15/13 USDC Colorado Page 27 of 62

161.

The District Attorney ultimately decided to dismiss the case, stating that there was

no reasonable likelihood of success at trial. On information and belief, concerns about the behavior of the Cherry Hills Police Department also played a role in this decision not to prosecute. 162. Another time, in 2011, Defendant Patterson condoned an illegal unconstitutional

stop by Officer Juan Berber. 163. When Plaintiff Sansing and Sergeant Jake Campbell objected in this obvious

matter of public concern and said that it was illegal/unconstitutional during a briefing, Defendant Patterson overruled him, maintaining that it was great police work and a good stop. 164. Plaintiff Sansing again questioned the stop, and Defendant Patterson, saying are

you really saying that is a legal stop? Defendant Patterson became visibly angry. 165. After the briefing, Defendant Patterson called Sergeant Campbell into his office,

screamed at the top of his voice to not ever question stops at briefings, and told him to get the fuck out of his office. 166. He also made it clear to Sergeant Campbell that he was to never question the

unconstutionality or illegality of police actions openly, saying something to the effect of you need to learn what not to say in front of other people. 167. In addition to law enforcement corruption, to Defendant Pattersons knowledge,

Mr. Sansing also witnessed the frequent sex based discrimination and hostility toward Michelle Edwardson by Mr. Patterson. 168. In 2010, Mr. Sansing was asked to fill the the Acting Chief of Police position,

while the application process for Chief of Police was underway.

27

Case 1:13-cv-00696 Document 1 Filed 03/15/13 USDC Colorado Page 28 of 62

169.

John Patterson expressly told him and others, including but not limited to,

Sergeant Jake Campbell, that based upon his exceptional work history it was all but certain he would become the permanent Chief of Police. 170. Defendant Patterson further promised Mr. Sansing, that if for any reason he was

not promoted to Chief of Police, he would, of course, retain a command level position within the police department. 171. In stepping up and filling the role of Acting Chief and interviewing for the Chief

of Police position, Mr. Sansing also reasonably relied on these promises and representations, and the promise and representation that he would return to a command position in the department if he did not become Chief. 172. During the time period that Mr. Sansing was in the process of applying for the

Chief of Police position, Mayor Wozniak requested that Mr. Sansing participate in Mr. Giesens investigation in August of 2011 prompted by the complaints lodged by Michelle Edwardson. 173. Mayor Wozniak in writing explicitly stated: [p]lease be assured that your

identity and your comments are guaranteed to remain anonymous. (Emphasis in original). 174. He also told Mr. Sansing that he had selected him because I value your

leadership and your opinions and your dedication to the City. 175. Thus, Plaintiff Sansing was explicitly promised that his participation would be

confidential and that Mr. Patterson, who had decision-making authority with respect to the Chief of Police position, would not know that Mr. Sansing had participated in the investigation, nor would he know the content of that participation and he and other participating employees would not suffer any retaliation.

28

Case 1:13-cv-00696 Document 1 Filed 03/15/13 USDC Colorado Page 29 of 62

176.

In reliance on Mayor Wozniaks promise, Mr. Sansing cooperated with this

investigation and was interviewed at length by Mr. Giesen in August of 2011. 177. During this interview, Mr. Sansing spoke out and reported to Mr. Giesen that he

and many other employees strongly impugned the integrity of John Pattersons leadership, and that he had dictatorially created a widespread hostile work environment rife with corruption and discrimination that continuously damaged the proper working operations in the police department. 178. Mr. Sansing reported to Mr. Giesen that he had personally objected to Chief

Pattersons unethical, unconstitutional and corrupt conduct on numerous occasions as cited above. 179. Mr. Sansing reported that any time an employee questioned or disobeyed Mr.

Patterson, he would become irate, making employees fear for their physical safety. 180. He also complained and reported that the majority of the employees working for

the City were afraid to speak candidly for fear of retaliation and a loss of employment. 181. Mr. Sansing also strongly supported Ms. Edwardsons complaints, and opposed

the discrimination she had experienced, reporting to Mr. Giesen that she had indeed been subjected to constant demeaning comments and sex based discrimination. 182. Numerous other employees also reported the abuse, ratification of illegal and/or

unconstitutional conduct and corruption of John Patterson to Greg Giesen, including but not limited, to Brian Sapp, Steve Hart, and Jake Campbell.

29

Case 1:13-cv-00696 Document 1 Filed 03/15/13 USDC Colorado Page 30 of 62

183.

Mr. Giesen told Plaintiff Sansing that this was the worst working environment he

had ever witnessed, and that he would be very surprised if John Patterson ever again walked through the doors of the Cherry Hills Police Department. 184. Mr. Giesen likewise told another employee, Steve Hart, that this was one of the

worst cases of hostile work environment and sexual harassment he had ever seen. 185. Also during this time, Mr. Sansing spoke with Kerri Gillett about the complaints

lodged against Defendant Patterson and the widespread abuses of power and culture of intimidation he created in the police department and the City. Ms. Gillett told Mr. Sansing that she had made her own independent report to the assistant City Attorney, Nancy Rodgers about the discrimination and retaliation she had witnessed. 186. On information and belief, this complaint by Ms. Gillett was also put into a report

and given to the Mayor. 187. Also on information and belief, after Plaintiff Edwardson and Plaintiff Rogers

wrote the complaint to the Mayor, another Cherry Hills employee and/or former employee wrote a letter to the Mayor complaining about Defendant Patterson. 188. 189. Mr. Giesen wrote a final report on August 24, 2011. Mr. Giesens report unambiguously called for John Pattersons termination based

on the widespread hostile work environment and complaints from employees. 190. Shortly after Mr. Giesen tendered his report, Mr. Sansing went to a breakfast

meeting with Mayor Wozniak and Chief Patterson at Petes University Caf. 191. At this meeting, the report was discussed and it was actually said to Plaintiff

Sansing by Defendant Patterson that he needed to put a lid on any further employee complaints.

30

Case 1:13-cv-00696 Document 1 Filed 03/15/13 USDC Colorado Page 31 of 62

192.

It was explicitly discussed by these men in front of Plaintiff Sansing at that

meeting that Ken Fellman wanted to make the report public and bring it to the City Council, but that that should not happen and that Mayor Wozniak had told Mr. Fellman that the report should be buried. 193. He then added that maybe the City Attorney needed replacing because he was

making bad decisions, like wanting to bring the final report about this scandal to the attention of City Council. 194. During this meeting at Petes University Caf which, on information and belief,

was paid for by Mayor Wozniak on a City credit card, to reassure Mr. Patterson that the report was not going to be released, it was discussed that investigator Giesen had been ordered to falsely label the report a draft and give it to City Attorney Fellman, instead of directly to the City leaders. 195. They discussed in front of Plaintiff Sansing that by falsely characterizing the

report as a draft, it would arguably be attorney client privileged and therefore would not have to be disclosed. 196. Chief Patterson also stated to Plaintiff Sansing and others that the report had been

taken care of and that nobody would have access to the information. 197. Defendants or their agents have attempted to cover up this report ever since,

including refusing to disclose it to the media or to these Plaintiffs. 198. access. Several media sources attempted to gain access to this report and were denied

31

Case 1:13-cv-00696 Document 1 Filed 03/15/13 USDC Colorado Page 32 of 62

199.

Members of the media told Plaintiff Edwardson that when they investigated, they

were told that the report was privileged. 200. Plaintiff Edwardson filed a formal open records request, asking for any and all

information regarding the correspondence with Greg Giesen. 201. She paid for these records, but was only given a stack of papers with the

writing blacked out. 202. On information and belief, City officials pressured and threatened Mr. Giesen to

keep his final report out of the public record. 203. In or around October 2011, Nancy Rogers held a training on workplace behavior

and harassment prevention for all city staff. 204. Rogers that: It was all good training and completely appropriate in a normal workplace, but some of it is not reality here. I told her there were times I wanted to cover my face because it was so uncomfortable to hear some of the things she was training us on and know what most people were probably thinking. 205. Cherry Hills employee Karen Proctor told Kerri Gillett that the training goes Ms. Gillett has written regarding this training class by Assistant City Attorney

against everything that happens at the City. 206. After the training, HR Director Gillett described the situation with John Patterson

as very bad to City Attorney Nancy Rodgers. When Nancy Rogers responded that she would report everything to the Mayor, Ms. Gillett pleaded with her not to saying she will get fired. (Emphasis in the original). 207. Despite promises and guarantees by Cherry Hills of absolute anonymity in

speaking with Investigator Giesen, Mr. Patterson was given access to the information of who 32

Case 1:13-cv-00696 Document 1 Filed 03/15/13 USDC Colorado Page 33 of 62

said what. In further breach of these promises, Defendant Patterson retaliated against Plaintiff Sansing and others, including Suzanne Rogers, with harassment and termination, substantially motivated by what was spoken out and reported about him by multiple people, particularly Plaintiff Sansing. 208. Former HR Director for the Defendant City, Kerri Gillett, wrote in a memo at the

time that, contrary to the guarantee by Mayor Wozniak, described herein, Jay Goldie, Deputy City Manager and Director of Public Works, told Patterson everyone who had met with Greg Giesen. 209. In and around March of 2012, Cherry Hills and Mr. Patterson continued the ugly

campaign of Title VII and First Amendment violating retaliation against those that spoke out against him. 210. Mr. Patterson told Mr. Sansing and several other police supervisors, including but

not limited to Sergeant Jake Campbell and Commander Pat Weathers, that he knew who spoke to Mr. Giesen and what they had said about him. 211. Former police officer Steve Hart, who had also participated in the Giesen

investigation, heard Mr. Patterson say something to the effect of: fuck you guys, you arent getting rid of me that easily, Im here for the long haul -- speaking about the Edwardson complaint and associated investigation and outcry by numerous employees participating in the investigation. 212. In punitive retaliation for his speaking out and opposition to corruption, sexual

and other discrimination and the hostile work environment, Mr. Sansing was subjected to

33

Case 1:13-cv-00696 Document 1 Filed 03/15/13 USDC Colorado Page 34 of 62

constant threats of reassignment out of law enforcement, demotion, forced resignation, and/or termination. 213. Defendant Patterson was also very angry at Brian Sapp who he also knew had

spoken out against him, shortly thereafter walking by Mr. Sapp and putting his index and third finger to his eyes and then pointing them at Officer Sapp, indicating he would be watching this officer and would find a way to get him fired. 214. Defendant Patterson shortly thereafter did exactly that when Brian Sapp was

involved in an incident with another officer who was found to have committed an ethics violation. 215. The subsequent internal investigation found that Officer Sapp was present during

the incident and should have acted quicker to correct the action, but was not a part of the actual violation. 216. Plaintiff Sansing believed that the first officer should be terminated and Officer

Sapp should receive disipline for his involvement including unpaid time off and a corrective action plan. 217. Despite Officer Sapp being cleared of the ethics violation itself, Defendant

Patterson ordered Plaintiff Sansing to terminate Officer Sapp along with the other officer, knowing that Officer Sapp had spoken out against him at that time. 218. Plaintiff Sansing strongly protested this unwarranted and retaliatory order and was

again ordered by Defendant Patterson to terminate Officer Sapp. 219. Plaintiff Sansing later informed the City Attorney that both officers were

terminated, explaining: I was ordered to terminate Officer Sapp.

34

Case 1:13-cv-00696 Document 1 Filed 03/15/13 USDC Colorado Page 35 of 62

220.

Plaintiff Sansing further told her that Mr. Sapp was terminated in retaliation for

speaking out against Defendant Patterson over Plaintiff Sansings protest that such action was unwarranted and retaliatory for his protected speech. 221. Also during the time period of the Giesen investigation and report, Defendant

Patterson held a meeting with the Sergeants, Lieutenants and Commanders in the department, including Plaintiff Sansing and Sergeant Jake Campbell. 222. When staff went into council chambers, they found that Defendant Patterson, who

was not yet there, had eerily left his gun sitting on the table, dissasembled on a cloth. 223. Defendant Patterson then conducted the entire meeting with his gun disassembled

on the table. At the end of the meeting, Defendant Patterson stated the reason his gun was out was to remind attendees how to clean their guns. 224. This was highly unusual and suspicious behavior as all of the attendees were

highly trainined officers who had been cleaning their guns for years and even included the employee who taught young officers how to clean their weapons. 225. Defendant Patterson then, looking around at everyone in a threatening manner,

reassembled his gun, loaded it, and holstered it while still at the meeting. 226. Plaintiff Sansing and Sergeant Campbell were extremely concerned for their

safety and the safety of others during the entire meeting. 227. 228. Defendant Patterson continued his unethical behavior after the Giesen report. In February 2012, Mr. Patterson told Mr. Sansing in front of Pat Weathers that he

brought Mike Warren, Cherry Hills IT employee, to his house on work time to set up his families computers and teach his wife how to use the internet.

