Bridgette Miller Lawsuit

Case 2:18-cv-00512-GMB Document 1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 1 of 22
RECEIVED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF AfewilA p 1: 20
NORTHERN DIVISION
rf.P.R A P. HA,CKETT.
BRIDGETTE ROBINSON MILLER " D!STRICT COURT
DISTRICT ALA
Plaintiff,
vs.
CIVIL ACTION NO.
MONTGOMERY COUNTY BOARD a): 5ia-6e)

OF EDUCATION,ANN ROY MOORE
ROBERT PORTERFIELD,LISA
KEITH, W.DARDEN DEAN,MARY
BRIERS,MELISSA SNOWDEN,ARICA
WATKINS SMITH,PATRICK
NELSON ,and JOHN JOHNSTON
Defendants.
COMPLAINT
COMES NOW the Plaintiff, BRIDGETTE ROBINSON-MILLER (hereinafter
PLAINTIFF), and makes the following Complaint.
I. INTRODUCTION
This is an action against for declaratory judgment, equitable relief and money damages,
instituted to redress the deprivation of rights secured through the Family and Medical Leave Act
("FMLA"); 29 U.S.C. 2601 et seq; Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended; the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States ;42 U.S.C. Section 1981a; and 42 U.S.C. Section
1983 for FMLA interference, FMLA retaliation, sex discrimination, sexual harassment,
retaliation, deliberate indifference, negligence and wantonness.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1.This Court's jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, in that the action arises
under the laws of the United States and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1343, 2201, 2202 and Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1901, 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000(e), et seq. and the FMLA,2a U.S.C. 2601 et seq. This Court has pendant jurisdiction
ofthe state law claims.
2. Venue is proper in that the employment practices which Plaintiff alleges to be unlawful were
committed within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Alabama; the Plaintiff, and all Defendants reside in this district.
3. The Plaintiff has satisfied the exhaustion requirements of42 U.S.C. § 2000e. Prior to the filing
of this cause of action, Plaintiff sought to resolve the matter internally by contacting Defendants
Montgomery County Board of Education (hereinafter MCBOE). When no action was taken by
Defendants. Plaintiff filed a charge with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(hereafter EEOC). Plaintiff filed another Charge with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission ((hereinafter EEOC), on February 27, 2017. The Charges alleged sexual
discrimination, sexual harassment, retaliation, age discrimination, and disability discrimination.
See Copy of Plaintiffs Charges of Discrimination attached as Exhibit A.
4. Plaintiff filed her Charge of Discrimination within 180 days of the date in which she was
continually sexually harassed and retaliated and discriminated against.
5. Plaintiff has met all prerequisites for bringing this action, including the filing this lawsuit
within 90 days of his receipt of EEOC's "Notice Of Suit Rights". Plaintiff Right To Sue letter is
dated February 20, 2018. See Copy of Right To Sue Letters attached as Exhibit B.
III. PARTIES
6. Plaintiff, BRIDGETTE ROBINSON MILLER is a female over the age of nineteen (19)
years, a citizen of the United States and is a resident of Montgomery County, Alabama. Plaintiff
was an employee of MCBOE when the actions of which she complains took place.
7. Defendants MONTGOMERY COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION
(hereinafter MCBOE)is and was an employer as defined under the FMLA and Title VII during
the times relevant to this case.
8. MCBOE is a political body and at all times material hereto operates the Montgomery. County,
Alabama Public Schools.
9. The individual MCBOE members are sued in their individual and official capacities under
which all actions complained of by the Plaintiff were committed by the Defendants while acting
under color of state law and said actions violated the rights of Plaintiff under the Fourteenth
Amendment of the United States Constitution.
10. Defendants ANN ROY MOORE is the Superintendent of MCBOE and is sued in her
official and individual capacities. Ann Roy Moore is over the age of 19 years, a citizen of the
United States and resides in Montgomery County, Alabama.
11. ROBERT PORTERFIELD is President of MCBOE and District 5 Board Member and is
sued in his official and individual capacities. Robert Porterfield is over the age of 19 years, a
citizen ofthe United States, and resides in Montgomery County, Alabama.
12. LISA KEITH is MCBOE District 1 Board Member and is sued in her official and individual
capacities. Lisa Keith is over the age of 19 years, a citizen of the United States, and resides in
Montgomery County, Alabama.
3
13. W. DURDEN DEAN is MCBOE District 2 Board Member and is sued in his official and
individual capacities. W. Durden Dean is over the age of 19 years, a citizen of the United States,
and resides in Montgomery County, Alabama.
14. ELEANOR DAWKINS is MCBOE District 3 Board Member and is sued in her official and
individual capacities. Eleanor Dawkins is over the age of 19 years, a citizen of the United States,
15. MARY BRIERS is MCBOE District 4 Board Member and is sued in her official and
individual capacities. Mary Briers is over the age of 19 years, a citizen of the United States, and
resides in Montgomery County, Alabama.
16. ARICA WATKINS SMITH is MCBOE District 7 Board Member and is sued in her official
and individual capacities. Arica Watkins Smith is over the age of 19 years, a citizen of the
United States, and resides in Montgomery County, Alabama.
17. PATRICK NELSON is an employee of MCBOE and Principal of McKee Middle School
and is sued in his official and individual capacities. Patrick Nelson is over the age of 19 years, a
citizen of the United States, and resides in Montgomery County, Alabama.
18. JOHN JOHNSTON is MCBOE Human Resources Director and is sued in his official and
individual capacities. John Johnston is over the age of 19 years, a citizen of the United States,
IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATION
19. Plaintiff became employed with Defendant MCBOE on April 20,2016 employed as a
teacher, at McKee Middle School and remained employed there until the time of her termination
from employment on May 26,2017.
4
20. On or about September 16, 2016, Plaintiff made a verbal complaint and a subsequent written
complaint to McKee Middle School Principal Patrick Nelson that she was being sexually
harassed by her co-worker Vincent Johnson, another teacher at McKee Middle School.
21. Vincent Johnson was making unwelcomed sexual advances toward Plaintiff in person and in
the form ofelectronic and written communications.
22. Vincent Johnson was placed on administrative leave for only a few days with pay and was
returned to the same classroom near Plaintiff where he continued to sexually harass Plaintiff and
place Plaintiff in constant fear of continued harassment.
23. Months later MCBOE reprimanded and suspended Vincent Johnston for only three days and
allowed him to come back to the same classroom near Plaintiff where he continued to interact
with Plaintiff, sexually harass Plaintiff and put her in fear of continued harassment. ,
24. Defendants moved Plaintiff to another classroom still in the same building and school in
close proximity to Vincent Johnson where they would have continued contact and interaction
with each other and putting Plaintiff in constant fear ofcontinued harassment and failed to
transfer or move Vincent Johnson from close proximity to Plaintiff or remove him from McKee
Middle School.
25. Plaintiff was absent from work on leave that was or should have been FMLA qualified for
December 2016 to end of her employment.
26. Plaintiff was approved for FMLA leave from February through May,2017.
27. While out on FMLA leave, Plaintiff received a March 15, 2017, letter from MCBOE
informing her that her request for a extended leave ofabsence had been approved and that she
needed a doctor's statement stating when she was able to return to work.
5
28. In a letter dated March 17, 2017, Plaintiff was informed by then MCBOE Superintendent
Margaret Allen that her employment contract would not be renewed effective May 26,2017.
29. Prior to that time Plaintiffs evaluations had been very good.
30. Subsequent to the decision not to renew Plaintiffs contract, two other teachers at McKee
Middle School not on FMLA leave had their contracts renewed.
31. Subsequent to the decision not to renew Plaintiffs contract, another teacher not on FMLA
was moved /promoted to take Plaintiffs place.
32. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff had a serious health condition and was an
eligible employee under the definitional terms ofthe Family Medical Leave Act(FMLA),29
U.S.C. §2611(2)(a); Defendants MCBOE was an eligible employer under the FMLA; Plaintiff
was entitled to leave under the FMLA;Plaintiff gave Defendants notice of intention to take
FMLA leave and Defendants should have known Plaintiff was entitled to FMLA before granting
her benefits to which she was entitled; and Defendants interfered with and retaliated against
Plaintiff in the exercise of her FMLA rights.
33. Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with FMLA eligibility notices for leave
under the FMLA within five(5)days, 29 CFR §3000(b).
34 Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff employee with designation notices ofleave as
required by the FMLA within five(5) business days, 29 CFR §825.300(d).
35. Defendants failed to adequately, accurately and consistently document dispute
resolution discussions with Plaintiff employees as required by the FMLA,29 CFR §825.3019(c).
36. Defendants failed to timely, adequately, accurately, and consistently designate FMLA leave,
document FMLA leave approved, and FMLA leave taken for Plaintiff as required by the FMLA.
37. Defendants interfered with Plaintiffs right and benefits under the FMLA by not
6
providing Plaintiff with the notices stated above. See White v. Beltram Edge Tool Supply, 789
F.3d 1188 footnote 10(11th Cir. 2015).
38. As a proximate cause thereof, Plaintiff suffered loss of wages, salary, retirement
benefits and other compensation due to the actions or inactions of Defendants and is entitled to
recover double compensation, attorney fees and costs. 29 U.S.C. §2617(a)(1)(A).
V.CLAIMS
COUNT ONE-FMLA INTERFERENCE CLAIM
39. Plaintiff repeats, repleads and realleges the allegations of paragraph 1 through 38
above as if fully set forth herein.
40. Defendants interfered with Plaintiff in the exercise of her FMLA rights and benefits and the
taking ofFMLA leave when Plaintiff never was issued by Defendants nor received from
Defendants a written FMLA Notice of Rights, FMLA Eligibility Notice, FMLA Designation
Notice or any other written FMLA notice required by the FMLA.
41. Defendants interfered with Plaintiffs rights and benefits under the FMLA by not recognizing
and approving earlier FMLA leave and by terminating her employment or deciding not to renew
her contract for taking FMLA leave and while taking FMLA leave from work absences that was
FMLA qualifying leave resulting in inability to monitor leave, insufficient approval of leave and
job termination.
42. Defendants interfered with the exercise of Plaintiffs FMLA rights and benefits and the
taking ofFMLA leave when Plaintiff was terminated from employment and her contract not
renewed by Defendants and not rehired despite her requesting rehire and her doctor's statement
that she could return to work effective May 26,2017.
7
COUNT TWO-FMLA INTERERNCE CLAIM-RECKLESS DISREGARD
44. Plaintiff repeats, repleads and adopts by reference paragraphs 1 through 38 above, as
if set out in full herein.
45. Defendants knowingly and willfully and with reckless disregard interfered with
Plaintiffs rights and benefits under the FMLA by terminating her employment or deciding not to
renew her contract for taking FMLA leave and while taking leave from work absences that were
FMLA qualifying leave resulting in inability to monitor leave, insufficient approval ofleave and
job termination.
Plaintiff in the exercise of her FMLA rights and benefits and benefits and the taking ofFMLA
leave when Plaintiff never was issued by Defendants nor received from Defendants a written
FMLA Notice of Rights, FMLA Eligibility Notice, FMLA Designation Notice or any other
written FMLA notice required by the FMLA.
47. Defendants knowingly and willfully and with reckless disregard interfered with the
exercise of Plaintiffs FMLA rights and benefits and the taking ofFMLA leave when Plaintiff
was terminated from employment and her contract not renewed by Defendants and not rehired by
Defendants despite requesting rehire and her doctor's statement in that she could return to work
effective May 26, 2017.
8
COUNT THREE- FMLA RETALIATION
50. Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff in the exercise of her FMLA rights and benefits and
the taking of FMLA leave when Plaintiff never was issued by Defendants nor received from
Defendants a written a FMLA Notice of Rights, FMLA Eligibility Notice, FMLA Designation
Notice or any other written FMLA notice required by the FMLA.
51. Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff with regard to Plaintiffs rights and benefits under the
FMLA by terminating her employment and deciding not to renew her contract for taking FMLA
leave and while taking leave from work absences that were FMLA qualifying leave resulting in
inability to monitor leave, insufficient approval of leave and job termination.
52. Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff with regard to the exercise of Plaintiffs FMLA rights
and benefits and the taking of FMLA leave when Plaintiff was terminated from employment by
Defendants and not rehired despite requesting rehire and her doctor's statement that she could
return to work effective May 26,2017.
recover double compensation, attorney fees and costs. 29 U.S.C. §2617 (a)(1)(A).
COUNT FOUR-FMLA RETALIATION CLAIM-RECKLESS DISREGARD
54. Plaintiff repeats, repleads and adopts by reference paragraphs 1 through 38 above,
as if set out in full herein.
9
Plaintiffs rights and benefits under the FMLA by terminating her employment and deciding not
to renew her contract for taking FMLA leave and while taking leave from work absences that
were FMLA qualifying leave resulting in inability to monitor leave, insufficient approval of
leave and job termination.
Plaintiff in the exercise of her FMLA rights and benefits and benefits and the taking ofFMLA
leave when Plaintiff never was issued by Defendants nor received from Defendants a written
FMLA Notice of Rights, FMLA Eligibility Notice, FMLA Designation Notice or any other
written FMLA notice required by the FMLA.
57. Defendants knowingly and willfully and with reckless disregard interfered with the
exercise of Plaintiffs FMLA rights and benefits and the taking of FMLA leave when Plaintiff
was terminated from employment and her contract not renewed by Defendants and not rehired by
Defendants despite requesting rehire and her doctor's statement that she could return to work
effective May 26, 2017..
COUNT FIVE-SEXUAL HARASSMENT
60. MCBOE employee Vincent Johnson, a teacher and co-worker at McKee Middle
School subjected Plaintiff to unwelcomed and unlawful sexual advances.
61. Defendants knew or should have known about the sexual harassment of Plaintiff by
10
Vincent Johnson and failed to take prompt and adequate remedial steps to stop it and correct the
situation causing fear of harassment.
62. Defendants failed to adequately and timely supervise, control, discipline
and/or otherwise penalize the conduct of Vincent Johnson and the acts, delay, and failure to act
of other supervisors in response to the complaints made by Plaintiff.
63. Defendants failed to take all reasonable, necessary and effective steps to
eliminate sex harassment from the workplace and to promptly and timely investigate Plaintiffs
complaints of sexual harassment in the workplace and take timely and prompt remedial and
corrective action as required by law.
64. Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff when they took no prompt and effective
disciplinary action against Vincent Johnson until almost months after Plaintiff complained to
them about Vincent Johnson's unwelcomed and unlawful sexual advances.
65. Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff by moving her and not moving
Vincent Johnson and by keeping Plaintiff in the same school in close proximity to Johnson.
66. Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff by only giving mild discipline to Vincent Johnson
over a holiday weekend.
67. Defendants did not have an effective employee training program in that Plaintiff did not
receive training on any MCBOE sexual harassment, discrimination or retaliation policies as a
new hire or at any time during employment and never received copies of such policies from
management during employment.
68. Defendants did not exercise reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct sexual
harassment; did not have a comprehensive, well-known and vigorously enforced effective sexual
harassment policy and complaint procedure during the time of Plaintiffs employment; did not
11
have a developed and widely distributed effective sexual harassment policy and complaint
procedure during Plaintiff employment; did not have an effective regular sexual harassment
training program; did not train Plaintiff on its sexual harassment policy and complaint procedure;
did not train all management and staff on the policy and complaint procedure during Plaintiffs
employment; did not promptly and thoroughly investigate Plaintiffs complaints ofsexual
harassment; did not take prompt remedial and corrective action consistent the MCBOE policy
and the law; did not implement mechanisms to monitor the effectiveness of its policy and
complaint procedures, including failure to maintain a complaint file ofcomplaints of harassment,
discrimination and retaliation.
69. Said sexual harassment was done intentionally, maliciously, willfully, and with
reckless disregard for the rights of Plaintiff. This sexually harassing and discriminatory conduct
was sufficiently severe and pervasive as to alter the terms and conditions of employment and
unreasonably interfere with Plaintiffs physical and emotional health so as to create an
intimidating, hostile, and offensive work environment in violation of Title VII ofthe Civil Rights
Acts of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Section 2000 et.seq. as amended.
70. As a result of the hostile work environment, sexual harassment, retaliation and the
continuing physical and mental anguish caused thereby, Plaintiff was forced to take leave from
her position.
71. Plaintiff has no plain, adequate, or complete remedy at law to redress the wrongs
herein and this suit for backpay, declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, compensatory damages,
and punitive damages is the only means of securing adequate relief.
72. Defendants' discriminatory conduct proximately caused Plaintiff to be injured and
12
damaged; to have her career significantly and adversely impacted; to forego compensation and
benefits; to suffer loss of income; and to suffer loss of employment, humiliation, embarrassment,
mental anguish, physical anguish, and emotional distress; and to incur personal injury resulting
in medical treatment as well as out of pocket losses for payment of medical bills, pain and
suffering and mental distress.
COUNT SIX SEX DISCRIMINATION
73. Plaintiff repeats, repleads, and adopts by reference paragraphs 1 through 38 above,
74. Defendants, and their agents and employees, discriminated against Plaintiff in the
terms, conditions and privileges ofemployment in violation of Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act
of 1964, U.S.C. Section 2000 et.seq as amended.
75. Defendants failed to adequately and timely supervise, control, discipline and/or
otherwise penalize the conduct of Vincent Johnson and the acts, delay, and failure to act of other
supervisors in response to the complaints made by Plaintiff.
76. Defendants failed to take all reasonable and necessary steps to eliminate sex
discrimination from the workplace and to promptly and timely investigate Plaintiffs complaints
of sexual harassment in the workplace as required by law.
77. Said sexual discrimination was done intentionally, maliciously, willfully, and with
reckless disregard for the rights of Plaintiff. This sexually harassing and discriminatory conduct
was sufficiently severe and pervasive as to alter the terms and conditions of employment and
unreasonably interfere with Plaintiff's physical and emotional health so as to create an
intimidating hostile, and offensive work environment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights
Acts of 1964,42 U.S.0 2000e et.seq. as arnended.
13
78. As a result of the hostile work environment, sexual harassment, retaliation and the
continuing physical and mental anguish caused thereby, Plaintiff was forced to take leave from
her position..
and punitive damages is her only means of securing adequate relief.
benefits; to suffer loss of income; and to suffer loss of employment, humiliation, embarrassrnent,
in mental anguish, and emotional distress; and to incur personal injury resulting in medical
treatment as well as out of pocket losses for payment of medical bills, pain and suffering and
mental distress.
COUNT SEVEN-RETALIATION
82. Plaintiff engaged in protected activity by opposing discrimination and sexual
harassment by Vincent Johnson when she reported the unwelcomed and unlawful sexual
advances to Principal Patrick Nelson of McKee Middle School.
83. Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff by moving her to another classroorn and not
moving Vincent Johnson and keeping Plaintiff working in close proximity to Vincent Johnson.
84. Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff by changing her work schedule and not renewing her
contract and not rehiring her when she requested rehire after coming off leave.
14
benefits; to suffer loss of income; and to suffer loss of employment, humiliation, embarrassment,
in mental anguish, and emotional distress; and to incur personal injury resulting in medical
treatment as well as out of pocket losses for payment of medical bills, pain and suffering and
mental distress.
COUNT EIGHT DELIBERATE INDIFFENCE-EQUAL PROTECTION 14TH
AMENDMENT
86. Plaintiff repeats, repleads, and adopts by reference paragraphs 1 through 38 above
87. Individual Defendants acted with deliberate indifference to the discriminatory acts of Vincent
Johnson and the rights of Plaintiff when he took no prompt disciplinary actions against Vincent
Johnson for months after Plaintiff complained about Vincent Johnson's unwelcomed and
unlawful sexual advances.
88. Individual Defendants acted with deliberate indifference to the discriminatory acts of Vincent
Johnson and the rights of Plaintiff when they moved Plaintiff to a classroom in close proximately
to Vincent Johnson and took no action to move Vincent Johnson from close proximity to
Plaintiff thereby allowing continued contact and interaction between Plaintiff and Vincent
Johnson and Plaintiff to live and work in constant fear of continued harassment.
89. Said deliberate indifference was done intentionally, maliciously, willfully, and with
reckless disregard for the rights of Plaintiff. This deliberate indifferent conduct and sexually
harassing and discriminatory conduct was sufficiently severe and pervasive as to alter the terms
and conditions of employment and unreasonably interfere with Plaintiffs physical and emotional
15
health so as to create an intimidating, hostile, and offensive work environment in violation of
Title VII ofthe Rights Acts of 1964,42 U.S.0 2000 et. seq. as amended.
herein and this suit for backpay, declaratory judgment,injunctive relief, compensatory damages,
and punitive damages is her only means of securing adequate relief.
91. Defendants' deliberately indifferent conduct proximately caused Plaintiff to be
injured and damaged;to have her career significantly and adversely impacted; to forego
compensation and benefits; to suffer loss of income; and to suffer loss of employment,
humiliation, embarrassment, mental anguish, emotional distress; and to incur personal injury
resulting in medical treatment as well as out of pocket losses for payment ofrnedical bills, pain
and suffering and mental distress.
COUNT NINE NEGLIGENCE
93. This Count is brought against individual Defendants in their official and individual
capacity.
94. The Defendants had a duty to follow the law and MCBOE policy; to promulgate and
enforce effective sexual harassment, discrimination and retaliation policies and complaint
procedures; to train Plaintiff and staff on its policies and complaint procedures; and to train
Plaintiff and other staff and the MCBOE sexual harassment, discrimination and retaliation
policy; to timely and effectively investigate complaints of sexual harassment, discrimination and
retaliation; to promptly take preventive, remedial and corrective action regarding sexual
discrimination, discrimination and retaliation; and to protect Plaintiff by promptly and timely
16
investigating and taking effective action on Plaintiffs complaint of sexual harassment by
Vincent Johnson to prevent, correct and remedy sexual harassment.
95. Defendants negligently breached their duty to follow the law and MCBOE policy and protect
Plaintiff by failing to promulgate effective sexual harassment, discrimination and retaliation
policies and complaint procedures; failing to effectively distribute and train Plaintiff and other
staff on MCBOE policies and complaint procedures; failing to timely and effectively investigate
complaints; failing to take timely and effective action to prevent, remedy and correct harassment,
discrimination and retaliation; failing to effectively monitor the effectiveness of its harassment,
discrimination and retaliation policy and complaint procedures, including failing to maintain a
