Case Document 1 Filed 08/15/16 Page 1 of 28

 

ROBERT L. GIBSON PLAINTIFF
V. CAUSE I?ll?(A) '1?qu

MADISON COUNTY DEPARTMENT DEFENDANT


(A JURY TRIAL IS DEMANDED)

COMES NOW Plaintiff, ROBERT L. GIBSON, brings this action against the captioned
Defendant(s). Unless otherwise stated, ?Defendant? or ?Defendants? shall also refer to Defendant
as well as all Defendants to be named (to the extent Plaintiff agrees to proceed against them). As
more speci?cally set forth below, Plaintiff has been subjected to race-based discrimination prior to
termination and in the form of discriminatory discharge. He was also subject to retaliation prior to
termination, and at the time of his retaliatory discharge. The actions of the Madison County
Sheriffs Department described herein constitute violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 as amended, 42 LISC. 2000 et seq. as amended, 42 USC. 1981a. This is to allege
PLAINTIFF is entitled to all recoverable costs, amounts, damages provided for by 42 U.S.C 
1981a, and under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 42 U.S.C. 2000 et seq. as amended.

In support of his Complaint and causes of action set as forth therein, Plaintiff states as

follows.

Case Document 1 Filed 08/15/16 Page 2 of 28

IURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. At all relevant times hereto the Madison County Sheriff?s Department has been
entity engaged in an industry affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 701(b), through 
of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. ?2000e(b) through?(h) (and any related subsections), and other relevant?
sections of law. In the alternative, Defendant otherwise falls under the jurisdiction of Federal laws
noted above and below. All damages and losses are sought to be recovered according to all
provisions allowing or addressing recoverable damages set forth in the above-mentioned laws.
Plaintiff incorporates, in his prayer for relief below, all provisions of the above-mentioned laws
de?ning and describing the types of damages and categories of damages he may recover. He
speci?cally claims he is entitled to recover all such available damages recoverable under all law
referred to in this Complaint, (or otherwise implicated by the facts or causes of action) all of which

are sought pursuant to this Complaint whether or not speci?cally noted below.

2. The civil rights violations, and wrongful employment practices pegpetuated by
Defendants (including but not limited to race discrimination, retaliation, and all conduct, facts,
occurrences, acts or omissions providing any basis for legal action) shall hereafter also be referred to

as ?actionable conduct?. This Honorable Court has jurisdiction of this matter (due to federal
questions according to 28 USC 1331) and venue is proper according to 28 USC 1391.

3. Plaintiff has satis?ed administrative conditions prior to the commencement of this
action under Title VII, by ?ling his Charge of Discrimination with the US. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission. Plaintiff was issued a Right to Sue letter dated May 20, 2016 and received
thereafter. The Right to Sue and Charge are collectively attached hereto as Exhibit Mr.
Gibson has another pending Charge that was filed with the Jackson Area EEOC office and
which has been forwarded to the US Department of Justice. This Complaint does not bring

claims pursuant to that second Charge which alleges retaliation occurring after the

-2-

Case Document 1 Filed 08/15/16 Page 3 of 28

retaliatory termination alleged in the Exhibit Charge. While Plaintiff alleges in this
Complaint that he was discriminated against and retaliated against, resulting in his
discriminatory and retaliatory termination, Plaintiff also reserves the right to allege separate
acts of retaliation occurring due to actionable conduct on the part of Defendant after the
termination. He reserves the right to bring legal claims alleging those acts of retaliation in a
separate Complaint or amendment to this Complaint.

4. All Counts, claims, causes of action, allegations, statements, and theories of recovery
are alleged in the alternative to each other, and also in addition to each other. The matters below are
set forth while reserving the chance to provide alternate or additional explaining details. Nothing
herein shall be deemed as waiving requirements of notice pleading. Unless otherwise stated in the
heading of the Count or within the Count, all Counts, and claims within them, are meant to be
applicable to all Defendants named or to be named.

PARTIES

5. Plaintiff, ROBERT GIBSON, is an adult resident of Madison County, Mississippi.
At times contemplated by the facts and causes of action contemplated herein, he resided at 879
Williams Boulevard, Apartment 23B, Ridgeland, Mississippi 39157.

6. Defendant, MADISON COUNTY DEPARTMENT, was an Employer
in Mississippi within the above judicial district at the time of all acts and omissions which are the
subject of this Complaint. Substantial actionable conduct giving rise to the claims occurred there.
Plaintiff reserves the right to amend this Complaint to assure proper parties are before the Court,
(and the proper registered agent is served and that the proper places of business are noted). This
shall also serve as Plaintist Motion to substitute parties or amend as needed to assure proper names

are before the Court. Defendant, MADISON COUNTY DEPARTMENT, is

Case Document 1 Filed 08/15/16 Page 4 of 28

reasonably believed to be able to be served with process c/o Sheriff Randy Tucker, 2941 US.
Highway 51, Canton, Mississippi 39046 and\or wherever else Defendant may be found.


7. Plaintiff was employed as a sheriff?s deputy with Defendant beginning on or about
February 28, 2011. Plaintiff worked with Defendant in a law enforcement capacity. Plaintiff is a
member of a protected class, the African-American race. Prior to working in law enforcement,
Plaintiff held a leadership position in the United States Marine Corps wherein he performed valuable
service, and obtained experience working in stressful con?ict situations.

8. During the time of Plaintiff?s employment with Defendant, both he and other
officers, regardless of race were expected to, and did, respond to stressful situations. That were
reasonably expected to arise as part of law enforcement duties. Some of those situations, that
involved or implicated understandable issues that needed to be worked out among of?cers and
supervisors. Further, of?cers such as Plaintiff and other non-African American officers experienced
these issues and they were to be expected in the course of Defendant?s operations.

9. Plaintiff worked, in part. under the supervision of Deputy Chief Jeremy Williams at
times relevant to the facts and actionable conduct providing the basis for this Complaint. Plaintiff
worked under others as well.

10. Notwithstanding the above, and prior to Plaintiff?s discriminatory and/ or retaliatory
discharge on or about February 19, 2013, Plaintiff performed his law enforcement duties and
worked for Defendant as reasonably expected.

11. In the alternative and in addition, Plaintiff performed his law enforcement duties in a
manner, at least substantially similar to other deputies, when considering issues that might

commonly arise as well as other reasonably expected matters associated with law enforcement.

Case Document 1 Filed 08/15/16 Page 5 of 28

12. In the alternative and in addition, there was no significant problem with Plaintiff?s
job performance or activities as a law enforcement of?cer that should have justi?ed termination,
when considering the circumstances under which the termination occurred. The above was also true
when considering Defendant?s treatment of other deputies (and matters involving them).

13. In the alternative and in addition, there was no signi?cant problem with Plaintiff?s
job performance or activities as a law enforcement of?cer that should have justi?ed failure to
promote Plaintiff, when considering the circumstances under which the failure occurred. The above
was also true when considering Defendant?s treatment of other deputies (and matters involving
them).

14. In the alternative and in addition, any alleged deviations from expected practice were
not signi?cant so as to warrant termination, and/ or failure to promote and/ or adverse employment
action against Plaintiff, when considering Defendant?s treatment of other deputies, and/ or matters
involving them.

15. In the alternative and in addition, any alleged problems with Plaintiff's job
performance were not any substantial reason to write-up, reprimand, nor counsel Plaintiff in a
manner that reasonably indicated there were signi?cant problems with his job performance
warranting termination and/ or failure to promote and/ or adverse employment action against him.

16. In the alternative and in addition, when considering Plaintiff?s job performance,
attitude, and actions as a whole, he performed very good work as a law enforcement of?cer.

17. While Plaintiff denies he violated any work rule in any signi?cant way that should
have justi?ed termination and/ or failure to promote and/ or adverse employment action, Plaintiff
reserves the right to argue that any alleged deviation from the Defendant?s practices which the

Defendant has alleged to EEOC or which it may allege in this action, were not substantially different

Case Document 1 Filed 08/15/16 Page 6 of 28

from the alleged deviations commonly engaged in by similarly situated non African?American
employees.

18. On or about January 1, 2013, Plaintiff was denied promotion to the position of
investigator in the CID division under Captain Bar?eld. He previously applied for the position on
or about October 2012.

19. The position in criminal investigations at CID under Captain Bar?eld (non-juvenile)
was conveyed to be open to employees by memorandum from Deputy Chief Jeremy Williams?s desk
on or about October 8, 2012. While the memorandum speci?cally asked deputies to state their
number of years in law enforcement as well as number of years with the department, the
memorandum did not state, (nor did the Defendant ever convey or represent) that time in law
enforcement or time with the department were the criteria for selection.

20. In the alternative and in addition, Defendant never conveyed or represented that
time in law enforcement or time with the department were the only criteria for selection or the
criteria to be given greatest weight.

21. The announcement did not indicate that other criteria including but not limited to
work ethic and/ or productivity were requirements that needed to be met in order to qualify for the
position.

22. In the alternative and in addition, Defendant never adequately de?ned the criteria of
work ethic and/ or productivity so as to fairly include them as criteria for selection.

23. In the alternative and in addition, Defendant never represented how it intended to
evaluate or measure work ethic or productivity and it never had adequate clear, objectively conveyed

standards for measuring work ethic or productivity.

Case Document 1 Filed 08/15/16 Page 7 of 28

24. In the alternative and in addition, Defendant?s criteria for selection of an applicant
was signi?cantly subjective at best such that there was no adequately de?ned speci?c criteria or set
of criteria at the time of the announcement.

25. In the alternative and in addition, given the subjective nature of Defendant?s
selection criteria (or set of criteria) they were not able to uniformly applied to both African
American and non African-American deputies.

26. In the alternative and in addition, Defendant never had adequately established, nor
clearly established criteria or set of criteria for selection.

27. In the alternative and in addition, Defendant never adequately carried out policies,
procedures, and practices so as to provide subjective information as to the exact selection criteria for
the positions. The above resulted in Defendant?s decision-makers having signi?cant subjective
control over selecting individuals for the positions.

28. In the alternative and in addition, Defendant?s decision-makers otherwise had
signi?cant subjective control over selecting individuals for the positions.

29. Defendant?s practice which was not based on adequately de?ned criteria or set of
criteria resulted in a discriminatory effect upon Plaintiff and potentially other African-Americans.
While Plaintiff maintains that Defendant?s methods for granting promotions were discriminatory,
his claims are founded in the disparate treatment of Plaintiff when compared to non African-
Americans. Nevertheless, Plaintiff reserves the right to claim (and/ or otherwise support) that
Defendant engaged in a pattern and practice of using methods (or lack of appropriate methods)
which had a discriminatory effect upon Plaintiff and other African-Americans when considering
factors, including but not limited to, the promotions received and not received by African-
Americans in relation to the racial make-up of the work force on or about 2012 to 2013. Plaintiff

reserves the right to otherwise support that Defendant engaged in pattern(s) and/ or practice(s) that
7

Case Document 1 Filed 08/15/16 Page 8 of 28

occurred in various forms and manifested themselves in discrimination affecting Plaintiff as alleged
in this Complaint, and potentially others.

30. Plaintiff was denied promotion to the position of investigator while one or more
similarly-situated non-African American employees received promotion to investigator in the adult
CID.

31. While Plaintiff reserves the right to argue that there were not clearly de?ned criteria
conveyed as being part of the selection process, he also argues in the alternative and in addition that
by a reasonable standard, his work ethic and/ or productivity were suf?cient for the promotion.
When considering Plaintiff's work ethic alone as exempli?ed by his performance, and when
considering it was good, it should have been given weight so as to determine him to be more suited
and/ or more quali?ed for the position than the non African-American who received the promotion.
In the alternative and in addition, when considering Plaintist work ethic and productivity from an
objective standard Plaintiff was more suited than the lesser suited and/ or lesser quali?ed non
African?American who received the promotion.

32. In the alternative and in addition, when considering all factors as a whole including
but not limited to Plaintiff?s certi?cation, knowledge of law enforcement responsibilities and other
factors related to job performance and to Plaintist abilities, Plaintiff was more suited and/ or
quali?ed to receive the position.

33. Plaintiff sets forth that some, or all statistical information gathered or assembled by
EEOC as contained in the investigative ?le, supports a pattern or practice of racial discrimination
when considering the circumstances involving Plaintiff and non African-Americans. Plaintiff
reserves the right to rely upon that information to establish, along with other evidence, that
Defendant discriminated. Plaintiff otherwise also reserves the right to rely upon statistical

information which may be determined in discovery and/ or which may be obtained from available
8

Case Document 1 Filed 08/15/16 Page 9 of 28

information. Plaintiff reserves the right to challenge Defendant?s claimed statistical evidence or
interpretation of matters involving its workforce.

34. Defendant?s failure to apply uniform, clearly conveyed, objective and clearly
practiced, standards of selection resulted in the discriminatory promotion of one or more non
African-American?s instead of Plaintiff.

35. In the alternative and in addition, when considering a reasonable comparison
between Plaintiff and other non-African American deputies, and Defendant?s lack of clearly defined
criteria, Plaintiff was passed over for promotion in favor of one or more lesser quali?ed, and/ or less
suited, and/ or uncerti?ed non?African American individuals.

36. While Plaintiff denies he violated any work rule (or deviated from commonly
expected practice) in any manner which would have justified the discriminatory failure to promote,
discriminatory discharge, or retaliation, Plaintiff alleges similarly-situated non African-American
deputies engaged in similar or worse conduct than Plaintiff. Notwithstanding, they were not subject
to Defendant?s actionable conduct resulting in the discriminatory failure to promote, resulting in the
discriminatory and retaliatory work environment, as well as resulting in discriminatory and retaliatory
termination that occurred on February 19, 2013.

37. Prior to Plaintiff?s termination, and within relatively close time, Plaintiff discussed
with Lieutenant Mark Sandridge (over the DUI unit) Plaintist concerns about racially
discriminatory practices that affected both the employees and the community. Plaintiff complained
to Lt. Sandridge about white officers using excessive force and beating black individuals. Plaintiff
also complained about the Department setting up roadblocks primarily in the minority
neighborhoods. Around the time of Plaintist complaints, Plaintiff personally witnessed of?cers

using excessive force and severely beating a suspect along Highway 55 while the suspect was still in

Case Document 1 Filed 08/15/16 Page 10 of 28

handcuffs. Plaintiff ?rmly opposed this mistreatment, and picked up the individual, thereafter put
him in a police cruiser.

38. Further, Plaintiff was informed of other instances wherein excessive force was used
upon black individuals.

39. The above referenced multiple instances of excessive force used upon black
individuals were reasonably believed to represent discriminatory terms and conditions of
employment for of?cers working for the department, and which Plaintiff complained about. Even
though the above conduct Plaintiff complained about also involved third?parties and the
community, it represented discriminatory terms and conditions of employment for Plaintiff and
potentially other of?cers as well. Mr. Gibson reasonably believed he and other of?cers were being
required to work in an environment containing discriminatory terms and conditions insofar as it
involved mistreatment of black individualsrequired of?cers to work in
circumstances involving, and around, the discriminatory mistreatment. As a result, he reasonably,
and of good faith believed that the terms and conditions of employment were discriminatory for
himself and other employees required to work in the conditions.

40. Further, Plaintiff complained to Lt. Sandridge on the occasion referred to above,
about what he reasonably perceived to be no black of?cers being in the investigations or DUI unit
(reasonably referring to adult investigations unit Plaintiff otherwise complained about black
of?cers not being promoted to important positions of responsibility in SWAT and narcotics even
though they were certi?ed and otherwise quali?ed. Regardless of whether Defendant may now
claim there were black of?cers in certain positions of responsibility, Plaintiff had a reasonable and
good faith belief that there was discriminatory mistreatment insofar as black of?cers were not
substantially involved in certain positions and/ or promoted to positions of responsibility including

but potentially not limited to the above positions. He therefore complained. Plaintiff speci?cally
10

Case Document 1 Filed 08/15/16 Page 11 of 28

complained about the matters in this Complaint representing what he reasonably believed to be
racial discrimination in the terms, conditions of employment when he communicated with
Lieutenant Sandridge.

41. Further, in response to the EEOC, Defendant set forth that Kim Henderson, black
female, was in the job sought by Plaintiff (Charging Party) and that all the other investigators were
white. Plaintiff submits that while she was over child crimes and Plaintiff reasonably complained
about the lack of black investigators in CID (adult) under Captain Bar?eld. In the alternative and in
addition, one or more of his complaints could be reasonably construed to refer to the investigations
unit at CID (adult investigations) wherein there were no black investigators. Plaintiff sought a job in
CID over the adult crimes investigatory unit which was separate from the unit involving Ms.
Henderson. Plaintiff submits there should be no disputing that he never applied for any job
involving investigating crimes against youth. When considering that Defendant knew of or should
have known that the job sought by Plaintiff was in the adult CID, Plaintiff reasonably and in good
faith believed that the unit for which he sought employment contained no African-Americans.

42. Plaintiff never expressed unhappiness about Defendant or Defendant?s operations to
Lt. Sandridge or Plaintiff? supervisors (including Sheriff Tucker and Chief Jeremy Williams) before
discussing it with Lt. Sandridge at the time referred to here. Plaintiff in fact expressed unhappiness
and conveyed he was expressing that unhappiness because of Defendant?s race discrimination.

43. It is reasonably believed that Lieutenant Sandridge discussed with Sheriff Tucker and
Chief Williams the matters Plaintiff conveyed to Lt. Sandridge.

44. After the above events in the prior paragraph, Plaintiff was brought into a meeting
with Chief Williams and Sheriff Tucker wherein Plaintiff was informed during the brief
communication by Chief Williams that it was understood Plaintiff was not happy at the Sheriff?s

Department, and was therefore given the option of resignation or to be terminated. Plaintiff was
11

Case Document 1 Filed 08/15/16 Page 12 of 28

given no reasonable choice and/ or option under the circumstances. Plaintiff declined resignation
and was issued a letter terminating him.

45. Defendant alleged to Plaintiff that he was being terminated because Defendant
believed he was unhappy working for the Department.

46. Defendant has alleged numerous reasons for termination to the EEOC that were not
the true reasons for Plaintiff?s termination as expressed to him. Plaintiff sets forth that there should
be no material fact dispute that he was terminated for expressing unhappiness, and that Plaintiff in
fact expressed unhappiness due to what he reasonably believed were Defendant?s racially
discriminatory practices (and that Defendant knew of and/ or should have known at the time of
termination that Plaintiff was expressing unhappiness due to what he reasonably, and in good faith,
believed to be racially discriminatory terms, conditions and/ or privileges of employment).

47. Defendant has expressed reasons for termination to the EEOC that were
signi?cantly based on its subjective perception of Plaintiff, and/ or otherwise not adequately
supported.

48. Nevertheless, to the extent Defendant now claims reasons for termination that were
not expressed (or adequately expressed) to Plaintiff prior to the EEOC investigation, similarly-
situated white deputies engaged in similar or worse conduct than Defendant alleged to the EEOC
that Plaintiff engaged in. Defendant knew of or should have known of this conduct, and they were
not terminated. For example, while reserving the right to provide others in discovery, Plaintiff was
reasonably informed by a supervisory employee that there were circumstances involving the
potentially violent propensities of another of?cer that should have reasonably indicated concerns
with the of?cer. The similarly situated white employee was not terminated.

49. In the alternative and in addition, Defendant misrepresented and/ or incorrectly

misrepresented, within information it presented to the EEOC, material matters related to Plaintiff?s
12

Case Document 1 Filed 08/15/16 Page 13 of 28

ability to function as a law enforcement of?cer. The above is also supported by the fact that
Plaintiff was never issued any write up nor formal reprimand.

50. In the alternative and in addition, Defendant has otherwise alleged concerns with
Plaintiffs job performance wherein it tolerated similar or worse conduct, behavior, and/ or attitude
on the part of non African-Americans.

51. Plaintiff denies that he engaged in any conduct or behavior that was outside what
was reasonably expected and tolerated by Defendant in the law enforcement context.

52. In the alternative and in addition, regardless of whether or not Defendant failed to
promote Plaintiff under circumstances which were discriminatory, Defendant failed to retain
Plaintiff and instead retained one or more similarly situated non African American employees under
circumstances wherein Plaintiff was terminated, even though one or more were not terminated for
similar or worse conduct. Plaintiff maintains the above while also reserving the right to argue that
he was not informed of, and had no reason to know of, any substantial issue with his job
performance that should have warranted termination. Plaintiff therefore also reserves the right to
argue that when his job performance, conduct, approach to the work, and work as performed, is
compared to one or more similarly situated, non African Americans, he was treated differently under
sufficiently similar circumstances so as to constitute disParate treatment.

53. At no time during the above events did Chief Williams, Lt. Sandridge, Sherriff
Tucker, or any other person with supervisory authority over Plaintiff or with authority to make a
termination decision, ever inform Plaintiff that he was terminated for any other reason aside from
being unhappy at the Department.

54. Defendant did not adequately investigate or address Plaintiffs concerns affecting

Plaintiff and potentially others. Defendant instead summarily terminated Plaintiff.

13

Case Document 1 Filed 08/15/16 Page 14 of 28

55. While Defendant?s termination was retaliatory, Defendant also retaliated against
Plaintiff prior to termination by the denial of an adequate opportunity for his concerns regarding
alleged race discrimination to be ever adequately investigated, or addressed.

56. It is reasonably believed, based upon all available information, and the events
occurring at the time, that Plaintiff was terminated for being allegedly unhappy at the Department
due to the discriminatory terms and conditions of employment, which he complained about.

57. Plaintiff was never issued any formal nor informal write-up claiming he acted in a
way that would have or should have justi?ed his termination.

58. In the alternative and in addition, Plaintiff was never informed that he ever acted in
any such manner that should have justi?ed termination.

59. In the alternative and in addition to the above, Plaintiff denies there was ever any
stated or claimed reason by Defendant for his termination aside from his unhappiness with the
department. That unhappiness was for the reasons Plaintiff expressed such that Defendant knew of
or should have known of them.

60. In fact, Plaintiff clearly conveyed that he was unhappy as a result of perceived race
discrimination, such that Defendant was reasonably aware Plaintiff complained about race
discrimination and terminated him as a result.

61. In the alternative and in addition to the allegations in the prior paragraphs, the
environment essentially allowed one or more inadequate avenues to complain.

62. Defendant's discriminatory and retaliatory environment resulted in tangible
employment action and resulted in Plaintiff being terminated from the employment.

63. In the alternative to the above, and in addition, Defendant terminated Plaintiff in

retaliation because Plaintiff opposed and/ or complained of race-based discrimination.

14

Case Document 1 Filed 08/15/16 Page 15 of 28

64. In the alternative to the above, and in addition, Defendant terminated Plaintiff under
circumstances that were discriminatory.

65. Defendant's stated reasons for termination (and/ or for differences in treatment
between Plaintiff and other deputies) and any reasons it claimed or may claim were pretextual for
discriminatory termination.

66. In the alternative and in addition, Defendant's stated reasons for termination and any
reasons it claimed or may claim for differences in treatment between Plaintiff and other deputies
were pretextual for retaliatory termination.

67. Plaintiff reserves the right to set forth that any stated reasons for termination
(and/ or reasons for differences in treatment between Plaintiff and other deputies) were not the true
reasons and/ or were unworthy of belief, (in the alternative and in addition).

68. In the alternative and in addition to the above allegations, Plaintiff was subject to
conditions ending his employment for discriminatory and/ or retaliatory reasons. The EEOC
initiated an investigation pursuant to Plaintiff?s Exhibit Charge of Discrimination which was
timely ?led. Pursuant to that investigation the EEOC issued 21 Determination, the contents of which
are attached as Exhibit and incorporated. Plaintiff reserves the right to rely upon any
information contained in the investigative ?le of the EEOC. Plaintiff suffered losses as more fully
described above and below. The contents of any exhibits to this Complaint are incorporated as
though expressly set forth. As a result of the above-referenced events, Plaintiff suffered all damages

further referred to below and incorporated here.

15

Case Document 1 Filed 08/15/16 Page 16 of 28


COUNT I
CLAIMS UNDER SECTION 703 OF TITLE VII
BASED ON RACE DISCRIMINATION
IN THE TERMS, CONDITIONS, OR PRIVILEGES OF EMPLOYMENT
IN THE FORM OF FAILURE TO PROMOTE
DURING THE EMPLOYMENT

69. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all provisions set forth above and below as if
fully incorporated herein. The claims alleged in this Count are alleged in the alternative, and in
addition, to each other. They are alleged in the alternative, and in addition, to the claims in the other
Counts as well.

70. Defendant is alleged to have violated Section 703 of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. et
seq. as amended, as well as 42 U.S.C. 1981a, in ways outlined in this Complaint. Plaintiff seeks all
damages available under all laws referred to in this Complaint.

71. Plaintiff was discriminated against with regard to the terms, conditions, and/ or

privileges of employment. Plaintiff was subject to disparate treatment.

72. Plaintiff was discriminated against with regard to the terms, and/ or conditions,
and/ or privileges of employment when considering differences in treatment between himself and
one or more similarly situated non-African Americans when he was not promoted under
circumstances, wherein one or more similarly situated non-African-Americans was promoted to
investigator. Plaintiff incorporates any of the above or below allegations in this Complaint
reasonably providing a basis for claims in this Count.

73. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's conduct toward Plaintiff, Plaintiff

has sustained losses as more fully described below herein. The losses and damages which Plaintiff
suffered and as referred to in this paragraph are also meant to include and incorporate any losses

and damages noted and referred to in all other parts of this pleading incorporated herein.

16

Case Document 1 Filed 08/15/16 Page 17 of 28

74. In the alternative and in addition, the unlawful actions of the Defendant in reckless
disregard of the statutory rights of Plaintiff. Plaintiff reserves the right to argue Defendant?s actions
were wanton, and/ or willful.

75. Plaintiff incorporate the information contained in the exhibits to this Complaint as
though set forth and reserves the right to provide additional information in discovery.

COUNT II
CLAIMS UNDER SECTION 703 OF TITLE VII
BASED ON RACE DISCRIMINATION
IN THE TERMS, CONDITIONS OR PRIVILEGES OF EMPLOYMENT
IN THE FORM OF OTHER DISCRIMINATION UPON PLAINTIFF DURING THE
EMPLOYMENT ASIDE FROM FAILURE TO PROMOTE

76. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all provisions set forth above and below as if
fully incorporated herein. The claims alleged in this Count are alleged in the alternative, and in
addition, to each other. They are alleged in the alternative, and in addition, to the claims in the other
Counts as well.

77. Defendant is alleged to have violated section 703 of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. et
seq. as amended, as well as 42 U.S.C. 1981a, in ways outlined in this Complaint. Plaintiff seeks all
damages available under all laws referred to in this Complaint.

78. Plaintiff was discriminated against with regard to the terms, conditions, and/ or

privileges of employment. Plaintiff was subject to disparate treatment.

79. Plaintiff was discriminated against with regard to the terms, conditions, and/ or
privileges of employment when considering he was required to work in an environment imposing
discriminatory terms and conditions. It involved intentional excessive force being used upon a
black suspect when he did not witness the same force used upon white suspects. While the
excessive force was used against the black suspect, and not against Plaintiff, the requirement that

Plaintiff work in the environment where such conduct was reasonably believed to have occurred

17

Case Document 1 Filed 08/15/16 Page 18 of 28

was unacceptable and discriminatory to Plaintiff as an African-American law enforcement of?cer.
It was discriminatory to require Plaintiff to work in an environment involving discrimination.
Further Plaintiff was informed of other similar conduct, and Plaintiff reasonably believed he was
required to work in a discriminatory environment for this reason as well. Plaintiff was subject to
discriminatory terms and conditions of employment as a result of being required to work in an
environment that carried out its practices in what he reasonably believed was a discriminatory
manner. Plaintiff was denied the privilege of an employment in law enforcement that did not
involve discriminatory mistreatment of one or more suspects.

80. In the alternative and in addition, Plainu'ff was treated differently than one or more
similarly situated non?African Americans when Plaintiff, as an African-American, was exposed to
an environment containing discriminatory mistreatment of other African Americans in the manner
in which it occurred. In the alternative and in addition, this mistreatment affected Plaintiff
discriminatorily as an African American in a manner differently than it affected other non African
Americans. In the alternative and in addition, the mistreatment was discriminatory to Plaintiff as an
African American when it was not to one or more non African Americans. Plaintiff reserves the
right to use comparators including, but potentially not limited, to those non African Americans
involved in the conduct Plaintiff complained about.

81. In the alternative and in addition, Plaintiff was required to work in an environment
where concerns of discrimination were not adequately investigated, addressed, or corrected. He
was denied the privilege of employment of seeing his concerns of discrimination adequately
investigated or addressed, which he should have been able to reasonable expect. Defendant failed
to adequately, investigate, or address Plaintiff?s complaints of the discriminatory environment
which ultimately resulted in his discharge as well. Plaintiff incorporates any of the above or below

allegations in this Complaint reasonably providing a basis for claims in this Count.
1 8

Case Document 1 Filed 08/15/16 Page 19 of 28

82. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's conduct toward Plaintiff, Plaintiff
has sustained losses as more fully described below herein. The losses and damages which Plaintiff
suffered and as referred to in this paragraph are also meant to include and incorporate any losses
and damages noted and referred to in all other parts of this pleading incorporated herein.

83. In the alternative and in addition, the unlawful actions of the Defendant were in
reckless disregard of the statutory rights of Plaintiff. Plaintiff reserves the right to argue Defendant?s
actions were wanton, and/ or will?il.

84. Plaintiff incorporate the information contained in the exhibits to this Complaint as
though set forth and reserves the right to provide additional information in discovery.

COUNT 
CLAIMS UNDER SECTION 703 OF TITLE VII
BASED ON RACE DISCRIMINATION
IN THE TERMS, CONDITIONS, OR PRIVILEGES OF EMPLOYMENT
IN THE FORM OF DISCRIMINATORY TERMINATION

85. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all provisions set forth above and below as if
fully incorporated herein. The claims alleged in this Count are alleged in the alternative, and in
addition, to each other. They are alleged in the alternative, and in addition, to the claims in the other
Counts as well.

86. Defendant is alleged to have violated section 703 of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2 et
seq. as amended, as well as 42 U.S.C. 1981a, in ways outlined in this Complaint. Plaintiff seeks all
damages and losses available under all laws referred to in this Complaint.

87. Plaintiff was discriminated against with regard to the terms, conditions, and/ or

privileges of employment. Plaintiff was subject to disparate treatment.

88. Plaintiff was discriminated against with regard to the terms, and/ or conditions,

and/ or privileges of employment when considering differences in treatment between himself and

one or more similarly situated non-African Americans when he terminated under circumstances
19

Case Document 1 Filed 08/15/16 Page 20 of 28

wherein one or more similarly situated non African-Americans were not terminated. Plaintiff
reserves the right to argue that he engaged in no signi?cant conduct that was outside of
Defendant?s expected practices that should have warranted termination when considering the
treatment of similarly situated employees outside his protected class. In the alternative and in
addition, Plaintiff engaged in no signi?cant conduct that was outside what was reasonably expected
in a law enforcement context and/ or outside that which should have been reasonably expected by
Defendant. In the alternative and in addition, Plaintiff was terminated under circumstances
wherein one or more similarly situated non African-Americans were not terminated for similar or
worse conduct. In the alternative and in addition, Plaintiff was terminated for the fact that he was
given the option of resignation or termination which represented no reasonable choice and/ or
options under the circumstances. In the alternative and in addition Plaintiff performed
satisfactorily at the very least, and was subject to discriminatory mistreatment notwithstanding.

89. In the alternative and in addition, Plaintiff performed satisfactory at the very least,

(when considering his actions, conduct, job performance, and work as a whole) when one or more
similarly situated non Aftrican Americans were not terminated under similarly circumstances using
proper factors of comparison. Plaintiff incorporates any of the above or below allegations in this
Complaint reasonably providing a basis for claims in this Count.

90. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's conduct toward Plaintiff, Plaintiff
has sustained losses as more fully described below herein. The losses and damages which Plaintiff
suffered and as referred to in this paragraph are also meant to include and incorporate any losses
and damages noted and referred to in all other parts of this pleading incorporated herein.

91. In the alternative and in addition, the unlawful actions of the Defendant in reckless
disregard of the statutory rights of Plaintiff. Plaintiff reserves the right to argue Defendant?s actions

were wanton, and/ or willful.
20

Case Document 1 Filed 08/15/16 Page 21 of 28

92. Plaintiff incorporate the information contained in the exhibits to this Complaint as

though set forth and reserves the right to provide additional information in discovery.
COUNT IV
CLAIMS BASED ON ACTS OF RETALIATION UNDER TITLE VII
FOR ACTS OF RETALIATION DURING
EVENTS PRIOR TO TERMINATION

93. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all provisions set forth above and below as if
fully incorporated herein. The claims alleged in this Count are alleged in the alternative, and in
addition, to each other. They are alleged in the alternative, and in addition, to the claims in the other
Counts as well.

94. Plaintiff was treated adversely with regard to the terms and conditions of
Employment when he was retaliated against by Defendant due to complaining about conduct in
good faith believed to be discriminatory (opposing it). He was retaliated against following the time
he complained and when considering the events prior to termination. Defendant retaliated against
Plaintiff prior to his termination by Defendant?s open intentional failure to adequately investigate, or
address his complaints of discrimination referred to above, and by its failure to allow him to see his
concerns investigated prior to his termination, as a result of his complaints.

95. In the alternative and in addition, Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff prior to
termination by failing to afford him adequate opportunity to assure his alleged concerns of race
discrimination were adequately investigated or addressed. Defendant denied Plaintiff these
opportunities because he expressed unhappiness due to race discrimination. This denial of
opportunity constituted adverse employment action in addition to other adverse employment

actions. Plaintiff incorporates any of the above or below allegations in this Complaint reasonably

providing a basis for claims in this Count.

21

Case Document 1 Filed 08/15/16 Page 22 of 28

96. In the alternative and in addition, Plaintiff was retaliated against following his
complaints of race discrimination, by being given the only option of resigning as opposed to
termination. In carrying out Defendant?s practices in response to complaints of discrimination by
affording Plaintiff only two unacceptable options, (and without adequate investigation or action).
Defendant retaliated against Plaindff regardless of any decision ultimately made by Plaintiff or
Defendant.

97. Plaintiff suffered adverse employment actions and losses as a direct and proximate
result of Defendant?s response to the same. Plaintiff was retaliated against before he was
discharged.

98. Defendant is alleged to have violated section 704 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, 42 U.S.C. as amended including but not limited to the Civil Rights Act of
1991, 42 U.S.C. 1981a, providing rights to broad recoverable damages, and/ or all other provisions
which would address the actionable conduct or provide remedies therefore. Plaintiff had a right to
be free from the effects of retaliatory practices in his employment relationship with Defendant.

99. Plaintiff makes separate claims for each act of retaliation perpetuated upon him
following each separate time complaining (opposing). Plaintiff makes separate claims under section
704 of Title VII and Title VII as amended for each act of retaliation referred to in this paragraph,
this Complaint, and which may be illustrated in discovery. Plaintiff therefore makes claims for the
retaliation occurring prior to his discharge.

100. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's conduct toward Plaintiff, Plaintiff
has sustained losses as more fully described below herein. The losses and damages which Plaintiff
suffered and as referred to in this paragraph are also meant to include and incorporate any losses

and damages noted and referred to in all other parts of this pleading incorporated herein.

22

Case Document 1 Filed 08/15/16 Page 23 of 28

101. In the alternative and in addition, the unlawful actions of the Defendant in reckless
disregard of the statutory rights of Plaintiff. Plaintiff reserves the right to argue Defendant?s actions
were wanton, and/ or willful.

102. Plaintiff incorporate the information contained in the exhibits to this Complaint as
though set forth and reserves the right to provide additional information in discovery.

COUNT 
CLAIMS BASED ON ACTS OF RETALIATION UNDER TITLE VII
FOR ACTS OF RETALIATION
RESULTING IN RETALIATORY TERMINATION

103. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all provisions set forth above and below as if
fully incorporated herein. The claims alleged in this Count are alleged in the alternative, and in
addition, to each other. They are alleged in the alternative, and in addition, to the claims in the other
Counts as well.

104. Plaintiff was treated adversely with regard to the terms and conditions of
Employment when he was retaliated against by Defendant due to complaining about conduct in
good faith believed to be discriminatory (opposing it). He was retaliated against following the time
he complained. Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff when considering his discharge under
circumstances wherein he was given no reasonable choice but to accept resignation or discharge.
Plaintiff was discharged in retaliation for his complaints of race discrimination. In the alternative
and in addition, Plaintiff was constructively discharged and/ or discharged for all intents and
purposes, under retaliatory circumstances.

105. Plaintiff suffered adverse employment actions and losses as a direct and proximate

result of Defendant?s response to the same. Plaintiff was separately retaliated against both before he

was discharged and when he was ultimately and discharged for reporting and opposing racial

23

Case Document 1 Filed 08/15/16 Page 24 of 28

discrimination. In the alternative and in addition, he was not allowed to work under circumstances
rendering Defendant liable.

106. Defendant is alleged to have violated section 704 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964, 42 U.S.C. as amended including but not limited to the Civil Rights Act of
1991, 42 U.S.C. 1981a, providing rights to broad recoverable damages, and/ or all other provisions
which would address the actionable conduct or provide remedies therefore. Plaintiff had a right to
be free from the effects of retaliatory practices in his employment relationship with Defendant.

107. Plaintiff makes separate claims for each act of retaliation perpetuated upon him
following each separate time complaining (opposing). Plaintiff makes separate claims under section
704 of Title VII and Title VII as amended for each act of retaliation referred to in this paragraph,
this Complaint, and which may be illustrated in discovery. Plaintiff therefore makes claims for the
retaliation occurring prior to his discharge and for retaliation in the form of discharge. Plaintiff
incorporates any of the above or below allegations in this Complaint reasonably providing a basis
for claims in this Count.

108. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's conduct toward Plaintiff, Plaintiff
has sustained losses as more fully described below herein. The losses and damages which Plaintiff
suffered and as referred to in this paragraph are also meant to include and incorporate any losses
and damages noted and referred to in all other parts of this pleading incorporated herein.

109. In the alternative and in addition, the unlawful actions of the Defendant in reckless
disregard of the statutory rights of Plaintiff. Plaintiff reserves the right to argue Defendant?s actions
were wanton, and/ or willful.

110. Plaintiff incorporate the information contained in the exhibits to this Complaint as

though set forth and reserves the right to provide additional information in discovery.

24

Case Document 1 Filed 08/15/16 Page 25 of 28

DAMAGES INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
PUNITIVE DAMAGES

111. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all averments set forth in all paragraphs above as
if fully incorporated herein. Plaintiff suffered losses and damages as set forth below and
incorporated herein from the section beginning PREMESIS CONSIDERED. . 
He also preserves a claim for punitive damages for conduct which was willful and/ or wanton
and/ or in reckless disregard for his civil rights as well as in reckless disregard for the above law (as
they allege the conduct was). Defendant acted in reckless disregard for Plaintiffs civil rights and for
the law in its actionable conduct giving rise to the above claims.

CONSOLIDATED PRAYER FOR RELIEF TO BE APPLICABLE TO ALL ABOVE
SEPARATE CLAIMS INDIVIDUALLY AND TOGETHER. (F HE BELOW IS
INCORPORATED INTO ALL ABOVE COUNTS AND CLAIMS AND DEMANDED AS A
RESULT OF THE ACTIONABLE CONDUCT DESCRIBED ABOVE.)

112. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates all averments set forth in all paragraphs above as
if fully incorporated herein.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, PLAINTIFF RESPECTFULLY PRAYS
that the Court cause service to issue in this cause upon the Defendant and that this matter be set for
trial on each separate claim(s) in each separate Count. Upon trial by jury thereon, Plaintiff prays that
the following relief be granted separately for each Count, claim, or cause of action:

1. Front pay/ lost wages as well as back pay/ lost wages to the fullest extent recoverable,
value of employment bene?ts of any kind (including but not limited to lost value of any insurance
or anything of value Plaintiff received during employment or would have received during or
following employment if not for the conduct alleged), lost value of incidentals and other pecuniary
losses proximately caused by Defendant?s unlawful conduct, as well as fair compensation for the

acts and omissions referred to;

25

Case Document 1 Filed 08/15/16 Page 26 of 28

2. Damages against Defendant in an amount to be determined by the jury for damages
described above and herein and above the minimum jurisdictional amount. Those damages include
but are not limited to (recovery for the following categories of damages are sought in the alternative
and in addition to each other): compensation for past, present, and future emotional distress or
non-economic losses; past, present, and future out of pocket costs and attorney fees; past, present,
and future loss of enjoyment of life; past, present, and future pain and suffering; past, present, and
future mental anguish; past, present, and future lost wages to the fullest extent recoverable; loss of
wage earning capacity; costs related to medical or mental health treatment which might occur in the
future if OR which Plaintiff might be recommended to have or might have been recommended.
Plaintiff otherwise prays for any medical care, counseling, mental health care, or
care which might be recommended or which might have been recommended in the
past present or future, or for the past, present and future. Recovery is sought to be calculated
based on each separate claim and cause of action individually to the fullest extent possible. Plaintiff
prays for a right to a jury trial under the Constitution for each claim. Plaintiff prays for all other
compensatory damages, and other damages he may legally recover. Plaintiff also claim all costs,
pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, costs of this action, expenses of this action, expert
witness fees and reasonable attorney's fees and any other damages allowed under actions brought
pursuant to all above laws, under which Plaintiff specifically intends to bring this Complaint; and

3. Plaintiff prays for punitive damages in the maximum amount allowed by law.

4. Such further relief as is deemed just and proper. (Plaintiff claim all categories of
damages recoverable in this action including but not limited to all compensatory and punitive

damages.

26

Case Document 1 Filed 08/15/16 Page 27 of 28

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Plaintiff demands a jury trial on all matters raised by the Complaint
as Respectfully Stated Herein pursuant to the U.S. Constitution

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, this the 15?h day August, 2016.

FOR THE PLAINTIFF,
ROBERT L. GIBSON

BY:

 

MICHAEL R. BROWN, ESQ.

(rial h?ll

y?oU 

CO COUNSEL FOR PLAINITFF:

Michael R. Brown, Esq., 99126)

THE MICHAEL R. BROWN LAW OFFICES, PLLC
120 North Congress Street, Suite 710

jackson, Mississippi 39201

Tel: (601) 948-5330

Fax: (601) 948-5415

Email: mbrown@mike1awms.com

CO COUNSEL FOR PLAINITF F:

Winston]. Thompson, Esq., 100157)
THE COCHRAN FIRM

620 North State Street, Suite 303

Jackson, MS 39225

Tel: (601) 321-9052

Fax: (7 69) 251-2631

Email: wjt313w@yahoo.com

27

Case Document 1 Filed 08/15/16 Page 28 of 28

VERIFICATION

I, Robert L. Gibson, certify and verify to the Honorable Court and to the Defendant that I have
reviewed and read all provisions of the foregoing Complaint and veri?cation containing 28 pages. I
verify that I understand all provisions and allegations. I have directed my attorney to include all
above provisions in the Complaint, as well as to ?le the Complaint on my behalf. I assume full, ?nal
responsibility for all representations made in the Complaint such that I certify and verify they are
accurate and truthful.

Wi/xb) 

0113591? 

28