35

Case 1:13-cv-00696 Document 1 Filed 03/15/13 USDC Colorado Page 36 of 62

229.

Sergeant Jake Campbell expressly told Plaintiff Sansing that questioning whether

Defendant Pattersons conduct was ethical could kill his chances of becoming Chief. Commander Weathers also told Plaintiff Sansing that talking to Defendant Patterson about this conduct would be a nail in his coffin in terms of being considered for the chief position. 230. Nevertheless, Mr. Sansing directly protested, spoke out and criticized Mr.

Patterson for this improper conduct the next day, February 9, 2012, in front of Deputy City Manager Jay Goldie. He unmincingly stated that the use of city employees for personal matters was a severe ethical violation and reminded him of a similar integrity incident resulting in the removal of a top police official in Parker, Colorado. 231. Mr. Patterson became very angry at being questioned and outed and told Mr.

Sansing to get the hell out of here. 232. Thereafter, there was a pretextual and retaliatory pre-decisional subversion of the

hiring process for Chief of Police to eliminate Plaintiff Sansings strong candidacy. 233. Thus Plaintiff Sansing was told by a Cherry Hills Village City employee who sat

on the interview panel that he was one of three finalists who had been selected for interview, but was then deliberately not interviewed by John Patterson -- although earlier this Defendant power broker assured him he would be made the permanent chief. 234. Before, Mr. Patterson had repeatedly told Mr. Campbell that Mr. Sansing had a

very strong chance of becoming chief. 235. However, afer he learned of Mr. Sansing participation in the Giesen investigation,

and after Mr. Sansing questioned his unethical conduct related to the IT workers, when Mr.

36

Case 1:13-cv-00696 Document 1 Filed 03/15/13 USDC Colorado Page 37 of 62

Campbell asked Mr. Patterson how the Chief selection was going, he started saying instead things like well, there are a lot of strong candidates, I think Jody is going to have a tough time. 236. Mr. Pattersons orchestrated subversion of this process was motivated by his

continuing retaliation related to the public concern hornets nest brewing, as pled herein. 237. Mr. Patterson was thus also overheard during this period by a City employee

stating that it would be in his best interest to hire a woman or Hispanic to cover my bases regarding the complaints against me, revealing both the damaging nature and the existence of this final report. 238. This employee contacted Mr. Sansing directly and stated I shouldnt say

anything but I just cant take this anymore. 239. In fact, Mr. Patterson solicited at least one female friend to apply, a Division

Chief from Lakewood named Michelle Tovrea. 240. He then did, in fact, subsequently hire this very woman to be the Chief of Police

as part of the pre-decisional subversion of the process, also designed to cover up the complaints of sexual discrimination and harassment. 241. Further evidencing the retaliatory elimination of Plaintiff Sansing from becoming

permanent chief and terminated, on March 17, 2012, Mr. Sansing was shown a text from Dave Lynes to another police officer, Jennifer Callahan, that stated Mayor Wozniak had told him that 601 was done. 242. 601 was Plaintiff Sansings department number and Mayor Wozniak was Mayor

of Cherry Hills until April 2012.

37

Case 1:13-cv-00696 Document 1 Filed 03/15/13 USDC Colorado Page 38 of 62

243.

This text message, which was sent prior to the permanent chief decision, also

evidences that the Mayor and Defendant City Manager Patterson aggressively corrupted, biased and engaged in behind the scene appearances that destroyed the neutrality of the hiring process for Chief of Police. 244. Dave Lynes is close friends with Defendant Patterson and is the officer that

Defendant Sansing and Sergeant Jake Campbell complained about not having sufficient evidence for a criminal case as cited earlier in this complaint. 245. In late March, 2012, Mr. Sansing was retaliatorily told that he was not

selected to be the Police Chief and that there was to be no position for him in the Police Department. 246. On June 11, 2012, Mr. Patterson gave Mr. Sansing a letter amounting to

termination and Mr. Sansing was formally discharged from his position in late June 2012. 247. While Defendants pretexutally and falsely told Mr. Sansing that he was

being terminated because the Deputy Chief of Police position was being eliminated, there was never an accompanying essential formal action by City Council or other official elimination of this position, which continued to exist during the time of the events herein. 248. It would have taken approval of City Council to eliminate such a position,

and the position continued to be listed on the Cherry Hills website well after all these events in June 2012 and thereafter. 249. Thus, after his termination, the Defendant Citys Police Web Page continued to

state that the Deputy Chief position was an existing position with the City, describing itself as

38

Case 1:13-cv-00696 Document 1 Filed 03/15/13 USDC Colorado Page 39 of 62

having a permanent police staff of 27 workers, including a Chief of Police and Deputy Chief of Police in what is one of the wealthiest cities in Colorado. 250. The purported subsequent pretextual elimination of this position was nothing

other than an intentional effort to cover up and destroy Plaintiff Sansings distinguished career by John Patterson acting in concert with the Defendant City and its past and current administration to post hoc formalize this pretext. 251. Further, even assuming, arguendo, this position had been eliminated, to induce

him to become Acting Chief, Plaintiff Sansing was expressly promised that if not promoted to permanent Chief of Police, he would be retained in his Deputy Chief or other command position within the department. 252. Despite his exceptional work qualifications and exemplary history with

the City, and despite the promises made to induce him to serve as Acting Chief, Defendants did not allow him to return to his continuing Deputy Chief position or another command position, both positions he requested be given to him, lying to him that such positions were unavailable, in blatant retaliation for his protected Speech and Title VII activities. 253. More particularly, there was an open Sergeant position at the time and Plaintiff

also requested re-assignment to this open position, for which he was more than qualified, and he was again retaliatorily denied. 254. Rather, Cherry Hills abusively placed Mr. Sansing on administrative leave and

alternatively insultingly offered him three months severance or demotion to a dead end non lawenforcement temporarily funded position.

39

Case 1:13-cv-00696 Document 1 Filed 03/15/13 USDC Colorado Page 40 of 62

255.