complaint file of complaints of harassment, discrimination and retaliation; failing to adequately
supervise the actions of its employees; and failing to take timely and effective action Plaintiffs
complaint ofsexual harassment by Vincent Johnson to prevent, correct and remedy as required
by MCBOE Policy and the law.
96. Defendants knew or should have known about the sexual harassment of Plaintiff by Vincent
Johnson and negligently failed to take prompt and adequate remedial steps to stop it.
97. Defendants negligently failed to adequately and timely supervise, control, discipline and/or
otherwise penalize the conduct of Vincent Johnson and the acts, delay, and failure to act of other
supervisors in response to the complaints made by Plaintiff.
98. Defendants negligently failed to take all reasonable, necessary and effective steps to
eliminate sex harassment from the workplace and to promptly and timely investigate and make
timely determinations ofthe validity of complaints ofsexual harassment in the workplace and
take timely and promptly remedial and corrective action as required by law.
17
99. Defendants negligently breached the duty owed Plaintiff when they took no prompt action
against Vincent Johnson until almost months after Plaintiff complained to them about Vincent
Johnson's unwelcomed and unlawful sexual advances.
100. Defendants negligently breached the duty owed Plaintiff by terminated her and not
terminating Vincent Johnson to a suspension while school closed promptly to Johnson.
101. Defendants negligently breached the duty owed Plaintiff by only giving mild discipline to
Vincent Johnson over a holiday weekend.
102. Defendants negligently did not have an effective employee training program in that Plaintiff
did not receive training on any MCBOE sexual harassment, discrimination or retaliation policies
as a new hire or at any time during employment and never received copies of such policies from
management during employment.
103. Defendants were negligent and did not exercise reasonable care to prevent and promptly
correct sexual harassment; did not have a comprehensive, well-known and vigorously enforced
effective sexual harassment policy and complaint procedure during the time of Plaintiff's
employment; did not have a developed and widely distributed effective sexual harassment policy
and complaint procedure during Plaintiff employment; did not have an effective regular sexual
harassment training program; did not train Plaintiff on its sexual harassment policy and
complaint procedure; did not train all management and staff on the policy and complaint
procedure during Plaintiffs employment; did not promptly and thoroughly investigate Plaintiff's
complaints of sexual harassment; did not take prompt remedial and corrective action consistent
the MCBOE policy and the law; did not implement mechanisms to monitor the effectiveness of
its policy and complaint procedures, including failure to maintain a complaint file of complaints
of harassment, discrimination and retaliation.
18
and punitive damages is her only means ofsecuring adequate relief.
105. As a proximate cause ofthe Defendants breach of duty and negligent conduct,
Plaintiff was proximately caused to be injured and damaged; to have career significantly and
adversely impacted; to forego compensation and benefits; to suffer loss of income; to suffer loss
ofemployment, humiliation, embarrassment, mental anguish, emotional distress; and to incur
personal injury resulting in medical treatment as well as out of pocket losses for payment of
medical bills, pain and suffering mental distress.
COUNT TEN WANTONNESS
107. This Count is brought against individual Defendants in their official and individual
capacity.
108. The Defendants has a duty to follow the law and the MCBOE Sexual harassment
policy to protect Plaintiff by promptly and timely investigating and taking action on Plaintiffs
Complaint ofsexual harassment by Vincent Johnson.
109. Defendants willfully and wantonly breached their duty to protect Plaintiff by failing
proximately and timely investigate and take action on Plaintiffs complaint of sexual harassment
by Vincent Johnson.
110. Defendants knew or should have known about the sexual harassment of Plaintiff by Vincent
Johnson and willfully and wantonly failed to take prompt and adequate remedial steps to stop it.
19
111. Defendants willfully and wantonly failed to adequately and timely supervise, control,
discipline and/or otherwise penalize the conduct of Vincent Johnson and the acts, delay, and
failure to act of other supervisors in response to the complaints made by Plaintiff.
112. Defendants willfully and wantonly failed to take all reasonable, necessary and effective
steps to eliminate sex harassment from the workplace and to promptly and timely investigate and
make timely determinations ofthe validity of complaints of sexual harassment in the workplace
and take timely and promptly remedial and corrective action as required by law.
113. Defendants willfully and wantonly breached the duty owed Plaintiff when they took no
prompt and effective disciplinary action against Vincent Johnson for months after Plaintiff
complained to them about Vincent Johnson's unwelcomed and unlawful sexual advances.
114. Defendants willfully and wantonly breached the duty owed Plaintiff by transferring her and
not transferring Vincent Johnson and keeping Plaintiff in the same school in close promptly to
Johnson.
115. Defendants willfully and wantonly breached the duty owed Plaintiff by only giving mild
discipline to Vincent Johnson over a holiday weekend.
116. Defendants willfully and wantonly did not have an effective employee training program in
that Plaintiff did not receive training on any MCBOE sexual harassment, discrimination or
retaliation policies as a new hire or at any time during employment and never received copies of
such policies from management during employment.
117. Defendants willfully and wantonly did not exercise reasonable care to prevent and promptly
correct sexual harassment; did not have a comprehensive, well-known and vigorously enforced
- effective sexual harassment policy and complaint procedure during the time of Plaintiffs
employment; did not have a developed and widely distributed effective sexual harassment policy
20
and complaint procedure during Plaintiff employment; did not have an effective regular sexual
harassment training program; did not train Plaintiff on its sexual harassment policy and
complaint procedure; did not train all managernent and staff on the policy and complaint
procedure during Plaintiffs employment; did not promptly and thoroughly investigate Plaintiffs
complaints of sexual harassment; did not take prompt remedial and corrective action consistent
-the MCBOE policy and the law; did not implement mechanisms to monitor the effectiveness of
its policy and complaint procedures, including failure to maintain a complaint file of complaints
of harassment, discrimination and retaliation.
and punitive damages is her only means ofsecuring adequate relief.
119. As a proximate cause of the Defendants breach of duty and willful wanton conduct, Plaintiff
was proximately caused to be injured and damaged; to have her career significantly and
adversely impacted; to forego compensation and benefits; to suffer loss of income; to suffer loss
of employment, humiliation, embarrassment, mental anguish, emotional distress; and to incur
personal injury resulting in medical treatment as well as out of pocket losses for payment of
medical bills, pain and suffering and mental distress.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE,the Plaintiff prays for relief as follows that the Court:
(a) Enter Judgment that the Defendants have violated her Federal statutoroy and
constitutional rights.
(b) Award Plaintiff her expenses and costs, including reasonable attorney's fees.
(c) Award Plaintifffront pay or reinstatement;
21
(d) Award Plaintiff damages, both compensatory and punitive under the laws ofthe State of
Alabama and the United States of America;
(e) Liquidated (double) damages;
(f) Issue a declaratory judgment that the employment policies, practices, procedures,
condition and customs of Defendants violate the law and rights of Plaintiff:
(g) Grant Plaintiff a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants, its agents, successor,
employees, attorneys, and those acting in concert with Defendants and at Defendants'
request from continuing to violate the law and rights ofPlaintiff; and
(h) Award Plaintiff such other and further relief, which this Court deems appropriate under
the circurnstances.
Respectfully subrnitted,
Jame Long(LON- 16)

Atto for Plaintiff
James E. Long
Attorney At Law
1015 S McDonough Street
Montgomery, AL 36104
Phone:(334)262-7850
Email:jameslong4006@gmail.com
All Defendants may be served as follows: Montgornery County Public Schools

307 South Decatur Street Montgomery, AL 36104
22
Case 2:18-cv-00512-GMB Document 1-1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 1 of 1
EEOC F9rm 6(r1/09)
CHARGE OF DISCRIMINATION Charge Presented To: Agency(ies) Charge No(s):

' This form is affected by the Privacy Act of 1074. See enciosed Privacy Act FEPA
A Statement and other Information before completing this form.
X EEOC 420-2017-01099
and EEOC
State Of local Agency, If any
Name (indicate Mr., Ms.. Mrs.) Home Phone (Incl. Ante Code) Date of Birth
Bridgett Robinson-Miller (334)531-3313 1965
Street Address City. State end ZIP Code
3560 Ore Dr., Montgomery, AL 36116
Named is the Employer, Labor Organization, Employment Agency, Apprenticeship Committee, or State or Local Government Agency That I Believe
Discriminated Against Me or Others. (If rnore than fwo, fist under PARTICULARS below.)
Name No. Employees, Members Phone No.(Include Area Cade)
MONTGOMERY PUBLIC SCHOOL --• :„.-- , 500 or More (334)284-7528

