, 03-15-' -.

12 09: 05 FROM-Polk Co Circuit

Ct

41',1-326-4194

T-176

P0001/0020

F-223

t)

( )

4-Y

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF POLK COUNTY, MISSOuJ= AMANDA DARLENE BLAKE Plaintiff,
vs.
THE CITY MISSOURI,

iLED
A 10: 2b

OF BOLl V AR,
A Missouri

ItJ;li:jW1idpal
-,II. ~"1' -, "'iI. . N:

Corporation

'~ -' '>!io~1 'r..)~,}. "". ''

~:~~". ~~:

D elen d ant. "

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

2fliZ tJ.AR Ilj

VESTA SEt~:f.R POUI co. CIRCUiT COURT

Case No.

I ';}.PD

..f!CJJ(j

015

.
..

PETITION
Plaintiff alleges:

1.
r:

Prior to the filing hereof, and at all times material hereto, Plaintiff was employed by

Defendant in its Police Department in November, 2005, through and including November 30,

2010.
? ~.

At all times material to this action, Plaintiff was the only female police officer employed

by Defendant.

3.

DUling the course of her employment for Defendant, Plaintiff was singled out and

subject to disparate treatment by the Chief of Police of Defendant, C. Michael Seibert, and a
majority ofthe other police officers of Defendant, in that:

a.

although a senior officer who was male approved of my arrest of four persons in a domestic violence case involving physical violence, in April 2006, Plaintiff was the only officer disciplined after being summoned to Chief Seibert's office and questioned about the four atTests and during this questioning, Chief Seibert accused Plaintiff of being

"badge heavy" and another officer who had been present was told by the Chief that ifhe

_ 03-15-'
w'

12 09: 05 FROM-Polk Co Circuit

Ct

T-176

P0002/0020 F-223

C)

/J

would tell the Chief that Plaintiff had told him to arrest the people, he could leave the
office, which the officer refused so to do, and this incident resulted in Plaintiff being

given a three day suspension without pay and placed on an additional period ofprobation; and;

b.

Chief Seibert disciplined Plaintiff for making a physical arrest of a motorist who had two prior driving on suspended/revoked licenses, the arrest being for a felony, for the third

,~
~Y' ~~I~. ~,~
~'l~~
~:~tk

offense qualifying the motorist for classitlcation as a persistent offender; and c. In April of2006 Plaintiff had been instructed to try to fit in more with the male officers, and to have a camaraderie with them and to socialize and joke around with them, the
complaint apparently having been made that she had been too stiff and rigid in her

"~ 1
~~,~

r,

'.'.,!~ .

conduct when she was around the other officers, without any specific suggestions to Plaintiff as to how she was supposed to accomplish this feat; and

d.

Shortly after that instruction, Plaintiffreceived

documented written counseling by

Lt.Parks for joking with another officer and as a result of conversations she was having with other officers, while trying to "fit in" with them; and e, Plaintiff was being accused of instructing officers to write tickets to people like pizza delivery drivers (without the needed class of driver's license to be able to drive as a pizza
delivery person) and people who were using dealer plates illegally; and she was required

~ i ,-

to author and submit an Interdepartmental Communication (tOC) to the command staff

explaining the conversations that had taken place, in which she explained that since her

particular expertise was in traffic matters, she merely had been answering questions of other officers asto what she had done and that she was not instructing anyone to do

.03-15-'12 y,

09:05 FROM-Polk Co Circuit

Ct

417--:326-4194

()

T-176
}

P0003/0020 F-223

'\ . J

anything and that she was merely trying to help officers with questions they had about certain issues with law, and Plaintiff is infornled and believes that the evidence to be
adduced at the trial of this cause and in discovery will support a finding that nO male officers were questioned about statements they had made in answer to questions &om

other officers about procedure or when they should or should not take action; and

While working a traffic grant Plaintiff had stopped a male subject for failing to signal on three separate occasions while Plaintiff was in traffic behind this subject. Plaintiff made my contact with the driver and gave him a warning which was usual in her traffic grant

i
~i ,.
"'.' '8'oI~~:'1
;,-.

work. After she retnrned to the police dep3\1ment to use the restroom, the Chief saw her, and asked her to step into the break room, whereupon he asked her, "What have I told you
.

'.

about mickey mouse stops?" and referenced "Stopping people for not using a turn signal." Even though she explained that she was on a traffic grant that required three traffic stops per hour [where the City got additional money to pay for the grant and the grant conditions had to be satisfied to keep the grant] and this was the third minimum
stops in an hour, the Chief warned her, that she didn't need to be stopping people for such

a simple violation and to use her head. No male officers during my tenure were counseled for doing their job on traffic grants and stopping people for moving violations;

and g.
In 2006 or 2007, Plaintiff had observed a black in color Ford Mustang with no license
plates, and stopped the vehicle for the violation. Upon stopping the vehicle she learned

that the lady driving the vehicle had received the vehicle as a gift that Bill Grant Ford had
given her and stated that she had just picked the vehicle up. Plaintiff explained to the

03-15-'12

09:06

FROM-Polk Co Circuit

Ct

41','-326-4194
\,J

T-176

P0004/0020 F-223

()

woman that she needed to have some fornl oflicense

011her vehicle and explained her

options, and issued a warning. Later when Plaintiff was at the police station, Chief Seibert was coming down the hall and he saw Plaintiff in the squad rOom and stopped and questioned her about the traffic stop. Someone had apparently called him and complained. Chief Seibert began yelling at Plaintiff and asked if she remembered what he
had told her about making "bullshit stops." Plaintiff explained that there was a violation

.'

and that I checked it out, and had only given the driver a warning. The next day Plaintiff brought in her video and handed it to Capt.Van Tassell and explained what had occurred
".

the night before and asked him to review the video and was told that he found no wrong doing on her part; and

h.

Plaintiff had been disciplined for allowing a rookie that she was training to use the radio, and the rookie was taken from her and given to a male officer to train, and the male

ij tr"..1 i

officer allowed the rookie to use the radio the same as Plaintiff had done, but WaS not disciplined in any manner; and and disciplined concerning for the above matter, during that session, other matters, of which she bad no notice

f' , i.

When Plaintiff was counseled she was blind-sided

with allegations

and about wbich she had never received any complaints, or information that there was some sort of a complaint about her conduct and without there being a formal written complaint which was required under the policy of the Defendant's Police Department;

and

J.
, t;

Plaintiff was verbally counseled for sitting in the squad room and discussing other officers, departments. dispatch etc., and after she challenged this counseling, by bringing 4

t.

. 03-15-'12 ,

09:06 FROM-Polk Co Circuit

Ct

4:17-:326-4194

T-176

P0005/0020 F-223

()

( )

up the fact that everyone did thc same and that none of the male officers involved in the discussions were counseled on this, or cautioned not to do it, and after she asked why she

was the only one being questioned and written up for this conduct, the issue was dropped;

and k.
In 2007, the command staff decided to give officers, of their choosing, senior officer
",<-

status, without there being any established

criteria or guidelines for the choice, which was

left solely to the unbridled discretion of the senior officers. The purpose of this was so
that when a corporal or above is not present there is someone there with supervisory authority. Plaintiff had been passed over for this title several times by officers that have much less experience than she had, i.e., approximately 10 years in law enforcement at the

time and an instrnctor with the Missouri Sheriffs Academy, Even though she had more
experience, she had never been offered to be a senior officer with this department and

officers were promoted who had less than 3 to 4 years of experience and all were male officers; and

I.

After Plaintiff was not named to the senior ofticer status, the policies were changed so
that noone can be promoted to corporal without first being a senior officer and Plaintiff is

informed and believes that the evidence to be adduced at the trial of this case and in

discovery will support a finding that this change happened to prevent me from attaining any further rank, due to her sex, female; and

m.

In October of 2009, Plaintiff and a male officer had been asked in the fall of2009, if she
wanted to go into investigations. Plaintiff turned it down stating that she liked being on

the road and that investigations is not where she wanted her career path to go. In October

5
..
I:

. 03-15-'12

09:07 FROM-Polk Co Circuit

Ct

4:.7-:'2:6-4194

()

; J

T-176

P0006/0020 F-223

of2009, a male subject by the name of Charles Mashburn had come. to the police
department and made several complaints about officers mistreating him. Plaintiff was On

holidaywhen this incident supposedly had occUlTed and she could not have been present as she was not at work. When Plaintiff came back to work feliow co-workers told her
that MashbUlll went to the police department up and that he had complained and infonned her that her name was brought That following Monday

to the Chief about Plaintif(

Plaintiff was called into Chief Seibert's

i

oftlce and told that she was being placed into

" '. i ,

investigations.

Chief Seibert stated that the transfer would take place in 2 weeks. Plaintiff

asked why she was being made to go into investigations when she had turned it down. Chief Seibert stated, "Because I said so and that's the way it's going to be." Chief Seibert also made several references that "this is not a punishment." Chief Seibert never asked Plaintiff about the Mashburn incident or gave her an opportunity to give my side of what
happened with the contact. Plaintiff did however tell Capt.Van Tassell and Lt.Parks that

Plaintiff! had heard about Mashburn complaining about her and that she didn't know why he would because it had been at least a year to a year and a half since I had stopped him. Nothing else was ever said or asked about it; and

n.

In October of201O, Plaintiff had a Ineeting with Chief Seibert and explained to him that
she was unhappy in investigations and that she wanted to return to the road. Chief Seihert He

stated that everyone is in their positions because it is what is best for the department. stated that he needed a woman in investigations

so that someone could relate to female A few

victims. Chief Seibert stated that he was not going to move anyone anywhere.

weeks later Lt.Parks asked me ifCapt.Van Tassell or Lt.Sharp had spoken with me.

. 03-15-'

12 09: 08 FRO~I-Polk Co Circuit

Ct

427-326-4194

(')

; J

T-176

P0007/0020

F-223

Plaintiff stated no. Lt.Parks told her that Cpl.Ross, who was once in investigations, had gone to the captain and lieutenant and expressed that he was unhappy being on the road as a corporal and that he wished to return to investigations. Lt.Parks told Plaintiff that
Cpl.Ross had told them that he would resign his position as corporal and even give up the supervisor pay to return to investigations. Lt.Parks then informed Plaintiff that "they"

were talking of putting her on the road two days a week, one day of admin, and two days in investigations. Plaintiff was infolTned that this probably wouldn't take place till the first of the year. Lt.Parks also stated that he felt that "they" should give her a chance. He did not elaborate on what he meant by that statement; and
Ii',"

'(I
::>,"

0,

Plaintiff was told on one occasion by other staff that Chiefhad taken the phone call from
the female who had been a passenger in a car Plaintiff had stopped, and that he had come

~.~ I j" ~
j:.!

out of his office yelling about Plaintiff, that he was going to fire her and that this was it,

as he was tired of her enforcing the traffic laws, This was all said and done before the
Chief had talked to Plaintiff about the conversation from the woman who called him, or

,. p.

asked any questions as to what was going on; and In September or October of2010, Cpl Ross had bought a new phone, and he, Chief Seibel1, Cpl Ross, Lt.Sharp, Capt.Van Tassell, Ofc.Hendrickson, Lt.Parks and Plaintiff were present in a restaurant eating lunch.. Cpl.Ross was looking up names of people on'

.1'

the phone with urban dictionary. He was reading the definitions out loud in a very audible
voice and they were quite profane and vulgar in nature. No one counseled with Cpl. Ross

"

~.,

or tried to stop him from continuing his vulgar tirade, and no one ever mentioned that
Plaintiff, a woman, was present and that it might be inappropriate to utter such verbage in

7 ,.~':,

03-15-'12

09:08 FROM-Polk Co Circuit

Ct

417--326-4194

T-176

P0008/0020 F-223

()
her presence. There were other patrons in the restaurant and were within hearing distance

for the profanity and vulgar language; and

q.
".

Plaintiff was terminated allegedly on account of my language, not cooperating with the investigation and sexual harassment, and for conduct unbecoming an officer, over my language and conduct; and

r.

In the fall of2010, after Plaintiff was made aware ofCpl.Ross's

to investigations

intentions to come back

Plaintiff was called into the office and told by Cpl. Ross and Cpl. Barron

and told that she had a fOlmal complaint written against me for harassment. Plaintiff was not told the particular allegations even though Plaintiff asked what they were. Plaintiff asked who the complainant was and was told that they were not going to discnss it that it was under investigation; and s,
Plaintiff was called into the office of 11-17 -10 by USharp, who gave her paperwork with

a summary of the allegations and infOlmed her that she was on administrative leave, with
tJ

r
t.

pay, until further notice, and after she twice asked who the complainant

was. Lt.Sharp did

tell her; and

In November, 2010 while at lunch Chief Seibert had come in after interviews for the animal control offi,er position and he was asked by some of the officers, how the interviews were gQing and if anyone looked hireable, whereupon Chief Seibert made the
".

comment that he was hesitant to hire a female for the position because females have been
such a problem in the past; and
\: ,.

. "

u.

In November, 2010 Ofc.Palmer and Plaintiff had retrieved some Busch beer to destroy. As she was walking out of the squad room Plaintiff made the comment that sheI hated to

03-15-' 12 09: 09 FROM-Polk Co Circuit

;~t

T-176

P0009/0020 F-223

()
pour out beer, but that it was Busch and she didn't like Busch. Ofc.Coots looked up ftom

his computer and stated, "That's not what I heard" and began laughing. This was a sexual comment, which was directed to Plaintiff, due to her Jess than "classic" feminine looks. During her employment for Defendant, she had been "ribbed" by the guys in the past about homosexuality, and they made comments insinuating that she was a lesbian or have
lesbian desires. Despite the fact that Plaintiff is a heterosexual known that she is, Plaintiff took the "ribbing" having hurt feelings and despite the knowledge bothers and upset her; and female, and that it is

and just joked back with them despite that On the pat'! of the male officers that that it

v.

The Chief and administrators knew of this conduct and did nothing to prevent this conduct; and

w.

Male officers have been allowed to break policy and the law without being terminated or without any consequences at all, to wit:

1,.

~.

.
I.

in 2004/2005 Sgt,Magill was involved in a domestic violence incident with his

wife. Charges were dropped, but the domestic was physical in nature and there are

photos of the incident; and ii.

In 2009/2010 Ofc.Hendricksol1 pulled his duty weapon from his holster and without pay; and

pointed it at another officer, and he was only given a suspension

iii.

In 2008 OfC,Coats had an active ex paJ'!e order of protection against him, and per SOG he was supposed to tnrn his duty weapon in every night and not bein possession of it unless on duty. While Ofc.Coats was under suspension for violation of another policy Plaintiff saw him at a game in Buffalo, Missouri

03-15-'12

09:09 FROM-Polk Co Circuit

Ct

41'7--32:}-4194

T-176

P0010/0020 F-223

()
wearing his duty weapon and badge. Lt.Parks was also at this game and. could not
have helped but see Ofc,Coats
lV.

in possession

of his weapon; and

although it is a violation of policy for command staff to fraternize with subordinates, Ofc.Coats was living with Capt.Van Tassell while employed at the police department.

x.

Even though Plaintiff was tenninated unbecoming

allegedly for sexual harassment

and conduct

an officer, the Chief of Police, the administrative

officers and male police

officers all viewed naked pictures that were passed around by the officers, of a female
employee of Defendant who took photos of herse1f on her cell phone.and sent them

around to various persons, and none of the police personnel were in any manner disciplined for disseminating the nude photos; and

y.

The tennination of the Plaintiff for her language, actions and alleged sexual harassment occurred after she had been instructed by Lt.(Captain)Van Tassell and Chief Seibert that she needed to socialize and joke more with the "guys" and have a camaraderie with them,

~~ ,.

however,

when she did, her conversations

and opinions would be brought into the spot.

light and then she would re-,eive a write up, verbal counseling or some kind of discipline, Her commanded attempts to "just be one of the guys" to fit in and to develop a camaraderie with male officers led to the disparate reason for her tennination.

4.
. ,

The conduct described hereinbefore constituted a hostile work environment and was

designed by Chief Seibert, and the supervisory personnel of the Defendant to make the work environment for Plaintiff so unpleasant, that Plaintiff would voluntarily resign her employment.

5. ! .

On November 30, 2010, Defendant, through its Chief of Police tenninated 10

.,'1',

03-15-'12

09:10 FROM-Polk Co Circuit

Ct

41'1-326-4194

T-176

P0011/0020 F-223

C)
Plaintiff as the direct result of the discriminatory animus he and it held for Plaintiff due to her

sex. 6.
Plaintiff is informed and believes that the evidence that will be produced at the trial of

this cause will demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the alleged reasons for Plaintiffs termination as a Police Officer for Defendant are without merit and are untrue and that

{tt. W"~i'

the same were manufactured by said Chief Seibrt, and the supervisOlY personnel of the Defendant's Police Department to tenuinate Plaintiffs employment with it, on account of her sex, i.e., a female.

a r..
, ,
"1/

",

Ii:~'"
.

-"~

7. 8. 9.

Defendant

has thereby discriminated

against Plaintiff on account of her sex, i.e" female,

Plaintiff has a right to action under RSMo. Section 213.111.

On Or about May 13, 2011, Plaintiff timely filed with the Missouri Commission on

Human Rights, a Charge of Discrimination,

a true copy of which is attached as Exhibit I.

10.

On January 12, 2012, the Missouri Commission on Human Rights issned its Noticc of

Right to Sue, a true copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.

r ,

11.

As the direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendant referred to herein, Plaintiff

was damaged by the loss of her employment, loss of wages, loss of seniority in her employment, loss of health insurance benefits, and is entitled to front pay and will suffer the inability to work in the future due to the actions of the Defendant, in that Defendant will provide infonnation in reference form to prospective employers that the Plaintiff was terminated due to the violation of the work rules and regulations of the Defendant, and Plaintiff has also suffered extreme mental anguish, pain and suffering and emotional distress from the treatment she has received as

l; -'

II

.. 03-15-'12 ,

09:10 FROM-Polk Co Circuit

Ct

4:l7-:~::2e-4194

T-176

P0012/0020 F-223

(1

described herein.

12.

Plaintiffhas incurred the services of an attorney in this action and is entitled to recover

her reasonable attorney fees in connection with the prosecution of this action. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays judgment in her favor and against Defendant as follows:

"
"
I.

,.

a,

That Plaintiff be reinstated in her employment with Defendant, retroactive to

-;' ~

November 30,2010; b. c. d. premises. Richard D. Clites Attorney at Law, LLC 3029B East Sunshine St. Springfield, Missouri 65804 417-887-8351 In a just and reasonable amount as and for compensatory datnages she has That Plaintiff be awarded her reasonable attorney fees incurred herein and that For such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate under these suffered as a result of her termination of her employment with Defendant on November 3D, 2010; costs of action be taxed against Defendant;

t1 ,

"

.
i _11:11,

By Richard D. Crites Attorney for Plaintiff Missouri BarNo. 28619

.' ".,
12