This position reported directly to John Patterson, and paid $85,000, $35,000 less

than the $120,000 he was then making. This was not a permanent position and Defendant Patterson expressly stated about it that [l]ater this year during the budget process we will make a decision on whether to continue funding this position into 2013. 256. Defendants, with the knowledge, ratification, approval and toleration of the City

Council, the Mayor, the City Attorney and Defendant Patterson, thus proposed severe tangible adverse employment impacts for this Plaintiff in blatant and retaliation for his exposing, speaking out and opposing wrongdoing, discrimination and corruption by alternatively offering him a time limited civilian position, under the direct control of Defendant Patterson, with a one third pay cut or three months severance pay if he would resign. 257. John Patterson has thus knowingly and recklessly been allowed by successive

mayors and City Council and City Attorney agreement to lead an outrageously unjustified retaliatory campaign to destroy Mr. Sansings distinguished career at Cherry Hills and to inflict major economic loss and job status setbacks on him and his family, in addition to severe emotional harm. 258. 259. Plaintiff Sansing was a true and respected leader at Cherry Hills. Kerri Gillett has described Mr. Sansing as well-respected and well-liked

by the officers and the rest of staff. . . and that the PD looked to Jody as a leader. . . 260. Kerri Gillett has further written that virtually no one considers John Patterson to

be a leader and that it was Mr. Patterson who was responsible for the disastrous shape of the police department.

40

Case 1:13-cv-00696 Document 1 Filed 03/15/13 USDC Colorado Page 41 of 62

261.

Unwilling to resign or be voluntarily driven out of law enforcement by the

alternative and retaliatory offers made after this debacle, Plaintiff Sansing was terminated in writing by the Defendants on June 22, 2012. 262. Other employees in addition to Plaintiff Sansing and Plaintiff Rogers were

similarly driven out and retaliated against for their active First Amendment speech and/or Title VII protected participation, including but not limited to, Sergeant Campbell, Officer Brian Sapp, and Steve Hart. These were also continuing Title VII violations after the final sex based environmental hostility and termination of Plaintiff Edwardson on June 30, 2011. 263. As a result of Defendants conduct, Mr. Sansing has suffered significant past and

ongoing lost earnings and impaired earnings capacity. His damages are still accruing and not yet fully ascertained. 264. Plaintiff Sansing was making $120,000 a year and has been unable to find

alternative employment since his wrongful termination. 265. While Plaintiff Sansing is exceptionally qualified, the law enforcement

community is a very tight knit group and it is very difficult to find a command job within a police department, especially in a hurting economy. 266. Mr. Sansing may have to start over as a police officer. This means working

nights, however, which is impossible as his wife now works nights as a 911 dispatcher and they have three children. 267. Since his termination, he has applied for a police officer position and was told that

he was over qualified and that the agency felt that he wouldnt stay in the event a better opportunity presented itself.

41

Case 1:13-cv-00696 Document 1 Filed 03/15/13 USDC Colorado Page 42 of 62

268.

Plaintiff Sansing was a dedicated police employee for 15 years. He gave 100% to

his job from the day he started there and worked extremely hard to be promoted to the position of Deputy Chief of Police. He sacrificed time with his family and put himself through school to finish his Bachelors Degree and Masters Degree, while working full time and raising three boys. 269. He distinguished himself in the Department and in other critical projects with

which he was involved. He was terminated only weeks after Plaintiff Sansing completed the construction contracts for a new $6.6 million joint public safety facility, the biggest project of his career and one of the biggest accomplishments in the history of the organization. 270. Mr. Sansing has also suffered emotional damages in the form of anxiety, worry,

anger, depression, frustration, and feelings of hopelessness. He struggles to understand why such a great part of his life has been unjustly destroyed for speaking the truth about the ruinous impact on operations of the hostile and corrupt culture fostered by Defendant Patterson and opposing the Title VII protected discrimination against Ms. Edwardson. SUZANNE ROGERS 271. Suzanne Rogers served as a part time prosecutor for Cherry Hills Village from

1994 or 1995 until her contract was retaliatorily terminated in December of 2011 with her last day in January of 2012. 272. Cherry Hills. 273. Over the years, Ms. Edwardson repeatedly confided in Ms. Rogers about Chief Ms. Rogers and Ms. Edwardson became friends while they were both working for

Pattersons inappropriate and sexually discriminatory conduct towards her and others.

42

Case 1:13-cv-00696 Document 1 Filed 03/15/13 USDC Colorado Page 43 of 62

274.

Ms. Rogers listened to these problems and as Ms. Edwardson attempted to

complain and stand up for herself. 275. Plaintiff Rogers helped Plaintiff Edwardson understand her rights under the

EEOC to be free from sexual discrimination, sexual harassment and a gender based hostile work environment. She encouraged her to file EEOC complaints against John Patterson, which Ms. Edwarson was very afraid to do fearing she would be fired, and also advised her to retain counsel. 276. After Ms. Edwardsons constructive discharge, she discussed with Ms. Rogers

what the best approach would be to bring positive change to the Department, by speaking out, crafting, and delivering a powerful message to the Cherry Hills Village government petitioning the City to investigate these widespread ongoing employee grievances by many Cherry Hills workers involving such matters of public concern. 277. Ms. Rogers suggested she first talk to former Mayor Welborn about these issues,

given the well-known friendship between Mayor Wozniak and Mr. Patterson. 278. Ms. Edwardson did speak to former Mayor Jeff Welborn, who encouraged Ms.

Edwardson to write a letter to Mayor Wozniak directly, stating that a formal complaint such as this would force him to do the right thing. 279. Ms. Rogers and Ms. Edwardson then spoke out and co-wrote the above-described

letter with Ms. Rogerss active participation in jointly concepting, crafting, wording, and editing the letter, as well as her moral support in taking this brave step despite fear that other employees would suffer retaliation as a result.

43

Case 1:13-cv-00696 Document 1 Filed 03/15/13 USDC Colorado Page 44 of 62

280.

Plaintiff Rogers also told Plaintiff Edwardson to attach her Exit Interview from

June 30, 2011 discussing her sexual discrimination and personal abuses as well. 281. behalf. 282. While Plaintiff Rogers did not sign the letter, Mayor Wozniak was informed that Plaintiff Edwardson submitted the co-written letter and signed it on her own

Plaintiff Rogers had helped Ms. Edwardson write and prepare the letter. 283. 284. Ms. Edwardson also sent a copy of this letter to former Mayor Welborn. In her First Amendment protected activities of speaking out and petitioning for

redress of grievances, this contractor who was in one of the best positions to know what ails the government for which she worked, was speaking and petitioning as a citizen on matters of public concern. 285. Ms. Rogers, still being involved in daily prosecutorial affairs at Cherry Hills

Village was focused in her speaking as a citizen, speaking and petitioning on continuing abuses of government power and problems in the functioning of Cherry Hills Village government. 286. 287. In October of 2011, Mr. Patterson and Ms. Rogers went to lunch. Mr. Patterson told Ms. Rogers that Ken Fellman was attempting to have her

contract for prosecution transferred to the City Attorneys office. 288. Mr. Patterson told Ms. Rogers what a good job he thought she did, that he never

had complaints about her, that the police really appreciated her style of prosecution, and that he had no intention of not renewing or terminating her contract. 289. He said to her about this: If its not broke, dont fix it.

44

Case 1:13-cv-00696 Document 1 Filed 03/15/13 USDC Colorado Page 45 of 62

290.

Sometime after the Giesen investigation was concluded but before any results or

ramifications were announced, Ken Fellman called Ms. Rogers and asked her point blank if she was involved with or knew anything about Ms. Edwardsons complaint to the Mayor . 291. At that time, Mr. Fellman evidently had learned of Ms. Rogers involvement in

the prepartion of Ms. Edwardsons complaint to the Mayor, on information and belief, from Mayor Wozniak and/or John Patterson. 292. Ms. Rogers confirmed that she did know about the situation and that she did

indeed know about the complaint and request for investigation, and in fact she had been directly involved in the preparation and writing of this complaint with Ms. Edwardson. 293. Ms. Rogers further told Mr. Fellman that Ms. Edwardson had been complaining

to her about Defendant Patterson for years. 294. Ken Fellman who had long wanted to take over her job for the competitive

economic benefit of himself and his law firm grew very angry and falsely accused Ms. Rogers of somehow breaching her fiduciary obligations as a prosecutor representing the people of Cherry Hills for her significant role in this whistleblowing complaint. 295. Not only is the City not a client of Suzanne Rogers as she is not a City Attorney,

but in a training class held by Assistant City Attorney Nancy Rogers, who works for Mr. Fellmans law firm, according to Ms. Gillett, Ms. Rogers directed all staff to go the Mayor and/or Council if they were unable to go to the City Manager or HR analyst. 296. This is precisely what Plaintiff Rogers encouraged Plaintiff Edwardson to do only

to be outrageously and falsely accused of breaching her fiduciary obligations by City Attorney Fellman, who was Nancy Rogers superior and private employer.

45

Case 1:13-cv-00696 Document 1 Filed 03/15/13 USDC Colorado Page 46 of 62

297.

Further, the interest of Plaintiff Rogers and the other Plaintiffs and employees of

Cherry Hills Village in speaking out and commenting on these matters of public concern and corruption, and petitioning for redress of grievances, outweighs any interest the Defendants have in promoting efficiency of government operations. 298. About a week or so later, Ms. Rogers again appeared in Court and saw Mr.

Patterson. This time, he refused to speak to her. 299. When she was finally able to get him to speak to her she asked about the

investigation. He responded that it had been rough, but then added Im going to be just fine. 300. City. 301. On or about December 15, 2011, Mr. Fellman called Ms. Rogers and asked her to Mr. Patterson was then promoted to full time City Manager by the Defendant

call him about Cherry Hills matters. 302. Ms. Rogers checked whether there had been a City Council meeting or Executive

Session about terminating her contract and was told by Department heads and the court clerk that there had not. 303. When Ms. Rogers returned the call, Mr. Fellman told her that the City was giving

her 45 days notice to cancel her contract and that the City Attorneys office run by his private law firm would be taking over her prosecution function. 304. He expressly acknowledged to her that the decision had nothing to do with her job

performance. It was clear that the reason for her termination was her well known participation in the preparation of the letter, about which she and Mr Fellman had previously spoken.

46

Case 1:13-cv-00696 Document 1 Filed 03/15/13 USDC Colorado Page 47 of 62

305.

In mid-late December 2011, Defendant Patterson overtly told Sergeant Jake

Campbell that the sole reason Ms. Rogerss contract was being terminated was because it was one of those unintended consequences of Michelle Edwardsons complaint. 306. Before the Defendants adverse employment decision resulting in her retaliatory

termination which, as with the termination of Plaintiff Sansing, was purposely designed by Defendants to chill, punish and inhibit debate of the matters of great public concern raised by Plantiffs and other employees, the City Council for Cherry Hills had in 2009 extended Plaintiff Rogers contract for an indefinite term, and by resolution stated as recently as 2010 that it was appreciative of the services Ms. Rogers has provided the City. 307. This fundamental change of position by Mr. Patterson from October 2011, before

he knew of Ms. Rogers participation in Ms. Edwardsons complaint, was blatant retaliation by Defendant Patterson and Cherry Hills against Plaintiff Rogers for Ms. Rogers known role in cospeaking out and petitioning for redress of grievances on a First Amendment protected matters of public concern. 308. At the time Ms. Rogers was unlawfully terminated, she was being paid $800.00

per Court session. She has suffered ongoing financial losses in the form of lost earnings, which she has yet to be able to replace. 309. Plaintiff Rogers also has ongoing emotional injuries including persisting upset

and depression as a result of being targeted and fired from a job she loved and had worked at for over 17 years. 310. She had never been fired from a job before Cherry Hills. Now, at 55 years old,

Ms. Rogers cannot use 17 years of employment with Cherry Hills as a reference for future

47

Case 1:13-cv-00696 Document 1 Filed 03/15/13 USDC Colorado Page 48 of 62

employment, despite the fact that she went there at least every Thursday for fifteen years and every other Thursday for two years. 311. The employees of Cherry Hills became like family to her. Now she feels that she

cant have any contact with those she was close to, without somehow putting them in an awkward or vulnerable position, all as a result of the retaliation for engaging in First Amendment protected activities. V. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF Sexual Harassment and Discrimination Under 42 U.S.C. 2000(e) et seq (Plaintiff Edwardson against Cherry Hills Village) 312. Plaintiff hereby incorporates all other paragraphs contained in this Complaint as

though fully set forth herein. 313. 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(b) makes it an unlawful employment practice:

to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individuals race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. 314. Plaintiff Michelle Edwardson is a woman and is thus a member of a protected

class under 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. 315. Plaintiff was, at all times relevant hereto, qualified to perform her job

responsibilities, and performed her job responsibilities competently and commendably. 316. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Cherry Hills was Plaintiffs employer as

defined in 42 U.S.C. 2000e(b). 317. Defendant, either directly or by and through its agents, including but not limited

to, Chief of Police/Acting City Manager John Patterson, knowingly and intentionally 48

Case 1:13-cv-00696 Document 1 Filed 03/15/13 USDC Colorado Page 49 of 62

discriminated against Plaintiff by subjecting her to pervasive incidents of sexual discrimination and sex based harassment and then made a conscious decision to directly ratify, sponsor, approve, and acquiesce in the same, conducting no reasonable investigation into her complaints, indeed refusing to investigate, and taking no corrective action, subjecting her to retaliatory treatment and further discrimination for making such complaints. 318. Based on the above described pervasive sexual discrimination and hostile work

environment fostered at Cherry Hills and its organized purposeful decision not to address any such issues, Plaintiff Edwardsons work environment was so intolerable and unpleasant that a reasonable person in her position would have felt compelled to resign and she was thus de facto fired on June 30, 2011. 319. Due to the hostile work environment described herein which continued

aggressively up to the last moments of her work by Defendant Patterson, as aforealleged regarding his abusive intimidating conduct towards her on June 30, 2011, Ms. Edwardson then finally felt she had no other choice but to quit her job and she was thus constructively discharged on June 30, 2011 while still being overtly harassed that very day up to the last minute she was employed. 320. Defendant is liable for the acts and omissions of their agents, supervisors,

managers and employees. 321. Defendants unlawful conduct was the actual and proximate cause of Plaintiffs

resulting emotional and economic injuries, damages, and losses. 322. Plaintiff is entitled to general and compensatory damages for such economic loss,

emotional distress and to special damages for past and future medical and health care related

49

Case 1:13-cv-00696 Document 1 Filed 03/15/13 USDC Colorado Page 50 of 62

expenses and including back and front pay, ongoing lost employment benefits, ongoing lost earnings, lost economic opportunity, impaired earnings capacity, all in amounts to be proven at trial. 323. reinstatement. 324. Defendants conduct was engaged in with malice or with reckless indifference to Plaintiff is further entitled to declaratory and equitable injunctive relief, including

the federally protected rights of Plaintiff, entitling her to punitive damages. 325. Plaintiff is further entitled to statutory attorneys fees and costs pursuant to 42

U.S.C. 2000e-5(k) and to pre-judgment interest and costs as allowable by federal law. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF 42 U.S.C. 1983 Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, Equal Protection (Plaintiff Edwardson against Defendant Cherry Hills and Defendant Patterson) 326. forth herein. 327. 42 U.S.C. 1983 provides that: Plaintiff hereby incorporates all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set

Every person, who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage of any state or territory or the District of Columbia subjects or causes to be subjected any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the constitution and law shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other appropriate proceeding for redress . . . 328. Plaintiff to this claim is a citizen of the United States and the Defendants are

persons for purposes of 42 U.S.C. 1983. 329. Ms. Edwardson is a woman and had the clearly established constitutional right to

be free from unequal treatment and discrimination on the basis of her sex and gender and to enjoy the equal protection of the laws. 50

Case 1:13-cv-00696 Document 1 Filed 03/15/13 USDC Colorado Page 51 of 62

330.

The equal protection clause prohibits purposeful and intentional discrimination or

stereotyping based on gender such as was constantly engaged in by Defendant Patterson against Plaintiff Edwardson. 331. Her illegal termination and firing through constructive discharge was caused by

unconstitutional sex based discrimination and unequal gender discrimination based on her being a female. 332. Defendants were acting under color of state law in their actions and inactions that

occurred at all times relevant to this Complaint. 333. Defendant Patterson was the delegated final decision maker for Defendant Cherry

Hills, and all of his decisions, actions, and inactions represent the policy of Cherry Hills. 334. Any reasonable Chief of Police and/or City Manager knew or should have known

of this right at the time of the complained of conduct as it was clearly established at that time. 335. Defendants illegally, severely, and/or pervasively harassed Ms. Edwardson in

whole or in part, because of her status as a woman, significantly altering the terms and conditions of her employment, treating her unequally based on her sex and thereby wrongfully terminating her. 336. Despite her qualifications and exemplary skills as an Animal Control Officer,

Defendants constructively discharged Plaintiff from employment, in whole or in part, because of her status and gender as a woman. 337. Ms. Edwardsons sex and gender was a motivating factor in the decision to

subject her to such an unequal, hostile and intolerable work environment in which she and other

51

Case 1:13-cv-00696 Document 1 Filed 03/15/13 USDC Colorado Page 52 of 62

women were systematically unequally treated and harassed based on their sex -- and then to constructively discharge her. 338. Defendants conduct described herein was undertaken with the purpose of

depriving Plaintiff of the equal protection and benefits of the laws, equal privileges and immunities under the law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. 339. Defendants engaged in the conduct described by this Complaint willfully,

maliciously, in bad faith, and in reckless disregard of this Plaintiffs federally protected constitutional rights. 340. injuries. 341. conduct. 342. The acts or omissions of Defendants as described herein intentionally deprived Defendant Patterson is not entitled to qualified immunity for the complained of The acts or omissions of Defendants were moving forces behind Plaintiffs

Plaintiff of her constitutional and statutory rights and caused her other damages, including emotional upset and lost wages. 343. As a proximate result of Defendant unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has suffered

emotional injuries and lost wages, ongoing lost and future lost earnings, lost employment benefits, back pay, front pay, impaired earnings capacity, ongoing lost benefits and other damages and losses as described herein entitling her to compensatory and special damages, in amounts to be determined at trial. 344. reinstatement. Plaintiff is further entitled to declaratory and equitable injunctive relief including

52

Case 1:13-cv-00696 Document 1 Filed 03/15/13 USDC Colorado Page 53 of 62

345.

Plaintiff is further entitled to attorneys fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

1988, pre-judgment interest and costs as allowable by federal law. There may also be special damages for lien interests. 346. In addition to compensatory, economic, consequential and special damages,

Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages against Defendant Patterson under 42 U.S.C. 1983, in that the actions this Defendant have been taken maliciously, willfully or with a reckless or wanton disregard of the constitutional rights of Plaintiff. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF Retaliation Under 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. (By Plaintiff Sansing against Defendant Cherry Hills) 347. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all other paragraphs contained in this Complaint as

though fully set forth herein. 348. 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq prohibits discrimination by an employer in retaliation for

opposing unlawful employment practices. 349. Specifically, at 42 U.S.C. 2000e-3(a), it is made an unlawful employment

practice for an employer to discriminate against any of his employees or applicants for employment because he has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this subchapter, or because he has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this subchapter. 350. This prohibition protects all aggrieved persons like these Plaintiffs if a reasonable

worker might be dissuaded from engaging in protected activity, if they knew that such activity would cause others to be injured.