Street Address City, State.inil illiCode
4017 Mcinnis Rd., Montgomery, AL 36116 ......
Narne • •,, 4 P... No. 8o1ployeei. Members Phone No.(include Attea Cooe,
i
Street Address' C4 State andziPtc>1 '&,.. ,

.. t.,t,
-.•,,,,-
'.att....!...:. ct,..f •*4.hull
DISCRIMINATION BASED ON (Check appropriate box(e0.) DATE(S) DISCRIMINATION TOOK PLACE
Earliest Latest
RACE COLOR SEX RELIGION ❑ NATIONAL ORIGIN 10-03-2016 01-06-2017
X RETALIATION AGE DISABILITY 7 GENETIC INFORMATION
E OTHER (Specify) X CONTINUING ACTION
THE PARTICULARS ARE (!f addidonal outer ls needed, attach extra sheeds1):
I was hired by the above named employer in August 2016, as a Teacher, l filed a previous EEOC charge (546-2017-
03144). Since filing this charge I continue to be harassed and retaliated aln t by nly principal, Nelson Patrick, who is
denying me the privilege to work by taking me off the schedule. I went to .' ItY50Wraed a transfer and was,
told,"we don't transfer people", l continue to have to work with Vincent Johnson, who i filed the sexual harassment
charge against. My environment is hostile in that Melissa Williams, Principal over 7th & 8th grade students stopped
speaking to me and treats me as if l don't exist. The custodian, Mr. Woodall refuses to speak anymore and refuses to
do his job which includes cleaning my class room and bath room. l complained to my Alabama Education Association,
(AEA) representative Shun Ross who informed me that Mr. Patrick did not have the authority to remove me from the
schedule but the has without any reprisal from anyone. l also complained to the person over all Principals, Gabriel
White. l have not gotten any help from anyone. l am off work without any money corning in. The stress has caused rny
disability to flare up. I was advised to apply for leave under the Federal Medical Leave Act.
l believe l am being discriminated against in retaliation for cothplaining of protected activity in violation of Title VIl of the
1964, Civil Rights Act, as amended, l also believe that my age, 51, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment
Act of 1967 and my disability in violation of The Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended have come into
_play in the retaliation against me.
want this charge filed with both the EEOC and the State or local Agency, if any, l NOTARY - When necessary fo
Mil advise the agencies if I change my address or phone number and I will
moperate fully with them In the processing of my charge In accordance with their
N'OCMOUres. I swear or affirm that I have read the above Charge and that it is true to
declare under penalty of perjury that the above is true and correct. the best of my Knowledge, information and belief.
SIGNATURE OF COMPLAINANT
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS DATE

AID...1111 PLCCL(AEL
-tc.)
CD Q (month, day, year)
Date charging Pany Slgnature
Form 161 me) U.S. EQUAL.EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
DISMISSAL AND NOTICE OF RiGHTS

Bridgett Robinson-Miller From: Birmingham District Office
3560 Dee Dr. Ridge Park Place
Montgomery, AL 36116 1130 22nd Street
Birmingham, AL 35205
On behalf of person(s) aggrieved whose identity Is

CONFIDENTIAL (29 CFR §1601,710
MC Charge No. EEOC Representative Telephone No.
ANDRE D. WILLIAMS,
20-2017-01099 Investigator (205)212-2147
'HE EEOC IS CLOSING ITS FILE ON THIS CHARGE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON:
1.7_1 The facts alleged in the charge fail to state a claim under any of the statutes enforced by the EEOC.
Your allegations did not involve a disability as defined by the Americans With Disabilities Act.
The Respondent employs less than the required number of employees or is not otherwise covered by the statutes.
Your charge was not timely filed with EEOC; in other words, you waited too long after the date(s) of the alleged
discrimination to file your charge
The EEOC issues the following determination: Based upon its investigation, the EEOC is unable to conclude that the
information obtained establishes violations of the statutes. This does not certify that the respondent is in compliance with
the statutes. No finding is made as to any other issues that might be construed as having been raised by this charge.
The EEOC has adopted the findings of the state or local fair employment practices agency that investigated this charge.
Other (briefly state)
- NOTICE OF SUIT RIGHTS -

(See the additional informatlon attached to this form)
Tltle VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Genetic information Nondiscrimination Act, or the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act: This will be the only notice of dismissal and of your right to sue that we will send you.
You may file a lawsuit against the respondent(s) under federal law based on this charge in federal or state court. Your
wili be
lawsuit must be filed WITHIN 90 DAYS of your receipt of this notice; or your right to sue based on this charge
lost. (The time limit for filing suit based on a claim under state law may be different.)
willful violations) of the

Equai Pay Act(EPA): EPA suits must be filed in federal or state court within 2 years(3 years for
due for any violations that occurred more than 2 vears(3 years)
alleged EPA underpayment. This means that backpay
before you file suit may not be collectible.
On behalf of the Commission
.
• , 't f.:
.)1 ?' '
I0
s.?
Enclosures(s) 1(Date Jed)

Delner Franklin-Thomas,
Distrlct Director
cc: Montgomery PublicSchools
c/o Alicia F. Bennett
Hlll, Hill, Carter
100 Corporate Parkway, Suite 325
Birmingham, AL 35242
JS 44 (Rev. 12/12) CIVIL ejj
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by
local rules of coUrt. This form,approved by the Judicial Conference ofthe United States in September 1974, is required for the use ofthe Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEATPAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I.(a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS
nt-70/j
R E C 71V E D
(b) Connty of Residence ofFirst Listed Plaintiff M County of Residence of First Listed Defendant A4 tilAtIc..
;
(EXCEPTIN U.S PLONTIFF CASES) (11.1 U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
ZOI8 HAY 8NS2: klarFit. CONDEMNATION CASES,USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
(c) Attorneys(Firm Name, Address, and Te(ephone Number)

:/kNLfq:rtiwn)•
--fA Agej E CRIN) G Arreelei i_t1 si-f:c1; ;ICT COURT
tflf c 3_ ,44tisoorc,5,c, S4 Mb-firit-1 1 STRICT ALA
3(21(2
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an "X"in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES(Place an "X"in One Boxfor Plaintilf
(For Diversity Cases On(y) and One Boxfor Defendant)
CI 1 U.S. Government po Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (US. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State I Incorporated or Principal Place CI 4 CI 4
of Business ln This Statc
CI 2 U.S. Government CI 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State 0 2 CI 2 Incorporatcd and Principal Placc O 5 O 5
Defendant (Indicate Citizenship ofParties in Item III) of Busincss In Anothcr Statc
Citizen or Subject ofa 0 3 O 3 Foreign Nation O 6 CI 6

Foreign CountrY
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an "X"in One Box Only)
l.;.,:',..k.,;;CONTRACT:.'',,'"::4" :;T ,,,; v:
"TORTS.;(, ,4,TOREIRITURE/PENALTrl', '.,-;,̀ IIANKRUPTCY:.;,:,;%;; - ,
= ..-;;;.',OTHER STATUTES
0 110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 0 625 Drug Related Seizure O 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 0 375 False Claims Act
0 120 Marine CI 310 Airplane O 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 O 423 Withdrawal O 400 State Reapportionment
CI 130 Miller Act CI 315 Airplane Product Product Liability O 690 Other 28 USC 157 CI 410 Antitrust
CI 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability O 367 Health Care/ O 430 Banks and Banking
CI 150 Recovery of Overpayment CI 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical •.',PROPERTY;RIGHTS,;;;,•';' O 450 Commerce
& Enforcement ofJudgment Slander Personal Injury CI 820 Copyrights 0 460 Dcportation
CI 151 Medicare Act O 330 Federal Employers' Product Liability CI 830 Patent O 470 Racketeer Influenced and
CI 152 Recovery of Defautted Liability 0 368 AsbestoS Personal O 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations
Student Loans O 340 Marine Injury Product O 480 ConsUrtier Crcdit
(Excludcs Veterans) 0 345 Marinc Product Liability .'''. ,,ri '''''SOCIAL SECURITY ..,,;; rT.. O
, LABOIt'.';'-w",'-c' 490 Cable/Sat TV
CI 153 Recovery of OVerpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY O 710 Fair Labor Standards 0 861 HIA (139511) CI 850 Securities/Commodities/
of Veteran's Benefits O 350 Motor Vehicle CI 370 Other Fraud Act CI 862 Black Ling(923) Exchangc
0 160 Stockholders' Suits CI 355 Motor Vehicle 0 371 Truth in Lending O 720 LabOr/Managernent CI 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) O 890 Other Statutory Actions
CI 190 Other Contract Product Liability 0 380 Other Personal Relations CI 864 SSID Title XVI CI 891 Agricultural Acts
CI 195 Contract Product Liability
O 360 Other PersOnal Property Damage CI 740 Railway Labor Act CI 865 RSI(405(g)) O 893 Environmental Matters
0 196 Franchisc Injury CI 385 Property Damage 0 751 Family and Medical CI 895 Freedom of InfOrntation
0 362 Personal Injury - Product Liability Leave Act Act
Medical Malpractice O 790 Other Labor Litigation 0 896 Arbitration
-:' ' .' "REALPROPERTY, :''
- `',,,
;,,CIVIURIGIITS:;', ,,,:,:, JPRISONERTETITIONSx, O 791 Employee Retirement ',...-FEDERALTARSUITS 0 899 Administrative Procedure
0 210 Land Condenmation r40 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: 1nOome Security Act CI 870 Taxes(U.S. Plaintiff Act/Rcview or Appeal of
CI 220 Foreclosure 441 Voting CI 463 Alien Detainee or Defendant) Agcncy Decision
CI 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment O 442 EinploYment O 510 Motions to Vacate CI 871 IRS—Third Party CI 950 Constitutionality of
CI 240 TOrts to Land O 443 Housing/ Sentence 26 USC 7609 State Statutes
0 245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations CI 530 General
CI 290 All Other Real Property CI 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - 0 535 Death Penalty VIMMIGRATION_,
Employment Other: O 462 Nagiralintion Application
CI 446 Amer. w/Disabilities - C1 540 Mandamus & Other O 465 Other Immigration
Other 0 550 Civil Rights Actions
CI 448 Education 0 555 Prison Condition
0 560 Civil Detainee -
Conditions of
COnfineinent
V. ORIGIN (P(ace an 'X"in One Box Only)

tir I
Original O 2 Rdinoved from O 3 Reinanded frorn O 4 Reinstated or O 5 Transferred from O 6 Multidistrict
'Procccding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District Litigation
(specify)
(Do nptcheiurisdiclionafkatules unless divxesiVP
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION
Cite the U.S. Civil &Anne under which you are filing
ti 5C. (—coat' y Li SC MA -r-z. Lim t?.
Brief descripfion of cause:
-r4-tc t.% fik AAA;rt eit
VII, REQUESTED IN CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. JURY DEMAND: 0 Yes ANo
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)

(See instructions):
IF ANY JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER
DATE SIGNATURE OF
1 AIRRNEY OF RECOlt ogi ."
w C..."--7
FODYFatistl?
ONLY
RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG.JUDGE
ch/c /01ot
Court Name: U S DISTRICT COURT - AL/M

Division: 2
Receipt Number: 4602049401
Cashier ID: bhill
Transaction Date: 05/18/2018
Payer Name: MR JAMES E LONG
CIVIL FILING FEE
For: BRIDGETTE ROBINSON MILLER
Case/Party: D-ALM-2-1B-CV-000512-001
Amount: $400.00
CHECK
Check/Money Order Num: 1019
Amt Tendered: $400.00
Total Due: $400.00
Total Tendered: $400.00
Change Amt: $0.00
2:18-CV-512
MILLER V. MONTGOMERY COUNTY BOARD
OF EDUCATION ET AL

Bridgette Miller Lawsuit

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Bridgette Miller Lawsuit

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Case 2:18-cv-00512-GMB Document 1 Filed 05/21/18 Page 1 of 22

MONTGOMERY COUNTY BOARD a): 5ia-6e)

COMES NOW the Plaintiff, BRIDGETTE ROBINSON-MILLER (hereinafter

PLAINTIFF), and makes the following Complaint.

retaliation, deliberate indifference, negligence and wantonness.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

ofthe state law claims.

Alabama; the Plaintiff, and all Defendants reside in this district.

discrimination, sexual harassment, retaliation, age discrimination, and disability discrimination.

See Copy of Plaintiffs Charges of Discrimination attached as Exhibit A.

continually sexually harassed and retaliated and discriminated against.

7. Defendants MONTGOMERY COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION

the times relevant to this case.

Alabama Public Schools.

Amendment of the United States Constitution.

United States and resides in Montgomery County, Alabama.

citizen ofthe United States, and resides in Montgomery County, Alabama.

Montgomery County, Alabama.

and resides in Montgomery County, Alabama.

and resides in Montgomery County, Alabama.

resides in Montgomery County, Alabama.

United States, and resides in Montgomery County, Alabama.

citizen of the United States, and resides in Montgomery County, Alabama.

and resides in Montgomery County, Alabama.

IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATION

from employment on May 26,2017.

the form ofelectronic and written communications.

place Plaintiff in constant fear of continued harassment.

December 2016 to end of her employment.

Middle School not on FMLA leave had their contracts renewed.

was moved /promoted to take Plaintiffs place.

Plaintiff in the exercise of her FMLA rights.

under the FMLA within five(5)days, 29 CFR §3000(b).

34 Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff employee with designation notices ofleave as

required by the FMLA within five(5) business days, 29 CFR §825.300(d).

35. Defendants failed to adequately, accurately and consistently document dispute

F.3d 1188 footnote 10(11th Cir. 2015).

recover double compensation, attorney fees and costs. 29 U.S.C. §2617(a)(1)(A).

COUNT ONE-FMLA INTERFERENCE CLAIM

above as if fully set forth herein.

Notice or any other written FMLA notice required by the FMLA.

that she could return to work effective May 26,2017.

recover double compensation, attorney fees and costs. 29 U.S.C. §2617(a)(1)(A).

COUNT TWO-FMLA INTERERNCE CLAIM-RECKLESS DISREGARD

if set out in full herein.

written FMLA notice required by the FMLA.

effective May 26, 2017.

recover double compensation, attorney fees and costs. 29 U.S.C. §2617(a)(1)(A).

COUNT THREE- FMLA RETALIATION

if set out in full herein.

Notice or any other written FMLA notice required by the FMLA.

inability to monitor leave, insufficient approval of leave and job termination.

return to work effective May 26,2017.

COUNT FOUR-FMLA RETALIATION CLAIM-RECKLESS DISREGARD

as if set out in full herein.

leave and job termination.

written FMLA notice required by the FMLA.

effective May 26, 2017..

recover double compensation, attorney fees and costs. 29 U.S.C. §2617(a)(1)(A).

COUNT FIVE-SEXUAL HARASSMENT

if set out in full herein.

School subjected Plaintiff to unwelcomed and unlawful sexual advances.

situation causing fear of harassment.