Spidle Complaint

7/30/2019 Spidle Complaint

1/49

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

VIRGINIA SPIDLE )

)

Plaintiff, ))

v. )

)

BIRMINGHAM CITY, a Municipal )

Corporation in Alabama. ) Jury Trial Demanded

)

)

Defendant. )

COMPLAINT

I. INTRODUCTION1. This is an action for declaratory judgment,

compensatory damages, back pay and related

economic losses, and other equitable relief. This

action is brought to redress race-based employment

discrimination pursuant to Title VII of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S. C. 2002e

et seq., the Civil Rights Act of 1991, and 42

U.S.C. 1981 and 1981(a), race discrimination

and retaliation, by and through 42 U.S.C. 1983.

2. This action encompasses the period during whichWilliam Bell served as Mayor of the City of


2/49

2

Birmingham (City) and Jarvis Patton served as

the Citys Chief of Operations. Patton was

appointed in February 2010 by newly-elected Mayor

Bell. Patton reports directly to Mayor Bell.

Patton claims that twenty-one (21) department

heads report directly to him. At the direction of

the Mayor, Patton assumed a direct managerial role

in the Finance Department.

3. This action is brought to address race-baseddiscrimination and retaliation resulting in

plaintiffs termination on October 26, 2010 after

24 years of service, including 18 years as the

City of Birminghams Chief Accountant in the

General Accounting Division of the Finance

Department.

4. This action also seeks to address the harmstemming from the second wrongful termination

action on January 30, 2012. The second termination

action came after the January 10, 2012 Decision of

the Jefferson County Personnel Board (Personnel


3/49

3

Board) ordering plaintiffs reinstatement from

the first termination action. Plaintiff returned

to work on January 23, 2012, and within days was

terminated. Fueled by racial animus, the Citys

Mayor defied the Personnels Board Order to

reinstate plaintiff. The City also ignored the

Personnel Boards factual findings that exonerated

plaintiff of all charges including the scurrilous

charge of racism instigated by Patton weeks after

his appointment as Chief of Operations.

5. The actions of the City were the result ofintentional race discrimination and retaliation in

violation of 42 U.S.C 1981, 1981(a) and 1983

and the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S.

Constitution.

6. Plaintiff further seeks redress for acts ofretaliation taken by the City against her for

participating in Title VII proceedings and for

protesting activities that she believed were

unlawful in violation of Title VII of the Civil


4/49

4

Rights Act of 1964, as amended and the Civil

Rights Act of 1991.

7. The City instigated and condoned a race-basedhostile work environment in the Citys Finance

Department. The discriminatory animus was severe

and pervasive altering the terms and conditions of

employment. The race-based discrimination and

retaliation was directed at employees who are

Caucasian.

8. Within weeks of Pattons appointment, the Divisionof General Accounting in the Finance Department

became permeated with discriminatory intimidation,

ridicule, and insult. In addition to plaintiff,

other employees, who are Caucasian, were gravely

affected by the abusive and hostile working

environment. They, like plaintiff, experienced

serious health and emotional problems, impacting

their job performance and attendance. Three

Caucasian supervisors left the department (two

resigned and one retired) in order to avoid the


5/49

5

stress caused by the working environment. The sole

remaining supervisor who is Caucasian remains in

constant vigilance, fearful of retaliation because

she reported her concerns to Finance Department

Director Tom Barnett and Deputy Director Henry

Young.

9. Plaintiff was a minority and within a protectedclass as a Caucasian in the Finance Department as

well as within all departments of the City.

10. The City engaged in a pattern of conductinexplicable on grounds other than race-based

discrimination and retaliation.

II.JURISDICTION

11. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked byplaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1343(4)

and 28 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202. The jurisdiction

of the Court is invoked to secure protection for

and to redress the deprivation of rights secured

by Title VII and 42 U.S.C. 1981, and 1981(a)

providing for injunctive and other relief against


6/49

6

racial discrimination and retaliation.

12. The Court has jurisdiction to address race-baseddiscrimination against Caucasian employees in the

Finance Department in violation of Title VII of

the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, the

Civil Rights Act of 1991 and 42 U.S.C. 1981 and

1981(a).

13. The action also arises under the FourteenthAmendment of the United States Constitution and

U.S.C. 1981, 1983 and 1988. The jurisdiction of

this Court is invoked pursuant to the Fourteenth

Amendment of the United States Constitution.

III. ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES UNDER TITLE VII.

14. On February 16, 2012 plaintiff filed a charge withthe U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

(EEOC) against the City of Birmingham. Plaintiff

alleged that her employer, the City of Birmingham,

discriminated against her and continues to do so


7/49

7

impermissibly on the basis of race, and in

retaliation for participating in a Title VII

proceeding and protesting activities she believed

were unlawful under Title VII and for filing a

charge with the EEOC. (Exhibit A)

15. In that charge, plaintiff alleged that afterMayor Bell appointed Jarvis Patton as his Chief of

Operations, plaintiff was subjected to race-based

discrimination and retaliation. Despite

protestations by plaintiff and other Caucasian

employees, a racially charged hostile work

environment was instigated, encouraged, and

condoned by top City officials, specifically Mayor

Bell and Chief of Operations, Jarvis Patton.

16. Plaintiff alleged in her EEOC charge that as aresult of racial discrimination and retaliation

she was wrongfully charged with racism, placed on

leave, and wrongfully terminated from employment

not only once but twice.

17. Plaintiff also reported to EEOC that she and


8/49

8

other Caucasian employees in General Accounting

were subjected to a race-based hostile work

environment and such continued after she was

subjected to disciplinary charges on May 28, 2010

and placed on administrative leave.

18. Throughout this period up to and including thedate of plaintiffs first termination on October

26, 2010, African-American employees were invited,

if not encouraged, to complain about plaintiff and

other Caucasians. An internal auditor from the

Mayors Office was sent to the General Accounting

Division to solicit complaints against plaintiff

after she was charged and placed on leave.

19. The Citys newly appointed Personnel DirectorPeggy Polk ignored written grievances filed by two

Caucasian supervisors who were targeted for

harassment after plaintiff had been placed on

administrative leave.

20. In her charge, plaintiff incorporated by referencethe EEOC charge filed by Jamie Ligon, the former


9/49

9

Payroll Manager assigned to General Accounting.

Ligon alleged race-based discrimination and

retaliation; she asked that her charge be assigned

class action status to remedy severe and pervasive

racial discrimination in the City of Birmingham.

(Exhibit B)

21. Ligon, a twenty-four year employee, is aCaucasian. Ligon testified that she resigned on

August 19, 2011 because the oppressive work

environment was affecting her health and mental

well-being. Ligon filed this charge on November

8, 2011 and listed plaintiff as a witness in her

charge:

Since July 2010, Barbara McGrue, DeputyDirector of Finance, continually publically

chastised, ridiculed, humiliated me, and

verbally insulted me and other White employees

creating a racially hostile work environment.

Ms. McGrue denied White employees opportunities

afforded Blacks employees. I e-mailed Tom

Barnett, Director of Finance, Peggy Polk,

Director of Personnel, and copied Ms. McGruethat I believed that Ms. McGrue was subjecting

me to discriminatory treatment because of my

race. No action was taken and they did not

respond to my e-mail. Subsequent to my

complaint Ms. McGrue would not meet with me or


10/49

10

keep me informed with what was going on in the

section. Ms. McGrue began finding fault in

anything that I did whereas there were never

any problems identified with my work. On

August 19, 2011, I was forced to resign my

employment as a result of no longer being ableto tolerate the adverse treatment imposed upon

me which caused me great stress and mental

anguish. A number of White employees in the

protected age group have been discharged or

forced to resign and replaced with Blacks.

22. On or about October 19, 2012, plaintiff receivedthe EEOCs notice of right to sue letter. (Exhibit

C.)

23. This complaint is timely filed within ninety daysof plaintiffs receipt of the notice.

IV. THE PARTIES

24. Plaintiff is an U.S. citizen of Caucasian descent.She is over the age of twenty one years and

resides in Jefferson County, Alabama.

25. The City of Birmingham is a municipal corporation.Birmingham City Hall is located at 710 North

Twentieth Street, Birmingham, Alabama 35203. Mayor

Bell is the appointing authority for the City of


11/49


12/49

12

Public Accountant, began working for the Citys

Finance Department in 1986 as a Senior Auditor in

the Revenue Division.

31. In 1992, plaintiff was promoted to the position ofChief Accountant of the General Accounting

Division. GeneralAccounting is comprised of five

sections (each section was assigned a principal

accountant). General Accounting has responsibility

for the following functions: paying bills,

maintaining the general ledger, preparation of

financial reports, and administering payroll and

pension.

32. Plaintiff was supervised over the course of hercareer by several Deputy Directors (Frank Lopez,

Michael Johnson and Henry Young) and reported to

several Finance Directors Hoyt Bedingfield, Mac

Underwood, Falosade Olanipekun, Michael Johnson,

Steve Saylor, and Henry Young). With the exception

of Lopez, Bedingfield, and Saylor, all are

African-Americans.


13/49

13

33. Plaintiff was never disciplined for any infractionduring the course of her twenty-four years of

employment with the City.

34. In 1992, when plaintiff was appointed to ChiefAccountant, the General Accounting Division was

composed of 50% African-American employees.

35. During the period 1992 through May 2010, plaintiffhired and promoted numerous African-American

employees, increasing the composition of African-

American employees to 75%.

36. Plaintiff promoted three persons to PrincipalAccountants, two are African-American (Isaac Smith

and Betty Griggs). The three remaining Principal

Accountants, who are Caucasian, were employed by

the City before plaintiff was assigned to

Accounting in 1992 (Jerry Nemeth, Jamie Ligon and

Lanelle Driver).

37. Plaintiff was never the subject of any claim ofrace discrimination in any jurisdiction (whether

in state court, federal court, or Jefferson County


14/49

14

Personnel Board).

38. Throughout her employment with the City, plaintiffwas qualified for her position as Chief of the

General Accounting Division.

39. Plaintiffs first and only disciplinary chargecame when she was charged with racism and placed

on administrative leave on May 28, 2010. The City

sent the disciplinary charges to the Jefferson

County Personnel Board who, in turn, published

them to their website before plaintiff ever had an

opportunity to defend herself against those

charges at her determination hearing.

40. Plaintiffs first inkling that she was going to bedisciplined came one day before she was ordered to

leave the premises. An African-American employee,

Shirley Foy, stood outside plaintiffs office door

and repeatedly chanted yes, we did it and its

all because of Calvin, referring to Calvin

Bowman, also an African-American employee assigned

to General Accounting.


15/49

15

41. Shortly after placing plaintiff on leave, the Citycreated an additional Deputy Director of Finance

position. Barbara McGrue was promoted into that

position sometime in July 2010 from the position

of Budget Officer, a position equivalent to the

chief accountant position. She is African-

American. No other employee in the Finance

Department was invited to apply for the position

although there were qualified candidates within

the department.

42. Months later, the City hired Keila Pryor toreplace plaintiff. Pryor, who is under 40 years of

age, is African-American. On information and

belief she had little, if any, experience in

governmental accounting.

43. During the period that plaintiff was beingsubjected to raced-based discrimination, other

supervisors, who are Caucasian, were reporting

similar discriminatory treatment altering the

terms and conditions of their employment.


16/49

16

44. On June 11, 2010, Lanelle Driver, the supervisorof Audit and Reconciliation, filed a complaint of

hostile work environment with the Acting Director

of Finance Henry Young, an African-American.

Driver, a twenty-year employee, reported her fears

to Young:

I am hesitant to say anything to the employees

who work under me who are engaged in these

whispered meetings for fear that it will result

in charges being filed against me. Even though

I may not be the primary subject of these

conversations I am aware of what is being

talkedabout and there is an undeniable racial

component to the discussions.

45. When remedial action was not taken to addressthese concerns, Driver sent an e-mail to newly-

appointed Finance Director Tom Barnett alerting

him of other concerns. Driver reported to Barnett

that her authority as supervisor over Audit and

Reconciliation was being undermined by Kevin

Moore, an appointee of the Mayor who appeared in

General Accounting shortly after plaintiff was

removed from her job. Moore is African-American.


17/49

17

Although Moore was officially assigned the

position of Deputy Director of Facility Services

in the Public Works Department, he spent his days

in the Finance Department.

46. In searching her mind for a reason for the Citystreatment of her, Driver wrote that she could

only conclude that it is racial and/or age

discrimination. Or perhaps retaliation. . . I feel

this could also be retaliation because I support

Ms. Spidle.

47. Barnett sent a copy of Drivers complaint to PeggyPolk, the newly-appointed City Personnel Director.

Neither Barnett nor Polk investigated Drivers

concerns. Only after the Jefferson County

Personnel Board was alerted to the Citys

unauthorized re-assignment did Moore absent

himself from the Finance Department.

48. Despite e-mails being copied to her by FinanceDirector Barnett and Ligon, Polk denied that she

had been informed of grievances filed by Driver


18/49

18

and Ligon pursuant to the Citys written policy

against racial discrimination.

49. The City Personnel Director also took no actionafter learning of other instances of race

discrimination perpetrated by high ranking City

officials. In one instance, Polk was informed that

Patton had issued instructions for a supervisor

who is Caucasian not to attend meetings at City

Hall -a public building- for any reason. That

supervisor later took a voluntary demotion because

he feared retaliation and termination. Shortly

thereafter, he was replaced by an African-American

who by his own admission was not qualified for the

position. That same supervisor was recently

informed by the Citys Personnel Director Peggy

Polk that there had been an attempt to again bar

him from City Hall.

50. On October 11, 2011, the U.S. EEOC served the Citywith a charge of discrimination filed by Jamie

Ligon, Payroll Manager in the Department of


19/49

19

Finance. (Ligons EEOC charge was incorporated by

reference in plaintiffs EEOC filing as stated

previously.)

51. Ligon, a twenty-four (24) year employee, reportedthat commencing in 2010, she was being subjected

to a racially hostile work environment. Plaintiff

and three other supervisors were listed among

Ligons witnesses to the ongoing harassment of

Caucasian Americans (Lanelle Driver, Jerry Nemeth,

and Betty Griggs.)

52. Ligon, who was in charge of payroll, reported toEEOC that in May 2010, the racial make-up of the

General Accounting Division was nineteen (19)

African American employees and nine (9) White

employees. Since that time, four whites have been

terminated, reassigned or retired; each position

was filled by an African-American. Additionally,

Ligon reported that as of October 2011, five new

positions had been created and all had been filled

by African-Americans. At the end of 2011 only one


20/49

20

supervisor of Caucasian descent remained in the

Finance Department (Lanelle Driver).

Allegations of intentional race discrimination.

53. Mayor Bell and Jarvis Patton were personallyinvolved in creating a hostile work environment

and subjecting plaintiff to retaliation during the

period leading up to her termination and including

her first and second terminations, a period

extending over two and one-half years.

54. Shortly after being hired by the newly-electedMayor William Bell on February 2, 2010, Jarvis

Patton commenced a race investigation of

plaintiff. Patton is an African-American with 10

years of experience working for the EEOC during

the period 1975-1985. He also served as a City

Council aide from 1985 until 2003.

55. Patton testified that he instigated under theauthority of Mayor Bell an investigation of

plaintiff in March 2010 after speaking with Calvin

Bowman, a ten-year employee assigned to handling


21/49

21

travel vouchers at the travel desk. At that

meeting with Patton, Bowman broke out in tears

and complained that he was being treated unfairly.

56. At the outset of the investigation, Pattoninformed plaintiff that Bowman had complained to

him about low morale. Patton did not reveal at

any time that the investigation focused instead on

racial discrimination, a charge that City would

within weeks lodge against plaintiff.

57. At the time Patton commenced the investigation ofplaintiff, Bowman was prosecuting a

gender/disability case pending in federal court,

wherein Bowman had alleged that (1) he was wrongly

denied a workplace accommodation (reduced work

week) because of allergies he acquired in City

Hall and (2) he was being discriminated against

because of his gender.

58. At the time Patton met with Bowman, lawyers inthe City Law Department (City Legal) represented

plaintiff in Bowmans suit against the City.


22/49

22

59. Bowmans litigious history was well known by Cityofficials in the Mayors office. Over Bowmans

ten-year work history, he filed gender/disability

suits against the City and officials in their

individual capacity including Mayor Bernard

Kincaid, Personnel Director Gordon Graham and

Finance Director Falosade Olanipekun.

60. During a deposition taken during a previouslawsuit filed by Bowman in 2004, the assigned City

lawyer questioned Bowman about his felony record.

The City was aware that Bowman listed two felony

convictions in his job application prior to his

being hired in 1989.

61. The City Law Department defended plaintiff inthese cases because plaintiff was found not to

have been involved in any decision related to

Bowmans claims.

62. In December 2009, Henry Young, the Deputy Directorof Finance, filed a sworn affidavit on behalf of

the plaintiff denying Bowmans EEOC charges that


23/49

23

he was not being accorded training and overtime

pay because of his gender and an alleged

disability.

63. The City was aware that Bowman had never allegedracial discrimination against plaintiff or any

other City employee during his ten years with the

City.

64. During the March 2010 investigation of lowmorale, City Legal under directions from Mayor

Bell instructed plaintiff to turn over her

confidential files on Bowman and five other

complainants to the contract investigator Jonice

Vanterpool.

65. Within days, Patton met with Mailye Taylor andfour other employees who similarly complained of

low morale in the Finance Department. Patton

referred to these complainants as the Birmingham

Six.

66. Patton immediately instructed Henry Young, theActing Director of Finance to assume direct


24/49


25/49

25

criticized Bowmans incessant desire to achieve a

shortened workweek and a flexible work schedule.

70. Barbara White served as the Citys PersonnelDirector during the period leading up to

plaintiffs disciplinary action. White did not

support the Citys investigation of plaintiff and

challenged any action to terminate plaintiff.

71. Barbara White was replaced by Peggy Polk, formeranalyst for the Citys Personnel Department, who

testified that she voted to terminate plaintiff.

Prior to joining the City, Polk was employed as a

counselor with a substance abuse program. Polk

claimed that for many years she conducted race

investigations for the NAACP. Polk is an African-

American.

72. On May 28, 2010, in the presence of the CityAttorney, Patton acting under the authority of

Mayor Bell directed Acting Finance Director Young

to sign and serve on plaintiff disciplinary

charges alleging among other things that she had


26/49

26

engaged in racial discrimination against African-

Americans.

73. Young informed the plaintiff that the order camefrom the Mayors office.

74. Mayor Bell subsequently placed Kevin Moore, aDeputy Director assigned to Public Works

Department, in the General Accounting Division to

assume plaintiffs role.

75. After being served with disciplinary charges,plaintiff was removed from her office and placed

on administrative leave. She was not permitted to

take any files needed to defend against the

charges.

76. When City Legal declined to prosecute chargesagainst plaintiff, the City retained an outside

private law firm (Hand Arendall) to prosecute the

disciplinary charges against plaintiff and defend

the City against the disability/gender suit filed

by Calvin Bowman. (contract lawyers).

77. On June 15, 2010, plaintiff took medical leave as


27/49

27

a result of the physical and psychological harm

stemming from the false allegations made against

her.

78. On June 16, 2010, City Legal withdrew itsrepresentation of plaintiff in the pending Bowman

litigation.

79. Young, who had served as plaintiffs directsupervisor over two years, admittedthat he had no

involvement in the events leading up to the

charges against plaintiff.

80. Young denied the existence of morale problems inthe Accounting sections and denied any involvement

in the Vanterpool/Patton investigation of

plaintiff nor with the drafting of the charges

against her.

81. Young further stated Calvin Bowman, Mailye Taylor,and Shirley Foy never complained about racial

discrimination.

82. Young further denied witnessing mistreatment ofany member of Pattons Birmingham Six.


28/49

28

83. Young testified that in May 2010 he personallyreprimanded Bowman for time reporting

irregularities and admonished Bowman for his

constant call for a three-day workweek.

84. Young also testified that Taylor had been recentlyadmonished by plaintiff in March 2010 for failing

to order car tags causing police vehicles to be

without valid licenses and that serious

deficiencies had been noted in an independent

audit of Fixed Assets an area assigned to Taylor

since 2002. Young instructed plaintiff to write up

Taylor for neglect of duty.

85. After plaintiff was taken out of service in May2010, Bowman attempted to add discrimination to

his pending disability/gender suit.

86. On September 23, 2010, contract lawyers for theCity denounced Bowmans claims of race

discrimination stating that Bowman provided no

particular instance of, or factual support for

such an allegation of race discrimination. In a


29/49

29

federal court pleading, the City stated:

[Bowman], who is black, continues to allege

that both white and black co-employees were

treated more favorably by co-defendants, Nemeth

and Spidle. ... It is fundamental that onecannot sustain a claim of racial discrimination

by alleging that employees who included members

of ones own race received more favorable

treatment...

87. In November 2010, Patton acting under theauthority of Mayor Bell negotiated a money

settlement with Bowman for an amount that required

only the Mayors approval. With the Citys payment

of $9,500, Bowman dismissed his disability/gender

suit against the City and plaintiff and agreed to

not pursue further charges against her. Later the

paid attorneys called Bowman as the Citys

principal witness against plaintiff at the

Personnel Board hearing.

88. Patton admitted that prior to taking disciplinaryaction against plaintiff under Mayor Bells

authority (1) he did not consider or review

plaintiffs performance evaluations or


30/49

30

disciplinary history; (2) he did not review

plaintiffs hiring and promotional history before

terminating her employment; and (3) he did not

review the personnel file of any of the six

complainants.

Plaintiff terminated upon return from medical leave.

89. Plaintiff returned from medical leave on October25, 2010. Upon arrival to work at 8:30 a.m.,

Jarvis Patton and Henry Young convened a

Determination Hearing. The hearing the City was

represented by outside counsel. Although

Vanderpool was not present at this hearing, she

had recently been hired by the same outside firm

to prosecute the case against plaintiff.

Vanderpool had access to all confidential files

furnished to her by plaintiff. These files were

unavailable to plaintiff for her defense.

90. Patton testified that he recommended thetermination of plaintiff to Mayor Bell prior to

the determination hearing.


31/49

31

91. Within hours that day, on October 25, 2010, at thedirection of the Mayor, Young signed plaintiffs

notice of termination.

92. Young admitted that he signed the terminationnotice despite the fact he never saw the

Vanderpool report or any other documents that the

City contended were the basis for terminating

plaintiff.

93. The termination notice was mailed that day.Plaintiff timely appealed her termination.

Jefferson County Personnel Board exonerated

plaintiff and ordered reinstatement.

94. The Jefferson County Personnel Board appointed ahearing officer to conduct plaintiffs

disciplinary appeal hearing.

95. Among the witnesses on behalf of plaintiff wasMichael Johnson, an African-American, who served

as plaintiffs direct supervisor from 1996 until

August 2008.

96. Johnson described plaintiff as cooperative and


32/49

32

knowledgeable, a joy to have in the department.

Johnson stated that plaintiff worked effectively

with several mayors and finance directors over the

years.

97. Johnson noted that all of these individuals withwhom she interacted daily are African-American.

Johnson further testified that he was never aware

of any allegations of race-discrimination in the

Accounting Division.

98. Johnson also testified that he would have promptlyinvestigated such claims and remedied a problem of

this nature. Johnson also testified that he had an

open door policy, yet was never alerted of any

complaints by Bowman. Nor did he observe plaintiff

treat Blacks differently over the course of his

supervision that ended in 2008.

99. The only employee dispute he could recall involvedShirley Foy, one of the Birmingham Six, who had

filed a complaint against her direct supervisor

Isaac Smith, who is an African-American.


33/49

33

100. Johnson testified that Calvin Bowman never came tohim to lodge a race complaint. Johnson was aware,

however, that Mailye Taylor had complained that a

Caucasian had been hired over her. Johnson

testified that he assured City legal that the

hiring decision was correct.

101. A four-day trial at the Personnel Board began ninemonths after plaintiffs termination. The case

was heard July 13 & 14, September 27, and November

17, 2011.

102. The City contract attorney after conferring withthe City representative Jarvis Patton stipulated

to the hearing officer that the plaintiff did not

discriminate against blacks as a racial group a

charge for which she had been wrongfully accused

and terminated.

103. The hearing officer overturned the Citystermination of plaintiff and ordered her immediate

reinstatement to her former position.

104. The hearing officer in his opinion to overturn the


34/49

34

termination found the following findings of fact:

Accusations levied against Spidle lacked

consistency and any reasonable degree of

uniformity to be accepted. This would include

but not limited to, the testimony of CalvinBowman. Perhaps none more so than the testimony

of Calvin Bowman. (Hearing Officer Report atpage 7).

That Calvin Bowman, the principal

complainant, focused much of his energy in hiscampaign to fight against the City and/or

officers of the City for 10 years. Over the

years, Bowmans written complaints, whether

formal or informal, are not consistent with

claims he attributes to Spidle that would

justify her termination.

While Bowman, Taylor and other employees

are convincing in regard to their

dissatisfaction with particular elements in the

workplace, it is just not convincing that such

dissatisfaction is a product of any wrong-doing

on behalf of Virginia Spidle. (Hearing OfficerReport at page 7.)

[Johnson] testified that Spidle deals with

subordinates professionally and that he never

saw her treat employees differently. [Former

Finance Director Michael Johnson] indicated

that he was never interviewed by anyone over

suspected discrimination or hostile work

environment. He indicated that he never

witnessed a hostile work environment or unfairhiring practices. (Hearing officer Report at5.)

[Deputy Director Henry Young, plaintiffs

immediate supervisor since 2008] was unaware of


35/49

35

any verbal or written warnings to Spidle and

not aware of Spidles receiving a reprimand for

a hostile work environment. Young also

conceded that if he thought there was a racial

problem, he would have addressed it

immediately, but he did not believe there wasone. (Hearing officer Report at 6.)

The most credible witnesses during thehearing spoke highly and positively of Spidles

abilities as a supervisor and appropriateness

in which she governed her division..[and]

willingness to support and encourage them on

matters of a personal nature, as well as,

professional.

105. On January 10, 2012, the Personnel Boardunanimously affirmed the Findings of Fact in its

ruling that the Citys termination action was

without merit.

106. Shortly after testifying against plaintiff, bothBowman and Taylor were given promotions.

107. Taylor was given a promotion to Senior Accountantin a newly created position in Fixed Assets with

no additional duties from her position as

accountant. Her supervisor was not informed of the

promotion. That supervisor, an African American,

did not approve of Taylors promotion. When Taylor


36/49

36

was unable to function as a Senior Accountant in

Fixed Assets, she was moved to Bowmans travel

desk; the City hired an outside accountant to

perform the duties in Fixed Assets. On information

and belief, Taylor continues to be paid senior

accountant pay for performing an accountants

duties.

108. Bowman was also promoted after he testifiedagainst plaintiff. Bowman is currently assigned as

the Business Manager to the BillHarris Arena (the

Crossplex). The promotion increased Bowmans pay

grade from a 21 to a 30 almost doubling his

salary. Prior to his promotion, the City with the

approval of the Mayor had routinely paid Bowman

significant overtime. Prior to his settlement with

the City, Bowman had claimed to the EEOC he was

unable to work more than three or four days a

week. No other employee in the Finance Department

was afforded an opportunity to transfer and be

afforded an opportunity for a promotion into a


37/49

37

position created with specific job duties only

Bowman possessed.

Pending appeal, the City refused to reinstate

plaintiff.

109. The City appealed the decision to the three-memberPersonnel Board. Meanwhile, the City defied the

hearing officers opinion and put plaintiff in a

position outside of General Accounting. The

position had been vacant for over a year.

110. Plaintiff was assigned no duties. Just days laterand on the same day the City was released from the

consent decree by the federal court, Finance

Director Tom Barnett under the direction of Mayor

Bell served plaintiff with disciplinary charges on

similar charges as the first disciplinary action,

this time absent any allegations of racism

(hereinafter second termination.) Plaintiff was

terminated on January 30, 2012.

111. The City appealed the Personnel Boards decisionto reinstate plaintiffs employment to the


38/49

38

Jefferson County Circuit Court.

112. During the many months the matter was on appeal,the City refused to reinstate plaintiff despite

the final order from the Personnel Board.

113. During the appeal period, the plaintiff remainedwithout income and health insurance. She was

unable to find employment due to the Citys

scurrilous and unfounded charge of racism that

had been previously lodged against her.

114. For the last 24 years of her career, plaintiffsexpertise was focused in governmental accounting.

Continuing education and training had centered on

that specific area of accounting so plaintiff

could ensure her skills and education remained up-

to-date.

115. The Citys termination of plaintiff created asignificant disadvantage in that it virtually

barred her from obtaining a job with another

governmental agency within the Jefferson County

Personnel Board System. Further, because of her


39/49

39

concentrated attention on governmental accounting,

she lacked the requisite skills to return to the

public sector at a level commensurate with that of

chief accountant.

116. In August 2012, the Jefferson County Circuit Courtdenied the Citys appeal and affirmed the trial

findings and conclusions of the Jefferson County

Personnel Board. The Circuit Courts decision

exonerated plaintiff from all charges alleged by

the City, including the false and specious charge

of racism.

117. Plaintiff remained out of work until shortlybefore a prehearing on the second termination

action.

City dismissed its second termination action.

118. On December 13, 2012, plaintiff received acertified letter from the City that plaintiff was

hereby ordered to return to work the following

Monday, December 17, 2012. The City warned that if

she failed to appear for work on December 17,


40/49

40

2012, the City would deem herfailure to return as

a voluntary resignation.

119. Under these circumstances, plaintiff agreed toreturn to work on December 17, 2012. Within days,

the City filed with the Personnel Board a notice

of dismissal of the second disciplinary action

against plaintiff.

120. Plaintiff is currently employed in a newly createdposition in the Public Works Department. At this

site, plaintiff has not been assigned any

meaningful duties. Plaintiff suffers from extreme

diminution of job responsibilities.

121. The City Personnel Director informed her on herreturn to duty on December 17 that she was being

placed in Public Works because the department had

budget issues. The Personnel Board lists the job

specifications for the position of Chief

Accountant; the position plaintiff currently

occupies requires little to none of those listed

requisite skills, knowledge, and abilities. Such


41/49

41

constructive termination impacts her ability to

advance and jeopardizes her job security in the

merit system.

The Citys Race Based Discrimination caused Physical

and Emotional Harm to Plaintiff.

122. Plaintiff suffered severe mental anguish over atwo-year period stemming from the false charges

leveled against her. At the time of her

dismissal, she was the sole support of herself and

her daughter. The actions of the City threw them

in a state of uncertainty and unexpected financial

upheaval comparable to the loss of her husband

just a few years before.

123. Plaintiff sought counseling from a certifiedprofessional. The deep grief she experienced over

the false charge of racism resulted in emotional

distress, disorientation, loss of appetite,

depression, and an overall inability to function

as normal. She remains under a doctors care and

prescribed medication to alleviate the emotional


42/49

42

strain she suffered.

124. Plaintiff suffered a loss of enjoyment of lifefrom the resulting loss of income and emotional

distress.

VI. CLAIMS

125. The following claims or counts refer to andincorporate the foregoing paragraphs of this

complaint.

Count 1

126. The City violated Title VII and 42 U.S.C. 1981insofar as --

(a) The plaintiff, a member of a protected

class of employees, suffered an adverse job

action when the City, her employer, terminated

her employment;

(b) She was qualified for her job;

(c) She suffered an adverse employment action;

and

(d) Under circumstances given rise to an

inference of discrimination or retaliation.


43/49

127. As a proximate cause of the above violation ofTitle VII, the plaintiff suffered loss of pay and

benefits, mental and emotional distress, and other

pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses such as lost

opportunities and/or eligibility for other

advancement in position, experience, and pay.

128. The City is liable to the plaintiff for back payand related relief, including but not limited to

an injunction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(g),

and all compensatory damages allowed under Title

VII and 42 U.S.C. 1981a(b)(3). Plaintiff was

forced to liquidate her deferred compensation fund

and incurred penalties that had to be paid to the

IRS as a result of early distribution. Plaintiff

was dependent on family to assist with unexpected

debts. After second termination, plaintiff was not

eligible for unemployment benefits and was totally

dependent on the assistance of her family.

Count 2

129. Defendant City violated Title VII when itretaliated against plaintiff because the plaintiff


44/49

44

opposed conduct proscribed by Title VII. The

conduct opposed was racial discrimination and

retaliation, which was intentional, falls within

the meaning of employment discrimination

proscribed by U.S.C. 2000-e(3) for which damages

may be awarded under 42 U.S.C. 1981a(a)-(b). The

City further violated Title VII when it retaliated

against plaintiff because she served as witness

against the City in EEOC charges against the City

in October 2011, insofar as --

(a) The plaintiff engaged in an activity

protected by Title VII when she served as a

witness in charges of racial

discrimination;

(b) The City was aware of the protected

activity;

(c) The plaintiff was adversely affected by

one or more employment decisions of the

City made contemporaneously with or

subsequent to herengaging in the protected


45/49

45

activity; and

(d) There is a casual connection between

the protected activity and the adverse

employment decision(s).

130. As a proximate cause of the above violations ofTitle VII, the plaintiff suffered and continues to

suffer mental and emotional distress, other non-

pecuniary losses, and lost opportunities and/or

eligibility for administrative experience.

Plaintiff anguished over the hurtful and unfounded

charge of racism falsely lodged by the City

against her. She had taken personal pride in

treating people fairly without regard to race.

This allegation was demeaning and the violation of

federal law caused embarrassment and humiliation.

Because of these false charges former colleagues

in City Hall ostracized her. Later while plaintiff

was on leave, she encountered a Councilwoman who

heretofore had always stopped and spoken to her;

this time, this lady turned her head from


46/49

46

plaintiff without speaking. Plaintiff still feels

the emotional scars from being falsely labeled a

racist.

131. During the few days plaintiff was returned to workin January 2012, coworkers would come to her

office door to speak with her to express their

happiness she was back. Fearing reprisal, other

employees would not come into her office but would

rather talk to her in whispers in the hallway.

132. The City is liable to the plaintiff for reliefwhich includes but is not limited to equitable

relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(g) and all

compensatory damages allowed under Title VII and

42 U.S.C. 1981a(b)(3).

Count Three

133. The City terminated plaintiff on the firstoccasion on October 26, 2010 falsely alleging she

was engaging in racial discrimination. Following a

four-day trial, the Jefferson County Personnel

Board ordered her reinstatement with all back pay


47/49

47

and benefits. Within four days of her

reinstatement plaintiff was fired again.

134. The second termination falsely allegedincompetency, a charge that was listed on the

Citys first termination action for which she had

been vindicated days before the second termination

on January 30, 2012. The second termination was

also motivated by race-based discrimination and

retaliation.

135. The City is due to be enjoined from the above-described constitutional violations, and is due to

be enjoined from taking any further retaliatory

actions against the plaintiff. Plaintiff is due to

be returned to her previous position in General

Accounting as Chief Accountant.

Prayer for Relief

WHEREFORE, the plaintiff requests that this Court:

1.Find and declare that the City violated TitleVII and 42 U.S.C. 1981 by terminating her

employment, by altering to her detriment the


48/49

48

terms or conditions of her employment, and by

retaliating against her or alternatively,

2.Enjoin the City to redress the detrimentalchanges in the terms or conditions of the

plaintiffs employment.

3.Enjoin the City to reinstate her position aschief accountant in the Finance Department.

4.Award back pay owed and related relief to theplaintiff to include reimbursement of all COBRA

expenses other medical expenses paid by

plaintiff during the two-year period was

terminated from the City.

5.Enter a judgment against the City for theplaintiff for compensatory damages in an amount

to be decided at trial including interest on

back pay awards.

6.Enter a judgment for compensatory damages in anamount to be determined by a jury.

7.Issue a permanent injunction requiring the Cityto abolish race discrimination in its


49/49

employment policies and practices.

8.Enter a judgment against the City for the costsof this action and a reasonable attorney's fee

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(k) and/or 42

U.S.C. 2000e-5(g)(2)(B)(i) and/or 42 U.S.C.

1988.

9.Order other and further relief that is just.Jury Demand

The plaintiff demands a jury to decide issues of

fact and damages.

Submitted by undersigned counsel for the plaintiff.

/s/_Gayle_H._Gear_________

Gayle H. GearAttorney for Plaintiff2229 Morris AvenueSuite BBirmingham, AL 35203

/s/_Brett Adair___________Brett Adair

The Highland Building2201 Arlington Avenue SouthBirmingham, AL 35205

Pl i tiff t th t th D f d t Cit f

Documents

Spidle Complaint