53

Case 1:13-cv-00696 Document 1 Filed 03/15/13 USDC Colorado Page 54 of 62

351.

At all times relevant hereto, Defendant was Plaintiff Sansings employer as

defined in 42 U.S.C. 2000e (b). 352. Plaintiff Sansing opposed the hostile and discriminatory work environment and

unlawful employment practices engaged in by Chief of Police/Acting City Manager John Patterson, still being tolerated, sponsored, acquiesced in, rubber stamped and ratified by officials within Cherry Hills, including but not limited to, Human Resources, former Mayor Michael Wozniak and current Mayor Tisdale. 353. Specifically, and without limitation, Plaintiff Sansing participated in the

Defendant Citys internal investigation following Michelle Edwardsons and Suzanne Rogers complaints against Defendant Patterson, giving highly disapproving, resistant accounts of harassment and discrimination by Defendant Patterson, which were antagonistic to past and ongoing incidents. 354. Plaintiff Sansing also spoke out, opposed and reported the public concerning

corrupt, unconstitutional and abusive conduct he witnessed by John Patterson. He also opposed sexual discrimination against Ms. Edwardson in support of her complaints of unequal sexual and gender based work place hostility, sexual discrimination as well as opposing other discrimination and hostile work environment on behalf of other workers. 355. As a result of participating in the investigation into Michelle Edwardsons

protected complaints, and opposing unlawful employment practices, Plaintiff Sansing was retaliated against in that he was placed on administrative leave and terminated by Defendant, either directly or by and through its agents and employees including Defendant Patterson, City Attorney Fellman, Mayor Tisdale and Cherry Hills City Council.

54

Case 1:13-cv-00696 Document 1 Filed 03/15/13 USDC Colorado Page 55 of 62

356.

Defendant is liable for the acts and omissions of its agents and employees which it

ratified, approved, tolerated, rubber stamped and acquiesced in with actual knowledge through the City leadership including that of two Mayors, the City Manager, the City Attorney and City Council. 357. Defendants unlawful conduct was the actual and proximate cause of Plaintiff

Sansings economic and emotional injuries, damages and losses. 358. Plaintiff Sansing is entitled to general and compensatory damages for such

economic loss, including but not limited to past, ongoing and future lost earnings, ongoing lost employment benefits, emotional distress and to special damages for past and future medical and health care related expenses and also including back and future front pay, lost economic opportunity, impaired earnings capacity, all in amounts to be proven at trial. 359. reinstatement. 360. Defendants conduct was engaged in with malice or with reckless indifference to Plaintiff is further entitled to declaratory and equitable injunctive relief including

the federally protected rights of Plaintiff, entitling him to punitive damages. 361. Plaintiff is further entitled to attorneys fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

2000e-5(k) and to pre-judgment interest and costs as allowable by federal law. FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 42 U.S.C. 1983 Retaliation in Violation of the First Amendment (Plaintiffs Sansing and Rogers against Defendant Cherry Hills and Defendant Patterson) 362. forth herein. 363. 42 U.S.C. 1983 provides that: Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set

55

Case 1:13-cv-00696 Document 1 Filed 03/15/13 USDC Colorado Page 56 of 62

Every person, who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage of any state or territory or the District of Columbia subjects or causes to be subjected any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the constitution and law shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other appropriate proceeding for redress . . . 364. Plaintiffs to this claim are citizens of the United States and the Defendants are

persons for purposes of 42 U.S.C. 1983. 365. Defendants were acting under color of state law in their actions and inactions that

occurred at all times relevant to this Complaint. 366. Defendant Patterson, former Mayor Wozniak, current Mayor Tisdale and City

Attorney Ken Fellman were or are final or delegated final decision makers for Defendant Cherry Hills, and all of their willful and malicious joint actions in concert, including their challenged decisions, actions, and inactions, represent the policy of Cherry Hills. 367. Plaintiffs suffered adverse employment decisions and tangible adverse impacts in

retaliation for speech and petitioning activities involved matters of public concern, which outweighed any interest of Defendants in promoting efficiency and motivated the adverse actions taken. 368. At the time of the complained of events, Plaintiffs had clearly established

constitutional rights to be free from retaliation for the exercise of protected speech and other protected First Amendment activities including exercising their rights to petition for redress of grievances. 369. Any reasonable City Manager and/or Chief of Police, Mayor and City Attorney

knew or should have known of this right at the time of the complained of conduct as it was clearly established at that time. 56

Case 1:13-cv-00696 Document 1 Filed 03/15/13 USDC Colorado Page 57 of 62

370.

Plaintiffs Sansing and Rogers exercised their constitutionally protected right to

question the operations of City government, to speak out about matters of public concern regarding the functioning of local government, including corruption, unlawful employment practices and problems in the functioning of a police department and to petition for redress of grievances ongoingly caused, sponsored, tolerated, ratified and acquiesced to by Defendants and their final or delegated final decision makers. 371. Plaintiff Sansing was retaliated against for exercising his constitutionally

protected right to speak out on matters of public concern and petition for redress of grievances in that he was terminated from his position at Cherry Hills. 372. Plaintiff Rogers was retaliated against for exercising her constitutionally protected

right to speak out on matters of public concern and petition for redress of grievances in that her contract, in which she had a property interest, was not renewed at Cherry Hills. 373. Retaliatory animus for these Plaintiffs exercise of their constitutionally protected

right to speak out and petition for redress of grievances on matters of public concern was a substantial motivating factor in Defendants to this claim terminating Deputy Chief of Police Sansing and Cherry Hills Prosecutor Rogers, and were also the or a substantial moving force behind Plaintiffs resulting injuries. 374. This retaliation against Plaintiffs for their protected conduct would deter a person

of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in the protected conduct. 375. The same adverse employment action would not have occurred absent the

protected speech.

57

Case 1:13-cv-00696 Document 1 Filed 03/15/13 USDC Colorado Page 58 of 62

376.

Defendant Patterson actively participated in this retaliation for Plaintiffs

protected speech and none of the other Defendant employees and/or agents, including but not limited to, former Mayor Wozniak, current Mayor Tisdale, former City Attorney Fellman or City Council took reasonable steps to protect Plaintiffs from this retaliation for their protected speech and other protected First Amendment activities despite actual knowledge. They are each therefore liable for the injuries and damages resulting from the objectively unreasonable actions taken against Plaintiff. 377. As part of a pattern and practice of attacking these Plaintiffs and other Cherry

Hills Village employees for speaking out, Defendants engaged in the conduct described by this Complaint willfully, maliciously, in bad faith, and in reckless disregard of these Plaintiffs federally protected constitutional rights. 378. injuries. 379. The acts or omissions of Defendants as described herein intentionally deprived The acts or omissions of Defendants were moving forces behind Plaintiffs

Plaintiffs of their constitutional and statutory rights and caused them other damages, including emotional upset and lost past and future wages and earnings and/or impaired earnings capacity. 380. conduct. 381. As a proximate result of Defendant unlawful conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered Defendant Patterson is not entitled to qualified immunity for the complained of

emotional injuries and lost past and ongoing lost future wages, ongoing lost employment benefits and/or impaired earnings capacity and other damages and losses as described herein entitling them to compensatory and special damages, in amounts to be determined at trial.

58

Case 1:13-cv-00696 Document 1 Filed 03/15/13 USDC Colorado Page 59 of 62

382.

Plaintiffs are further entitled to declaratory and equitable injunctive relief

including reinstatement. 383. Plaintiffs are further entitled to attorneys fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

1988, pre-judgment interest and costs as allowable by federal law. There may also be special damages for lien interests. 384. In addition to compensatory, economic, consequential and special damages,

Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages against Defendant Patterson under 42 U.S.C. 1983, in that the actions this Defendant have been taken maliciously, willfully or with a reckless or wanton disregard of the constitutional rights of Plaintiffs. FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Promissory Estoppel (Plaintiff Sansing against Defendant Cherry Hills and Defendant Patterson) 385. forth herein. 386. Defendants, either directly or by and through its agents, promised Plaintiff Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set

Sansing that if he would accept their request that he become the Acting Chief of Police and was not given the permanent position for any reason, he would retain a command level position within the police department. 387. Defendants, either directly or by and through its agents, further promised Plaintiff

Sansing that his participation in the investigation into John Patterson would be anonymous and he would face no retaliation, in that, inter alia, Mayor Wozniak explicitly stated: [p]lease be assured that your identity and your comments are guaranteed to remain anonymous.

59

Case 1:13-cv-00696 Document 1 Filed 03/15/13 USDC Colorado Page 60 of 62

388.

Defendants should have reasonably expected that their promises would induce

action by Jody Sansing, as his actions were reasonable for a prudent person under the circumstances. 389. As a result of Defendants promises, Plaintiff Sansing altered and changed his

position in reliance thereon and was induced to act, in that he interviewed for the Chief of Police Position, and during this time period, spoke out against John Patterson in the Cherry Hills investigation. 390. Plaintiff Sansing reasonably relied on these promises to his detriment, in that he

was retaliatorily terminated as a result of his induced actions. 391. In order to prevent injustice, Defendants promises must be enforced or Plaintiff

Sansing is entitled to damages as a result of the foreseeable injuries flowing therefrom. 392. As a proximate result of Defendants unlawful conduct, Plaintiff Sansing has

suffered economic injuries and special damages in the form of past and ongoing lost wages, back and front pay, impaired earnings capacity emotional injuries and other damages and losses including lost employment benefits as described herein entitling him to compensatory and special damages, in amounts to be determined at trial. 393. reinstatement. 394. Plaintiff hereby gives notices that he may amend to seek punitive damages as the Plaintiff is further entitled to declaratory and equitable injunctive relief including

conduct complained of herein is willful and wanton and surrounded by circumstances of fraud.

60

Case 1:13-cv-00696 Document 1 Filed 03/15/13 USDC Colorado Page 61 of 62

VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF: Plaintiffs pray that this Court enter judgment for the Plaintiffs and against each of the Defendants and grant and award: A. Compensatory and consequential damages, including damages for emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, and other suffering on all claims allowed by law in an amount to be determined at trial; B. Economic losses including but not limited to past and future lost earnings, back and front pay, ongoing lost employment benefits and impaired earning capacities on all claims allowed by law; C. Special damages in an amount to be determined at trial; D. Punitive damages on all federal claims allowed by law against individual Defendant and in an amount to be determined at trial as well as on their state law claims upon suitable amendment as provided by Colorado law; E. Attorneys fees and the costs associated with this action under 42 U.S.C. 1988 and under Title VII, including expert witness fees, on all claims allowed by law; F. Pre- and post-judgment interest at the lawful rate; G. Declaratory and injunctive relief appropriate to the constitutional violations in this case including reinstatement, and; H. Any further relief that this court deems just and proper, and any other appropriate relief at law and equity. PLAINTIFFS REQUEST TRIAL BY JURY.

61

Case 1:13-cv-00696 Document 1 Filed 03/15/13 USDC Colorado Page 62 of 62

/s John R. Holland John R. Holland Erica T. Grossman Anna Holland Edwards HOLLAND, HOLLAND EDWARDS & GROSSMAN, P.C. 1437 High Street Denver, CO 80218 303-860-1331

62

Case 1:13-cv-00696 Document 1-1 Filed 03/15/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1

Case 1:13-cv-00696 Document 1-2 Filed 03/15/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2

AO 440 (Rev. 12/09) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


for the

District of Colorado __________ District of __________


Michelle Edwardson; Jody Sansing and Suzanne Rogers
Plaintiff

v.
John Patterson, individually City of Cherry Hills Village
Defendant

) ) ) ) ) ) )

Civil Action No. 13cv696

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION To: (Defendants name and address) John Patterson
Ciy Manager of Cherry Hills Village 2450 East Quincy Avenue Cherry Hills Village, CO 80113 City of Cherry Hills Village 2450 East Quincy Avenue Cherry Hills Village, CO 80113

A lawsuit has been filed against you. Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) or 60 days if you are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiffs attorney, whose name and address are: Erica Grossman, Esq.
Anna Holland Edwards, Esq. John Robert Holland, Esq. 1437 High Street Denver, CO 80218

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT

Date:
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Case 1:13-cv-00696 Document 1-2 Filed 03/15/13 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2


AO 440 (Rev. 12/09) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No. 13cv696 PROOF OF SERVICE (This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l)) This summons for (name of individual and title, if any) was received by me on (date) .

I personally served the summons on the individual at (place) on (date) I left the summons at the individuals residence or usual place of abode with (name) , a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there, on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individuals last known address; or , who is on (date) I returned the summons unexecuted because Other (specify): . ; or ; or ; or

I served the summons on (name of individual) designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

My fees are $

for travel and $

for services, for a total of $

0.00

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:
Servers signature

Printed name and title

Servers address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

Print

Save As...

Reset

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi