Amended Complaint - 6!02!2017

Case 8:17-cv-00980-PWG Document 11-1 Filed 06/02/17 Page 1 of 20
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Greenbelt Division
__________________________________________
)
JIRA CHURCHILL )
3637 Elder Oaks Boulevard, Apt. 8408 )
Bowie, MD 20716 )
)
Plaintiff, )
) Civil Action No.
v. ) 8:17-cv-00980-PWG
)
PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY PUBLIC )
SCHOOLS )
14201 School Lane )
Upper Marlboro, MD 20772 )
)
Defendant. )
__________________________________________)
AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Jira Churchill (“Plaintiff” or “Ms. Churchill”) through her attorneys, Clark Law
Group, PLLC, hereby alleges as follows:
NATURE OF ACTION
1. This is a challenge to Defendant Prince George’s County Public Schools’ (“PGCPS”
or “Defendant”) violations of Title VII of The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C.
§2000-e et seq. and the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act (“MFEPA”), Md. Code., State
Gov’t § 20-601 et seq. for unlawfully discriminating against Ms. Churchill because of her gender
and sexual orientation and for retaliation.
2. This is also a challenge to Defendant’s unlawful retaliation against Ms. Churchill in
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq. and
MFEPA.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3. All of the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint are
incorporated by reference herein as if the same were set forth at length.
4. The Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over the instant action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §§
1331 and 1343(a)(4) because it arises under the laws of the United States and seeks redress for
violations of federal law and Plaintiff’s civil rights.
5. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, the Court has supplemental jurisdiction Plaintiff’s state
law claims because the violations arise out of the same case or controversy her federal claims.
6. Pursuant to Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 6-102, the Court has personal jurisdiction
over Defendant because it is organized under the laws of the state of Maryland.
7. Venue is appropriate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because a substantial portion of the
events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in the Division.
EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES AND

STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
9. Plaintiff has satisfied the procedural and administrative requirements for proceeding
under Title VII and the ADA as follows:
a. On December 10, 2014, Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination and retaliation
with the Prince George’s County Human Relations Commission.
b. This complaint was cross-filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (“EEOC”), EEOC Charge No. 12H-2015-00012.
2
c. On September 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination and retaliation
with the EEOC that was cross-filed with the Maryland Commission on Civil
Rights, EEOC Charge No. 531-2015-02324.
d. On February 24, 2017, Plaintiff received her Notice of Right to Sue for EEOC
Charge No. 531-2015-02324.
e. On or about April 13, 2017, Plaintiff received her Notice of Right to Sue for
EEOC Charge No. 12H-2015-00012.
f. Plaintiff has filed her complaint within 90 days of receipt of her Notices of Right
to Sue.
10. Plaintiff has satisfied the procedural and administrative requirements for proceeding
under the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act as follows:
a. On December 10, 2014, Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination.
b. Plaintiff’s charge indicated that Defendant’s discrimination and retaliation were a
continuing violation.
c. On September 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination and retaliation.
d. Plaintiff’s has filed her complaint over 180 days since filing her charges and
within 2 years of Defendant’s last unlawful employment practice, described
below.
11. Defendant is not prejudiced by Plaintiff’s failure to give formal notice under the
Local Government Tort Claims Act based on the following:
a. On December 14, 2014, Plaintiff filed her charge of discrimination and retaliation.
b. On information and belief, Defendant received notice of the charge shortly
thereafter.
3
c. On September 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination and retaliation.
d. On information and belief, Defendant received notice of the charge shortly
thereafter.
e. On March 16, 2016, Defendant filed a response to Plaintiff’s charges with the
EEOC.
f. Accordingly, Defendant is not prejudiced through Plaintiff’s failure to give formal
notice under the Local Government Tort Claims Act. See Md. Code Ann., Cts. &
Jud. Proc. § 5-304(d).
12. Furthermore, Defendant had actual or constructive notice of Plaintiff’s injuries and
surrounding circumstances. See Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-304(e).
PARTIES
14. Ms. Churchill is a resident of Bowie, Maryland.
15. Ms. Churchill is a female.
16. Ms. Churchill identifies as a lesbian.
17. Ms. Churchill was a permanent employee of Defendant from August 18, 2014
through June 30, 2015.
18. Defendant is a school-district that employees over 19,000 individuals.
19. Defendant is an “employer” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 12111(5), 42 U.S.C. §
2000e., 29 U.S.C. § 203(d), and Md. Code, State Gov’t § 20-601(c.
4
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
Ms. Churchill’s Employment With PGCPS
21. Ms. Churchill became a Classroom Teacher with Defendant on or about August 18,
2014 at Thurgood Marshall Middle School.
22. On or about September 19, 2014, Ms. Churchill was assigned to DuVal High School.
23. DuVal High School’s Principal was Mark Covington (“Mr. Covington”).
24. One of DuVal High School’s Assistant Principals was Shanay Wheeler (“Ms.
Wheeler”).
Ms. Churchill Was Constantly Ridiculed Because Of Her Sexual Orientation
25. Ms. Churchill’s sexual orientation was known by the Principal Clark at Thurgood
Marshall Middle School.
26. On information and belief, Mr. Clark informed Mr. Covington and/or Ms. Wheeler
about Ms. Churchill’s sexual orientation.
27. On information and belief, Mr. Covington and/or Ms. Wheeler informed Ms.
Churchill’s students about Ms. Churchill’s sexual orientation.
28. Ms. Churchill also told teachers at DuVal High School about her sexual orientation.
29. On information and belief, those teachers informed Ms. Churchill’s students about
Ms. Churchill’s sexual orientation.
30. In or around October 2014, about two weeks after Ms. Churchill began teaching at
DuVal High School, Ms. Churchill found the homophobic slur “FAG” written on her chalkboard,
along with other derogatory remarks.
5
31. Ms. Churchill sent a picture of the chalkboard to Ms. Wheeler.
32. On information and belief, no action was ever taken regarding the chalkboard
incident, even though Ms. Wheeler assured Ms. Churchill that steps would be taken to ensure a
similar incident would not occur again.
33. At least one other time in 2014, a student, in front of Ms. Churchill, called Ms.
Churchill a “fag.”
34. Throughout 2014, Ms. Churchill’s students repeatedly referred to her as “Mister
Churchill.”
35. Throughout 2014, Ms. Churchill’s students mocked her sexual orientation by
referencing how much she must like rainbows, a widely-known symbol of the LGBT rights
movement.
36. In or around October 2014, when students were eating lunch in Ms. Churchill’s
classroom, as allowed, Ms. Wheeler noticed that the majority of the students eating in the
classroom were female and ordered the students to leave.
37. Ms. Wheeler then told Ms. Churchill “the school [can’t] have [the female students]
being in [Ms. Churchill’s classroom].”
38. Because other teachers were praised for allowing students to eat lunch in their
classrooms, Ms. Churchill believed Ms. Wheeler’s actions to be a result of the fact that Ms.
Churchill is a lesbian.
39. On or around April 1, 2015, Ms. Churchill witnessed a student harassing a
homosexual student; Ms. Churchill intervened, removed the harassing student form her
classroom, and referred the student to Mr. Covington for disciplinary action.
6
40. In all the above-mentioned incidents perpetrated by students, Ms. Churchill
responded by sending the students to school administrators requesting that they be disciplined for
their discriminatory conduct.
41. On information and belief, none of the students Ms. Churchill sent to administrators
were ever disciplined.
Ms. Churchill Engaged In Protected Activities.
42. From on or around October 29, 2014 through on or around April 23, 2015, Ms.
Churchill filed at least eleven (11) “Administrative Procedure 4170” complaints against,
primarily, Mr. Covington and Ms. Wheeler.
43. The filing of an Administrative Procedure 4170 complaint is the grievance procedure
for PGCPS employee complaints of discrimination, harassment, bias, or extremism.
44. In or around October 2014, Ms. Churchill informed her union representative, Camille
Dogbe, that she believed the actions described in her Administrative Procedure 4170 complaints
were because of she is a lesbian.
45. On information and belief, shortly thereafter Ms. Dogbe informed Mr. Covington that
Ms. Churchill believed that the actions described in Ms. Churchill’s Administrative Procedure
4170 complaints were because of she is a lesbian.
46. Ms. Churchill never received any follow-up regarding her Administrative Procedure
4170 complaints, and these complaints did little to curtail the behavior of DuVal High School
administrators.
47. In or around September and October 2014, Ms. Churchill made several requests to
accommodate her autoimmune disorders.
7
48. Ms. Churchill’s autoimmune disorder causes her immune system to attack healthy
tissue throughout various part of her body and affects the moisture-producing glands of the body,
which results in dry mouth and dry eyes.
49. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s autoimmune disorders are disabilities under the ADA and
MFEPA.
50. On or around December 10, 2014, Ms. Churchill filed a charge of disability
discrimination and retaliation with the Prince George’s County Human Relations Commission
against Defendant.
51. On information and belief, Mr. Covington and Ms. Wheeler learned about the charge
shortly thereafter.
52. On or about December 17, 2014, Ms. Churchill filed an Administrative Procedure
4170 complaint expressly complaining of harassment and retaliation by Ms. Wheeler.
53. On or about January 2, 2015, Ms. Churchill filed an Administrative Procedure 4170
complaint expressly complaining of harassment.
54. Ms. Churchill made additional Administrative Procedure 4170 complaints on or about
January 30, February 13, April 13, April 22, and April 23, 2015.
After Engaging In Protected Activities, Ms. Churchill’s Circumstances Worsened
55. Less than two months after Ms. Churchill filed her charge with the Prince George’s
County Human Rights Commission and less than a month after filing her January 2, 2015
Administrative Procedure 4170 complaint, on February 5, 2015, Ms. Churchill was issued a
Letter of Reprimand for failing to appear to at two parent conferences which Ms. Wheeler
scheduled without consulting Ms. Churchill.
8
56. On or around February 10, 2015, Ms. Churchill received another Letter of
Reprimand.
57. On or around March 4, 2015, Ms. Churchill was notified that a review panel
recommended that her contract not be renewed for the next school year.
58. On or about April 4, 2015, in a meeting with Ms. Churchill, her union representative,
and Mr. Covington. Mr. Covington informed Ms. Churchill that she was to be removed from the
classroom and banned from teaching students.
59. In this meeting, Mr. Covington referred to Ms. Churchill as “aggressive,” and
expressed his belief that such aggression was an attribute of “her people.”
60. As Ms. Churchill and Mr. Covington are both African-American, Ms. Churchill
believed Mr. Covington to be referring to her sexual orientation.
61. On or around April 8, 2015, Ms. Churchill was removed from her teaching duties and
assigned to perform administrative tasks.
62. Mr. Covington stated that she was removed because she was too much of an influence
in the classroom.
63. Ms. Churchill believed that Mr. Covington’s use of the word influence meant her
influence as a lesbian teacher.
64. In or around April 2015, Ms. Churchill was fixing a fax machine in the special
education department. Ms. Churchill’s newly assigned supervisor, Ms. Price, told Ms. Churchill
that she was handy with tools like her husband.
65. A gender stereotype is that men are more skillful with tools than women.
66. Ms. Churchill believed that Ms. Price’s statement meant that Ms. Churchill was not
stereotypically female.
9
67. Ms. Price also stated that “your people are handy.”
68. Since Ms. Price and Ms. Churchill are both African-American, Ms. Churchill
believed that Ms. Price was referring to her being a lesbian.
69. Ms. Churchill reported the Ms. Price’s statements to Mr. Covington. Mr. Covington
took no action on the complaint.
70. On or around April 14, 2015, Mr. Covington instituted hearing procedures against
Ms. Churchill seeking to have her removed from her position.
71. Mr. Covington’s April 14, 2015 attempt to remove Ms. Churchill was unsuccessful.
72. On or around April 21, 2015, Ms. Churchill received a letter notifying her that her
contract would not be renewed and her termination would be effective June 30, 2015.
73. On or around June 30, 2015, Ms. Churchill was terminated.
Ms. Churchill Was Not Paid The Wages She Was Owed
74. Ms. Churchill’s bi-weekly pay gross wages were $2,440.50.
75. For the two-week period of January 10, 2015 through January 23, 2015, Defendant
paid $2,067.88 gross instead of $2,440.50. Accordingly, Defendant did not pay Ms. Churchill
$372.62 in owed wages.
76. For the two-week period of January 24, 2015 through February 6, 2015, Defendant
77. For the two-week period of February 7, 2015 through February 20, 2015, Defendant
10
78. For the two-week period of February 21, 2015 through March 6, 2015, Defendant
79. For the two-week period of March 7, 2015 through March 20, 2015, Defendant paid
$1,928.06 gross instead of $2,440.50. Accordingly, Defendant did not pay Ms. Churchill
80. For the two-week period of March 21, 2015 through April 3, 2015, Defendant paid
81. For the two-week period of April 4, 2015 through April 17, 2015, Defendant paid
82. For the two-week period of April 18, 2015 through May 1, 2015, Defendant paid
83. For the two-week period of May 2, 2015 through May 15, 2015, Defendant paid
84. For the two-week period of May 16, 2015 through May 29, 2015, Defendant paid
85. Ms. Churchill was not paid an additional $1,500.00 stipend that should have been
paid to her on June 19, 2015.
11
86. Ms. Churchill is owed a total of at least $6,624.58 in unpaid gross wages.
87. Ms. Churchill’s pay statements indicated that funds were being reduced based on her
alleged use of unpaid leave, however Ms. Churchill did not take unpaid leave. She reported to
work and worked during each of the above stated pay periods.
88. On information and belief, Mr. Covington or other members of Defendant’s
management purposefully withheld Ms. Churchill’s owed wages.
89. Mr. Covington or other members of Defendant’s management purposefully
withholding of Ms. Churchill’s owed wages was part of Defendant’s hostile work environment
against and thus within the scope of Ms. Churchill’s EEOC charge.
90. Ms. Churchill’s charge expressly named Mr. Covington as a management official
responsible for not rectifying Defendant’s hostile work environment.
91. Mr. Covington’s actions as an actor named in Ms. Churchill’s charge are thus in the
scope of Ms. Churchill’s EEOC charge.
PLAINTIFF’S MFEPA CLAIMS ARE TIMELY
92. On or around April 14, 2015, Mr. Covington instituted hearing procedures against
Ms. Churchill seeking to have her removed from her position.
93. On or around April 21, 2015, Ms. Churchill received a letter notifying her that her
contract would not be renewed.
94. Ms. Churchill was intentionally not paid her owed wages for several pay periods from
April 4, 2015 through May 29, 2015.
95. Ms. Churchill was intentionally not paid her owed $1,500.00 stipend on June 19,
2015.
96. The above stated discrete adverse employment actions are a part of Defendant’s
pattern of discriminatory and retaliatory conduct.

12
97. The above stated discrete adverse employment actions occurred prior to two years
before Ms. Churchill filed her original Complaint against Defendant on April 10, 2017.
98. Because the above stated discrete adverse employment actions occurred within the
MEFA’s two-year statute of limitations period, Plaintiff’s hostile work environment claims are
timely. Guessous v. Fairview Property Investments, LLC, 828 F. 3d 208, 223 (4th Cir. 2016).
99. Therefore, Ms. Churchill’s MFEPA hostile work environment claims are timely.
COUNT I: HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT ON THE BASIS

OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION
101. Plaintiff is a female and is homosexual.
102. Defendant was aware of Plaintiff’s sexual orientation.
103. Plaintiff was subject to a severe or pervasive hostile work environment by
Defendant’s willful refusal to discipline misbehaving students.
104. Students repeatedly misbehaved by calling Plaintiff a “fag,” leaving derogatory
remarks on her chalkboard, and referring to her as “Mr. Churchill.”
105. Defendant, on the basis of Plaintiff’s sexual orientation, failed to take any action to
eradicate the harassment Plaintiff was experiencing at the hands of her students.
106. Defendant’s management also made disparaging comments to Plaintiff because of
her sexual orientation.
107. Defendant subjected Plaintiff to a hostile work environment because of her sexual
orientation.
108. Accordingly, Defendant violated Title VII and MFEPA.
13
COUNT II: HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT ON THE BASIS

OF GENDER STEREO TYPES
111. Homosexuality is against the gender stereotype that females should be attracted to
men.
113. Plaintiff was subject to a severe or pervasive hostile work environment by
Defendant’s willful refusal to discipline misbehaving students.
114. Students repeatedly misbehaved by calling Plaintiff a “fag,” leaving derogatory
remarks on her chalkboard, and referring to her as “Mr. Churchill.”
115. Defendant, on the basis of the gender stereotype of Plaintiff’s sexual orientation,
failed to take any action to eradicate the harassment Plaintiff was experiencing at the hands of
her students.
116. Defendant’s management also made disparaging comments to Plaintiff because of
the gender stereotype of her sexual orientation.
117. Mr. Covington referred Ms. Churchill as “aggressive,” a gender stereotype
attributable to males.
118. Ms. Churchill’s supervisor Ms. Price stated that she was handy with tools, a gender
stereotype attributable to males.
119. Defendant subjected Plaintiff to a hostile work environment because of gender
stereotypes.
120. Accordingly, Defendant violated Title VII and MFEPA.
14
COUNT III: TERMINATION ON THE BASIS OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION
122. Plaintiff belongs to a protected class based upon her sexual orientation.
124. Defendant treated other similarly situated employees outside of Plaintiff’s protected
class more favorably than Plaintiff by intervening to discipline misbehaving students and
praising them for allowing students to eat lunch in their classrooms.
125. As set forth more fully above, the circumstances surrounding Plaintiff’s termination
give rise to an inference of discrimination.
126. Defendant terminated Plaintiff because of her sexual orientation.
127. Any non-discriminatory reason proffered by Defendant for terminating Plaintiff’s
employment is pretext for unlawful discrimination.
128. Defendant’s act of terminating Plaintiff because of her sexual orientation is a
violation of Title VII and the MFEPA.
COUNT IV: TERMINATION ON THE BASIS OF GENDER STEREOTYPES
131. Homosexuality is against the gender stereotype that females should be attracted to
men.
15
133. Mr. Covington referred Ms. Churchill as “aggressive,” a gender stereotype
attributable to males.
134. Ms. Churchill’s supervisor Ms. Price stated that she was handy with tools, a gender
stereotype attributable to males.
135. Defendant treated other similarly situated employees outside of Plaintiff’s protected
class more favorably than Plaintiff by intervening to discipline misbehaving students and
praising them for allowing students to eat lunch in their classrooms.
136. As set forth more fully above, the circumstances surrounding Plaintiff’s termination
give rise to an inference of discrimination.
137. Defendant terminated Plaintiff because of gender stereotypes.
138. Any non-discriminatory reason proffered by Defendant for terminating Plaintiff’s
employment is pretext for unlawful discrimination.
139. Defendant’s act of terminating Plaintiff because of gender stereotypes is a violation
of Title VII and the MFEPA.
COUNT V: TITLE VII RETALIATION
141. As a result of Plaintiff’s complaints against Mr. Covington and Ms. Wheeler and
December 2014 charge of discrimination and retaliation, she suffered from Defendant’s
retaliatory adverse employment actions, including, but not limited to, letters of reprimand,
removal from duties, and ultimately termination.
16
142. As a result of Plaintiff’s complaints against Mr. Covington and Ms. Wheeler and
December 2014 charge of discrimination and retaliation, she suffered from Defendant’s
retaliatory hostile work environment.
143. Defendant’s unlawful retaliation because of Plaintiff’s complaints of discrimination
and harassment was in violation of Title VII and MFEPA.
COUNT VI: ADA RETALIATION
145. Plaintiff engaged in protected activity by repeatedly requesting a reasonable
accommodation in 2014.
146. Plaintiff also engaged in protected activity by filing a charge of disability
discrimination with the Prince George County Human Rights Commission.
147. As set forth more fully above, shortly after Plaintiff requested a reasonable
accommodation and filed her charge, she experienced a series of adverse employment actions,
including, but not limited to, letters of reprimand, removal of duties, and ultimately termination
in violation of the ADA and MFEPA.
148. As a result of Plaintiff’s protected activity, she suffered from Defendant’s retaliatory
hostile work environment in violation of the ADA and MFEPA.
COUNT VII: WITHOLDING WAGES

IN RETALIATION FOR PROTECTED ACTIVITIES
17
150. On or around December 10, 2014, Ms. Churchill filed a charge of disability
discrimination and retaliation with the Prince George’s County Human Relations Commission
against Defendant.
151. On or about December 17, 2014, Ms. Churchill filed an Administrative Procedure
4170 complaint expressly complaining of harassment and retaliation by Ms. Wheeler.
152. On or about January 2, 2015, Ms. Churchill filed an Administrative Procedure 4170
complaint expressly complaining of harassment.
153. Less than two months after Ms. Churchill filed her charge with the Prince George’s
County Human Rights Commission and within weeks of filing internal complaints of
discrimination and retaliation, Defendant began to not pay Ms. Churchill all of her earned wages.
154. As stated above, Defendant has failed to pay Ms. Churchill at least $6,624.58 in
unpaid wages.
management purposefully withheld Ms. Churchill’s owed wages.
156. Mr. Covington or other members of Defendant’s management purposefully
withholding of Ms. Churchill’s owed wages was part of Defendant’s hostile work environment
against and thus within the scope of Ms. Churchill’s EEOC charge.
157. Ms. Churchill’s charge expressly named Mr. Covington as a management official
responsible for not rectifying Defendant’s hostile work environment.
158. Mr. Covington’s actions as an actor named in Ms. Churchill’s charge are thus in the
scope of Ms. Churchill’s EEOC charge.
management purposefully withheld Ms. Churchill’s owed wages because of her requests for
18
accommodation, complaints of discrimination, and/or charges of discrimination in violation of
the ADA, Title VII, and/or the MFEPA.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court grant the following relief:
A. Entry of judgment in favor of Ms. Churchill and against Defendant;
B. Back pay;
C. Compensatory damages;
D. Pre-judgment interest as may be allowed by law;
E. Attorneys’ fees and costs; and
F. Other such relief as may be appropriate to effectuate the purposes of Title VII, ADA, and
MFEPA.
DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY
Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all questions of fact raised by the Complaint.
Dated: June 2, 2017

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Jeremy Greenberg

Jeremy Greenberg (13671)
Denise M. Clark (17385)
Clark Law Group, PLLC
1250 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 293-0015
jgreenberg@benefitcounsel.com
dmclark@benefitcounsel.com
19

Amended Complaint - 6!02!2017

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Amended Complaint - 6!02!2017

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Case 8:17-cv-00980-PWG Document 11-1 Filed 06/02/17 Page 1 of 20

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Group, PLLC, hereby alleges as follows:

1. This is a challenge to Defendant Prince George’s County Public Schools’ (“PGCPS”

and sexual orientation and for retaliation.

2. This is also a challenge to Defendant’s unlawful retaliation against Ms. Churchill in

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

incorporated by reference herein as if the same were set forth at length.

violations of federal law and Plaintiff’s civil rights.

7. Venue is appropriate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because a substantial portion of the

events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in the Division.

EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES AND

incorporated by reference herein as if the same were set forth at length.

under Title VII and the ADA as follows:

a. On December 10, 2014, Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination and retaliation

with the Prince George’s County Human Relations Commission.

Commission (“EEOC”), EEOC Charge No. 12H-2015-00012.

c. On September 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination and retaliation

Rights, EEOC Charge No. 531-2015-02324.

Charge No. 531-2015-02324.

EEOC Charge No. 12H-2015-00012.

under the Maryland Fair Employment Practices Act as follows:

a. On December 10, 2014, Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination.

b. Plaintiff’s charge indicated that Defendant’s discrimination and retaliation were a

c. On September 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination and retaliation.

within 2 years of Defendant’s last unlawful employment practice, described

Local Government Tort Claims Act based on the following:

b. On information and belief, Defendant received notice of the charge shortly

c. On September 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination and retaliation.

d. On information and belief, Defendant received notice of the charge shortly

f. Accordingly, Defendant is not prejudiced through Plaintiff’s failure to give formal

Jud. Proc. § 5-304(d).

incorporated by reference herein as if the same were set forth at length.

14. Ms. Churchill is a resident of Bowie, Maryland.

15. Ms. Churchill is a female.

16. Ms. Churchill identifies as a lesbian.

through June 30, 2015.

18. Defendant is a school-district that employees over 19,000 individuals.

19. Defendant is an “employer” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 12111(5), 42 U.S.C. §

2000e., 29 U.S.C. § 203(d), and Md. Code, State Gov’t § 20-601(c.

incorporated by reference herein as if the same were set forth at length.

Ms. Churchill’s Employment With PGCPS

2014 at Thurgood Marshall Middle School.

Ms. Churchill Was Constantly Ridiculed Because Of Her Sexual Orientation

Marshall Middle School.

about Ms. Churchill’s sexual orientation.

Churchill’s students about Ms. Churchill’s sexual orientation.

Ms. Churchill’s sexual orientation.

along with other derogatory remarks.

31. Ms. Churchill sent a picture of the chalkboard to Ms. Wheeler.

similar incident would not occur again.

classroom were female and ordered the students to leave.

being in [Ms. Churchill’s classroom].”

39. On or around April 1, 2015, Ms. Churchill witnessed a student harassing a

40. In all the above-mentioned incidents perpetrated by students, Ms. Churchill

their discriminatory conduct.

were ever disciplined.

Ms. Churchill Engaged In Protected Activities.

primarily, Mr. Covington and Ms. Wheeler.

for PGCPS employee complaints of discrimination, harassment, bias, or extremism.

were because of she is a lesbian.

4170 complaints were because of she is a lesbian.

accommodate her autoimmune disorders.