PHX Pplice Officer Gender Discrimination Lawsuit

Case 2:19-cv-04699-MHB Document 1 Filed 07/11/19 Page 1 of 6
1 Stephen Montoya (#011791)

Montoya, Lucero & Pastor, P.A.
2 3200 North Central Avenue, Suite 2550
3 Phoenix, Arizona 85012
602-256-6718 (telephone)
4 602-256-6667 (fax)
5 stephen@montoyalawgroup.com
6 Attorney for Plaintiff

7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
9
10
Angelique Briggs, No.
11
Plaintiff,
12 COMPLAINT
A P ROFESSIONAL A SSOCIATION O F L AWYERS
13 vs.
M ONTOYA , L UCERO & P ASTOR
3200 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE, SUITE 2550
(Jury Trial Demanded)

PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85012
14 City of Phoenix,
15
Defendant.
16
17 For her Complaint against Defendant, Plaintiff alleges the following:
18 1. This is an action seeking to redress gender discrimination in the public workplace
19 brought by Ms. Angelique Briggs against her employer, the Police Department of
20 the City of Phoenix, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §
21 2000e, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, Pub. L. 95-554,
22 and the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. ' 1981a.
23 2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331,
24 1343(4) and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e.
25 3. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the parties to this dispute because all
26 actions alleged in this Complaint transpired in Maricopa County, Arizona.
27 4. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-
28 5(f)(3).
1 5. Angelique Briggs is a citizen of the United States of America residing in Maricopa

2 County, Arizona.
3 6. Ms. Briggs is female in gender.
4 7. Defendant City of Phoenix (the “City”) is an Arizona municipal corporation.
5 8. The City owns and operates the Police Department of the City of Phoenix.
6 9. The City has been engaged in an industry affecting commerce and has had at least
7 fifteen employees for each working day in at least twenty calendar weeks this year
8 or last year at all times material to this Complaint and is thus subject to the
9 requirements of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e.
10 10. Ms. Briggs has been employed as a Police Officer by the City of Phoenix Police
11 Department at all times material to this Complaint.
12 11. Her work performance at the Department has been satisfactory to excellent at all
13
times material to this Complaint.

14
12. During the course of her employment with the City, the City subjected Officer
15 Briggs to different terms and conditions of employment based on her status as a
16 woman.
17 13. Specifically, on March 20, 2018, Officer Briggs requested a transfer from Squad
18 91B to Squad 91A because Squad 91A offered a more favorable work schedule
19 consisting of working four weekdays with Friday, Saturday and Sunday off.
20 14. Sgt. Christopher Sund informed Officer Briggs that her transfer request to Squad
21 91A was the only request pending at the time and in accordance with Department
22 policy her request was first in line and would become effective on May 21, 2018.
23 15. In April 2018, Officer Briggs and her husband discovered that she was pregnant, and
24 in May 2018 she informed a few of her fellow officers in the Department of her
25 pregnancy.
26 16. Later that same month, Officer Briggs was informed by several of her colleagues in
27 the Department that Sgt. Gary Bradley had asked Sgt. Sund how he could “go
28 around” Officer Briggs’ transfer request, explaining that “I don’t want a pregnant
2
1 female on my squad.”
2 17. Sgt. Bradley also asked his squad members to try to recruit more senior officers to
3 request a transfer to his squad in order to thwart Officer Briggs’ transfer request.
4 18. On May 24, 2018, Sgt. Sund told Officer Briggs that she would not be transferring to
5 91A because a more senior officer had requested to transfer to squad 91A before she
6 did and consequently had precedence over her regarding the transfer request.
7 19. Officer Briggs was aware that there were actually two (2) vacancies on squad 91A at
8 the time, and as of May 15, 2018, she was the only officer who had requested a
9 transfer to squad 91A.
10 20. Officer Briggs was subsequently informed by several of her colleagues in the
11 Department that Phoenix Police Commander Charles Consolian was working with
12 Sgt. Sund and Sgt. Bradley to manipulate a male officer’s transfer request in a
13
manner to block Officer Briggs’ transfer.

14
21. Commander Consolian has engaged in a pattern of ignoring (or trivializing)

15 complaints of discrimination in the Department and retaliating against officers who
16 make them. See attached Exhibit A.
17 22. Officer Briggs subsequently discussed the problems surrounding her transfer with
18 her union representative, Officer Santos Robles.
19 23. Officer Robles subsequently contacted Commander Consolian on Officer Briggs’
20 behalf and told Consolian he needed to make things “right” regarding her transfer
21 request.
22 24. After Officer Robles discussed the issue of Officer Briggs’ transfer request with
23 Commander Consolian and informed him that Officer Briggs and the union were
24 aware of the discriminatory conduct of Sund, Bradley and Consolian, Sgt. Sund
25 contacted Officer Briggs on May 25, 2018 and advised her that in fact she would be
26 transferring to Squad 91A effective May 28, 2018.
27 25. On June 1, 2018, Officer Briggs filed a complaint against the Police Department
28 with the City of Phoenix “Equal Opportunity Department” as a result of the
3
1 discriminatory comments and attempts to sabotage her transfer based on her

2 pregnancy made by her supervisors at the Department as summarized above.
3 26. On June 2, 2018, as a result of the stress caused by the Department’s discriminatory
4 conduct, Officer Briggs suffered a miscarriage after only seven (7) weeks of
5 pregnancy.
6 27. The City’s Equal Opportunity Department ultimately failed to take any corrective
7 action in response to Officer Briggs’ complaint.
8 28. The City has tolerated a discriminatory work environment at the Police Department
9 for years now, has routinely failed to investigate complaints of discriminatory
10 harassment and retaliation in the workplace and has failed to adequately discipline
11 employees guilty of engaging in such misconduct. See attached Exhibits B-E.
12 29. The City’s conduct as described above was intentional, protracted, malicious and
13
deliberately indifferent to and in reckless disregard of Officer Briggs’ federally

14
protected rights under Title VII.

15 30. The City’s discriminatory treatment of Officer Briggs undermined her otherwise
16 excellent job performance and has caused her to suffer lost wages and other income.
17 31. The City’s discriminatory treatment of Officer Briggs also caused her to suffer
18 significant anxiety and emotional distress.
19 32. Based upon the City’s discriminatory conduct, Officer Briggs filed a Charge of
20 Discrimination against the City of Phoenix with the United States Equal
21 Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) on August 3, 2018. See attached
22 Exhibit F.
23 33. After Officer Briggs filed her Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC, she
24 continued to be subjected to gender discrimination at work in the manner already
25 summarized above.
26 34. Officer Briggs has satisfied all of the requirements for initiating this action by
27 exhausting her administrative remedies with the EEOC and by filing this Complaint
28 within ninety days of her receipt of a Right to Sue letter from the EEOC. See
4
1 attached Exhibit G.
2 35. Pursuant to Rule 38 (b) of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Officer Briggs hereby
3 demands a trial by jury.
4 WHEREFORE, Officer Briggs respectfully requests the Court to:
5 A. Issue a judgment declaring that the conduct of Defendant as described
6 above violated Plaintiff’s rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
7 of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, as amended;
8 B. Issue preliminary and permanent injunctions against Defendant
9 enjoining it from committing similar unlawful acts in the future;
10 C. Issue a judgment awarding Plaintiff nominal, compensatory and
11 punitive damages against Defendant in amounts to be determined by
12 the finder-of-fact at trial;
13
D. Issue a judgment awarding Plaintiff reasonable costs and attorney fees

14
against Defendant pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e and any other

15 applicable law; and
16 E. Issue a judgment awarding Plaintiff all other relief that is just and
17 proper against Defendant under the circumstances.
18
19 Respectfully submitted this 11th day of July 2019.
20 MONTOYA, LUCERO & PASTOR, P.A.
21
22 ________________________________
Stephen Montoya
23 3200 North Central Avenue, Suite 2550
24 Phoenix, Arizona 85012
Attorney for Plaintiff
25
26
27
28
5
1 I hereby certify that on July 11, 2019, I electronically transmitted the foregoing document
to the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF System for filing.
2
3
4
____________________________
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6
Case 2:19-cv-04699-MHB Document 1-1 Filed 07/11/19 Page 1 of 18
Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Civil Cover Sheet

This automated JS-44 conforms generally to the manual JS-44 approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in
September 1974. The data is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet.
The information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as
required by law. This form is authorized for use only in the District of Arizona.
The completed cover sheet must be printed directly to PDF and filed as an
attachment to the Complaint or Notice of Removal.
Plaintiff Defendant
Angelique Briggs City of Phoenix
(s): (s):
County of Residence: Maricopa County of Residence: Maricopa
County Where Claim For Relief Arose: Maricopa
Plaintiff's Atty(s): Defendant's Atty(s):

Stephen Montoya
Montoya, Lucero & Pastor, P.A.
3200 North Central Avenue, Suite 2550
Phoenix, Arizona 85012
602-256-6718
II. Basis of Jurisdiction: 3. Federal Question (U.S. not a party)
III. Citizenship of Principal

Parties (Diversity Cases Only)
Plaintiff:- N/A
Defendant:- N/A
IV. Origin : 1. Original Proceeding
V. Nature of Suit: 442 Employment
VI.Cause of Action: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e, as
amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, Pub. L. 95-
554, and the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1981a.
VII. Requested in Complaint
Class Action: No
Dollar Demand:
http://www.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/generate_civil_js44.pl 7/11/2019
Page 2 of 2
Jury Demand: Yes
VIII. This case is not related to another case.
Signature: s/ Stephen Montoya
Date: July 11, 2019
If any of this information is incorrect, please go back to the Civil Cover Sheet Input form using the Back button in
your browser and change it. Once correct, save this form as a PDF and include it as an attachment to your case
opening documents.
Revised: 01/2014
http://www.azd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/generate_civil_js44.pl 7/11/2019

PHX Pplice Officer Gender Discrimination 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

PHX Pplice Officer Gender Discrimination Lawsuit

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Case 2:19-cv-04699-MHB Document 1 Filed 07/11/19 Page 1 of 6

1 Stephen Montoya (#011791)

6 Attorney for Plaintiff

(Jury Trial Demanded)

1 5. Angelique Briggs is a citizen of the United States of America residing in Maricopa

times material to this Complaint.

manner to block Officer Briggs’ transfer.

21. Commander Consolian has engaged in a pattern of ignoring (or trivializing)

1 discriminatory comments and attempts to sabotage her transfer based on her

deliberately indifferent to and in reckless disregard of Officer Briggs’ federally

protected rights under Title VII.

D. Issue a judgment awarding Plaintiff reasonable costs and attorney fees

against Defendant pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e and any other

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Civil Cover Sheet

Plaintiff's Atty(s): Defendant's Atty(s):

II. Basis of Jurisdiction: 3. Federal Question (U.S. not a party)

III. Citizenship of Principal

IV. Origin : 1. Original Proceeding

V. Nature of Suit: 442 Employment

Jury Demand: Yes

VIII. This case is not related to another case.

Signature: s/ Stephen Montoya

Date: July 11, 2019

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen