Tresha Neff Lawsuit

8/20/2019 Tresha Neff Lawsuit

1/15


2/15

2

2. This court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 USC 1331.

3. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant City of East

Lansing, through its East Lansing Police Department (“Defendant City”),

prohibited Plaintiff from training, promotions, better schedules and other

benefits that her male co-workers were allowed.

4. Defendant City is a Michigan municipality with its principal place

of business in East Lansing, Michigan.

5. Defendant City is a person within the meaning of Title VII of the

Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 USC 2000e.

6. Plaintiff, Tresha K. Neff (“Plaintiff) is a resident of Laingsburg in

Shiawassee County, Michigan and is a citizen of the United States with no

present intention of moving from her place of residence.

7. Plaintiff is an employee within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964, 42 USC 2000e.

8. All the discriminatory employment practices alleged in this

complaint occurred within the State of Michigan and in the County of Ingham

and damages exceed $75,000.00. Therefore, jurisdiction is proper in this

Court.

9. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant City was Plaintiff ’s

employer. Defendant City had control over Plaintiff ’s work assignments,

hours, manner and methods of work, and supervised Plaintiff ’s day-to-day

activities. Plaintiff was never an independent contractor for Defendant City

under state or federal law.

10. This action arises under Title Vii of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as

Case 1:16-cv-00066 ECF No. 1 filed 01/25/16 Page 2 of 12 PageID.2


3/15

3

amended. It also arises under Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, MCL

37.2202.

11. Plaintiff received her Right to Sue letter from the U.S. Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission and has filed this Complaint in a timely

manner. (See Exhibit A)

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

12. Plaintiff was hired by Defendant City as a Police Officer on or about

June 20, 1994.

13. After years of dedicated service, education, training and instruction,

the Plaintiff waited until it was appropriate to apply for a promotion.

14. The Plaintiff waited until those officers that had seniority had all had

their opportunities to be promoted.

15. The Plaintiff had (and has) no disciplinary in her records while

working for East Lansing Police Department.

16. Once she had the seniority and training she applied for promotions.

17. Each time the Plaintiff applied for promotions, she was denied and

a male co-worker would be promoted.

18. Each time the Plaintiff was denied promotions, she would ask why

she wasn’t promoted and was told repeatedly that she needed to be “more well

rounded.”

19. Often the male coworker that had been promoted had considerable

less training, seniority and/or experience than Plaintiff.

20. Plaintiff was advised that she should get a BA degree to help her



4/15

4

with future promotions.

21. Later Plaintiff was told that working toward the degree was not the

same as having completed the degree as an excuse for not promoting her.

22. Defendants continued to promote the Male co-workers despite that

these men had not having completed their college degrees.

23. In 2008, Plaintiff was voted Woman of the Year by the Greater

Lansing Woman magazine. In the interviews that followed, she supported the

Defendant’s East Lansing Police Department to maintain a good reputation

despite the repeated discrimination that she had experienced.

24. As an officer, the Plaintiff successfully completed the following

training programs:

Field Training Officer; Use of Force Instructor; Hostage Negotiator; MFF Instructor/Civil Orders Unit Instructor; Motor Officer;

Detective Bureau; Sex Offender Coordinator; Hiring of Cadets; Recruiting Officers; Attended the first Organizational Leadership Course.

25. On or about December 7, 2011, Plaintiff was finally promoted after

applying approximately 8 separate times and 17 years on the force.

26. Plaintiff was promoted to a Sergeant position.

27. On that same date, a male co-worker, Steve Gonzalez, was

promoted to a Sergeant position as well.

28. Plaintiff has 3.5 years more in seniority than Sgt. Gonzalez.

29. Despite having less training and seniority, Plaintiff was told that Sgt.



5/15

5

Gonzalez would be senior to her.

30. Plaintiff completed her one year probationary period as Sergeant

and her managers recommended that she come off of the probation on

December 7, 2012.

31. In 2013-2014, as a Sergeant she was in charge of the Cadet

program.

32. During that time, Plaintiff hired 16 new cadets, facilitated their

training, scheduling and the discipline of those cadets.

33. Plaintiff coordinated the East Lansing Police Department’s

involvement in the Toys for Tots campaign.

34. As a Sergeant she was the supervisor of the Motor Unit and was

responsible for the training and special events within that unit

35. Plaintiff instructed at the Mid-Michigan Police Academy through

Lansing Community College, where she taught alcohol enforcement and Civil

Disorder/Small Squad tactics.

36. Plaintiff has participated in years of night problems which are

scenario based calls for recruits to build skills with actors to ready the recruits

for real calls after graduation.

37. Despite her wide-ranging experience when Plaintiff attempted to

apply for promotions to Lieutenant in 2013 and 2014, she was passed over

again.

38. On or about January 7, 2013, Chief Leibler posted a Lieutenant

opening which would be open to all non-probationary Sergeants.

39. Plaintiff applied for the positon on or about January 10, 2013 and



6/15

6

was interviewed on January 22, 2013.

40. On January 25, 2013, Chief Leibler announced that she had

promoted Sergeant Gonzalez to the position.

41. On or about September 19, 2014, Chief Leibler posted another

Lieutenant opening. All non-probationary Sergeants were eligible to apply.

42. Letters applying for the position were due on September 30, 2014.

Plaintiff submitted her letter dated September 24, 2014 to Captain Murphy.

43. Captain Murphy took the letter from Plaintiff in his hand and then

motioned like he was going to throw it in the trash and said “is this where this

goes?”

44. On October 9, 2014 Chief Leibler announced that a male Sergeant,

Scot Sexton, was promoted. Sexton had only been in the Sergeant position

for 18 months and at the time of promotion he had not completed one

supervisor school.

45. Scot Sexton had less experience as a Sergeant, had only

scheduled a supervisor school and had 5 years less seniority than the

Plaintiff (who had a total of 23 years of experience with 3 years of experience

prior to East Lansing Police Department)

46. In 2014, Plaintiff requested permission from Defendant’s Human

Resources Department to have the Defendant reimburse her for classes for

her Masters Degree as was allowed by their Command Officers Contract.

47. Defendant’s Human Resource Department contacted her later and

told her that the money was already gone as of December 2014. Human

Resources stated that they had checked with Chief Leibler and that the Chief



7/15

7

stated that additional amounts would not be approved for coursework for

graduate programs.

48. Historically the money for this reimbursement of $5,000 is first

come/first serve and is not based on the degree or program.

49. Chief Leibler approved over $5,000 for the male command officer

education reimbursement. With $7,240 reimbursed from 7/1/12-6/30/13 and

$17,122 from 7/1/13-6/30/14.

50. Yet from July 1,2014-June 30, 2015 only $3,440 was reimbursed to

male command officers. But when Plaintiff asked for the same benefit, she

was denied.

51. Defendants paid approximately $7,754 for Lieutenant Murphy to

obtain his bachelor’s degree. However, Murphy didn’t obtain his BA until

December 2015 after he had been the Acting Chief for approximately 6-8

months.

52. Plaintiff requested to go to the MSU Staff and Command school in

2013 but was denied.

53. Captain Murphy stated that he thought that it would be better for

Plaintiff to go after she had been a supervisor for 2-3 years due to the stress

that it puts on new supervisors.

54. However, in the past Defendants have sent male supervisors who

had only been a supervisor for 6 months.

55. Plaintiff put in another request to attend (only one session is offered

each year) in 2014. This time she was denied because Defendants were

sending Sergeant Chad Connelly, because he didn’t have any supervisory



8/15

8

schools completed.

56. Plaintiff had requested to go to the supervisor schools to allow her

to be successful in her new position. She had taken the initiative to improve

herself and now it was being used against her.

57. Despite several male counterparts being allowed this training,

Plaintiff was denied the same by her management.

Count IViolation of Title VII – the Civil Rights Act

of 1964 as Amended – Disparate Treatment

58. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 57.

59. At all times as a female, Plaintiff was and is a member of a

protected class.

60. Through the repeated denials of promotions, training and

educational opportunities from the Defendants, Plaintiff was subject to multiple

adverse job actions.

61. Defendants repeatedly treated similarly situated male officers more

favorably by promoting, training and reimbursing these same male officers for

education while denying Plaintiff the same opportunities.

62. Plaintiff was and is qualified for all of these opportunities and often

was more qualified than the similarly situated male officers who were promoted or

allowed training opportunities.

63. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful acts and

omissions, Plaintiff has lost wages and benefits, loss of retirement benefits,

humiliation and embarrassment, and loss of professional reputation.



9/15

9

WHEREFORE Plaintiff, Tresha K. Neff, respectfully requests that this Court enter

a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff against the Defendants as follows:

1. an order enjoining Defendant from further acts of discrimination;

2. an order of this Court awarding Plaintiff compensatory damages in an

amount determined at trial in this matter;

3. an order of this court awarding Plaintiff non-economic damages in an

amount to be determined at the trial in this matter;

4. an award to Plaintiff of attorney’s fees, costs of litigation and interest

5. an order of this Court granting Plaintiff further relief that it deems just and

equitable.

Count II Violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of

1964, 42 USC 2000e – Disparate Impact

Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 63.

64. Defendants have had a Police Department since 1921.

65. The first woman promoted was in 1977.

66. Since that first promotion, only 4 other women have been promoted.

67. In 95 years, only 5 women have been promoted to Command Staff.

68. The Defendants have a promotional process and practice that denies

women from the ability to be promoted to Command Staff.

69. The Plaintiff and other women who have applied for promotions were

as or more qualified than the similarly situated male co-workers who

were promoted.

70. The Defendants do not have a business necessity to deny their women

officers the promotions to Command Staff.



10/15

10

71. The Defendants could have promoted qualified women for promotions

to fill the positions of the Command Staff within its Police Department.

72. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s discrimination on the

basis of gender, Defendant’s failure to make appropriate promotions,

has caused or continues to cause Plaintiff to suffer substantial damages

for pecuniary losses, mental anguish, and other non-pecuniary losses.

Count III Violation of Michigan Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights

Act – MCL 37.2301 et seq

Plaintiff re-alleges and reaffirms paragraphs 1-72 as if restated herein.

73. Defendant City is an employer as defined in Michigan’s Elliott

Larsen Civil Rights Act (the Act), MCL 37.2301, et seq.

74.Gender was a determining factor in Defendant’s decision to deny Plaintiff

promotions, refuse training and refuse educational reimbursement.

75.Other similarly situated male officers were given promotions, training opportunities

and were reimbursed for education.

76.Defendants violated the Act and deprived Plaintiff of her civil rights by, among other

things discriminating against Plaintiff through administering promotions that were

discriminatory due to gender, training opportunities that were discriminatory due to

gender and educational reimbursements based on gender.

77.Plaintiff has been discriminated by Defendants' agents and employees throughout

the course of her employment.

78.The actions of Defendants’ and their agents, representatives, and employees were

intentional and made with reckless indifference to Plaintiff’s rights and sensibilities.

79.Defendants knowingly and willfully discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of her

gender in violation of the Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act.



11/15

11

80. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' unlawful actions against Plaintiff as

described, Plaintiff has suffered injuries and damages, including, but not limited to, loss

of earnings and earning capacity; loss of career opportunities and loss of reputation

and esteem in the community.

WHEREFORE Plaintiff, Tresha K. Neff, respectfully requests that this Court

enter a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff against the Defendants as follows:

1. Legal reliefa. compensatory damages in whatever amount Plaintiff is found to be

entitled

b. exemplary damages in whatever amount over $75,000 Plaintiff is

found to be entitled

c. an award of interest, costs, and reasonable attorney fees

d. Liquidated damages in whatever amount she is found to be entitled.

e. An award of interests, costs, and reasonable attorney fees and

expert witness fees.

2. Equitable reliefa. an award of interest, costs, and reasonable attorney fees

b. an order enjoining Defendant from further acts of discrimination or

retaliation

c. whatever other relief appears appropriate at the time of final

judgment

d. whatever other relief may appear appropriate when this court’s final

order is entered.



12/15

12

FIXEL and NYEHOLT, PLLC

Dated: January 25, 2016 /s/ Joni M. Fixel ____________Joni M. Fixel (P56712)4084 Okemos Road, Ste BOkemos, MI 48864(517) 332-3390

[email protected]


mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


13/15

Case

1:16 cv 00066 ECF

No.

1 1

filed

01/25/16

Page

1

of

2

PagelD 13

E X H I B I T A


14/15

Case

1:16 cv 00066 ECF

No.

1 1

filed

01/25/16

Page

2

of

2

PagelD 14

S

Department

of justice

Civil

Rights

Division

1 1

NOTICE

OF RIGHT

TO

SUE

WITHIN

90

DAYS

CERTIFIED

MAIL

950

Pennsylvania

Avenue

N W

7014

0510

0000

2154

7090

Karen

Ferguson

EMP

P 3

Room

4239

Washington

DC 20530

January

21

2016

Ms. Tresha K.

Neff

do

Joni

Fixel

Esquire

Fixel

Law Offices

4084

Okemos

Road

Suite

B

Okemos

M I

48864

Re:

EEOC

Charge Against

City

o f East

Lansing

No. 471201500722

Dear Ms.

Neff:

Because

you

filed

the

above

charge

with

the

Equal

Employment

Opportunity

Commission

and

m o r e than

180

days

have

elapsed

since

the date

the Commission

assumed

jurisdiction

o v e r

the

charge

and n o

suit

based

thereon has

been

filed

by

this

Department

and

because

you

through your

attorney

have

specifically requested

this

otice

you

ar e

hereby

notified

that

you

have

the

right

to

institute a

civil

action

under Title V II of

the

Civil

Rights

Act

of

1964

as

amended

42 U.S.C.

2000e

et

seq

against

the

above named

respondent

you

choose

to

c o m m e n c e a civil

action

such

suit

must

be f iled in the

appropriate

Court

within

90

days

of

your

receipt

of this

Notice.

The

investigative

file

pertaining

to

your

case

is

located

in

the

EEOC

Detroit District

Office

Detroit

MI.

This

Notice

should

no t

be taken

to

m e a n

that

the

Department

of

Justice

has

made

a

judgment

as to

whether

o r

no t

your

case is

meritorious.

Sincerely

Vanita

Gupta

Principal

Deputy

Assistant

Attorney

General

v il

Rights

Division

y

Karen

L.

Ferguson

Supervisory

Civil

Rights

Analyst

Employment

Litigation

Section

cc :

Detroit

District

Office

EEOC

City

of

East

Lansing


15/15

AO 440

Rev. 01/09

Sunenb afiltettipotlea(ReEtgl

O

1-2

filed

01/25/16

Page

1

of

1

PagelD.15

SUMMONS

IN

CIVIL CTION

UNITED

STATES

DISTRICT

COURT

FOR

THE WESTERN DISTRICT

OF

MICHIGAN

TRESHA

K.

NEFF

Case

No.

Hon.

TO:

City

of

East

Lansing

v•

ADDRESS:

do Marie

Wicks,

City

Clerk

410 Abott

Road,

Room 100

CITY OF EAST LANSING

East

Lansing,

MI 48823

lawsuit has been

filed

against you.

PLAINTIFF

OR

PLAINTIFF S ATTORNEY

NAME

AND

ADDRESS

Joni

M.

Fixel

Fixel and

Nyeholt,

PLLC

YOU

ARE

HEREBY

SUMMONED

and

required

to

serve

4084

Okemos

Road,

Ste

B

upon

plaintiff,

an answer

to

the attached

conplaint

or

a

imtion

Okemos,

MI

48864

under 12 of

the Federal Rules

of Civil

Procedure

within

21

IL

days

after service of this

summons on

you no t

CLERK.

OF

COURT

counting

the

day

you

received

it .

y

ou

fail

to

respond,

judgment by

default will be entered

against

you

for

the

relief

demanded

in

the

complaint.

You

must also

file

your

answer

or motion with the

Court.

The

Court

has

offices in

the

following

locations:

399

Federal

Building,

110

Michigan

St., NW,

Grand

Rapids,

MI 49503

P.O. Box

698,

314 Federal

Building,

Marquette,

MI

49855

107

Federal

Building,

410 W.

Michigan Ave., Kalamazoo,

MI 49007

113

Federal

Building,

315

W.

Allegan,

Lansing,

MI

48933

By: Deputy

Clerk Date

PROOF

OF

SERVICE

This

summons for

City

of East

Lansing

was received

by

me

on

name

of

individual

and

title,

deny

date

I

personally

served

the

summons on

the

individual

at

on

place

where

served

I

left the summons at the individual s residence or

usual

place

of

abode

wit

a

perso

of suitable

age

and

discretion

who resides

there,

o

and

mailed a

copy

to

the

individual s last known

addres

I

served the

summons

o

who

is

designated by

law

to

accept

servic

of

process

on behalf of on

name

of

organization

date

returned the

summons

unexecuted

because

Other

opec6)

My

fees ar e for travel and

for

services,

for a total of

I

declare

under

the

penalty

of

perjury

that this information

is

true

Date:

Server s

signature

Additional

information

regarding attempted

service,

etc.:

Server s

printed

name

and

title

Server s address

Documents

Tresha Neff Lawsuit