Timothy C. Woodcock I eabOd >1 80 Exchange Street. O. Box 12")

Direct Dial 207 9924338 Bangor, Maine (14402 IZIO

a Phone 20? 9-174" 1 I Fax 207-942-3040


May 16,2017

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Boston Area Of?ce

John F. Kennedy Federal Building

475 Government Center

Boston, MA 02203

RE: Charge of Discrimination Against the Augusta School Department
To Whom It May Concern:

The undersigned counsel and Adria Y. LaRose, Esq., both of the law ?rm Eaton
Peabody, and First Liberty Institute represent Toni Richardson. Please refer all future
communications to me.

Enclosed please ?nd the necessary documentation to ?le a formal charge of religious
discrimination and retaliation against the Augusta School Department. We have enclosed the
EEOC Intake Questionnaire, a statement, and an additional supplement to the EEOC
Questionnaire. We trust the same will be suf?cient for the EEOC to launch its immediate
investigation into the matter alleged. We also request that the charge be ?led with the Maine
Human Rights Commission.

Additionally, we have also enclosed the agreement between the parties to toll the
deadline to ?le the EEOC charge until May 17, 2017.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

cerely, I

by C. Woo coc

   
 

AUGUSTA I BANGOR I BRUNSWICK ELLSWORTH I PORTLAND

Toni Richardson

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Boston Area Office
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
475 Government Center
Boston, MA 02203
May 16, 2017
Re:

Religious Discrimination Charge

I am writing to file a charge of religious discrimination and retaliation against my employer, the
Augusta School Department in Augusta, Maine. After I made several verbal reports about a co-worker, my
employer started an HR investigation. Instead of reassuring me that the school will stop the co-worker who
had intimidated me and was creating a hostile environment for me, the director of our program,
called me into a meeting and interrogated me about my religious beliefs. She reprimanded me for
“identifying” myself as a Christian to other employees and for making simple faith-based statements at
work, such as “That’s a blessing” or “I will keep you in my prayers.” She ordered me to never make any
faith-based statement while on school grounds, even in private conversations with other employees. The
next day, I received a written memorandum threatening additional discipline or termination if I “reference
[my] spiritual or religious beliefs” or “use phrases that integrate public and private belief systems when in
the public schools.” In response to my reports, the school took away my private free speech rights,
discriminating against me because of my religious beliefs.
My Employment at Cony High School
I am a special educational technician at Cony High School, a school within the Augusta School
Department in Maine. I work alongside other members of our team, as a Functional Skills Educational
Technician, to serve special needs students. I assist and encourage students during school hours who have
cognitive and emotional disabilities. Many may not be able to live independently at any point in their lives.
Through our program, we work to help them develop and hone their functional living skills. It is a difficult
job, but I greatly enjoy working with these students.
Before coming to Cony High School, I was working as an educational technician for Child
Development Services in a preschool classroom at Webster School Headstart, and then at Gilbert
Elementary School. I previously worked in the field of mental health for approximately 5 years.
My Religious Faith
My Christian faith is central to my life and identity. I attend
Church in Augusta, where I serve in our monthly nursing home ministry as well as our monthly community
dinners for the less fortunate in our community. Because my faith is an integral part of who I am, my
religious beliefs influence how I see the world and sometimes affect the words and phrases I use as a part
of casual conversations with friends and colleagues. I pray often for the people I care about and sincerely
believe in the power of prayer.
Beginning Work at Cony High School
My first day as an Education Tech at Cony High School was August 30, 2016. Our team consisted
of two other Educational Technicians,
and
and it was led by Special
Education Teacher

1

 It was also my co-worker
first day in the special education program at Cony
High School. Mr.
had transferred into this position from the English as a Second Language (ESL)
program, and it was clear that he was having trouble adjusting to the specialized demands of being an
Educational Technician in the Functional Skills classroom.
From day one, Mr.
made the rest of the classroom team feel uncomfortable. He would
over-share personal details and his mood would swing quite drastically. One moment everything would be
great and he would appear motivated to serve our students, and then the next he would complain and
agonize over how difficult the job was. Starting around his third day on the job, he started to wonder out
loud whether he might have applied for the wrong job. He would complain about how disorganized the
Functional Skills program was, saying, “I can’t function this way.”
I tried to encourage him to hang in there. I tried to reassure him that the first few weeks of every
school year are often the craziest, especially in the Functional Skills classroom. The kids are just getting
used to the classroom, the rules, the bell system, and so on. After the first few weeks, the chaos dies down.
He just said again, “I wonder if it’s too late to get my old job back.”
I remember trying to encourage him one time during the first week of school. We were alone in
the classroom in the afternoon after all the students had left, and we were winding down for the day. I told
him that I thought that the students could use a good male role model because many of them were from
fatherless homes. I also knew he was a member of my church because I had worked alongside him at our
church’s community dinners and at the nursing home ministry. So, as we were leaving for the day, I told
him that I would pray for him. He said, “Thanks. That means a lot to me.”
When I came to work early the next morning, before any of our other co-workers or students had
arrived. He came up to me as we were again alone in the classroom preparing for the day to begin and said,
“I want to thank you for the discussion we had yesterday. You really encouraged me and helped me see my
place on the team.” I told him that I was glad and that I did pray for him yesterday, as I said I would. It was
a friendly exchange, and I didn’t think much of it at the time.
Co-Worker’s Erratic Behavior
Then, over a short period of time, his behavior became more erratic and his mood swings more
pronounced. Our boss, Special Education Teacher
noticed it too. She asked me, “Is
okay?”
Ms.
called a staff meeting. During the meeting, we discussed how we have to help
students by calling attention to their hygiene issues. Mr.
mentioned that he didn’t know if he
would be comfortable doing that. I tried to identify with him, telling him that I used to struggle with that
too. I shared something that another teacher had shared with me: “It’s important to let the students know
about any hygiene problems because we care about our students. The students will probably learn one way
or another that they need to work on hygiene issues. And its better that we let them know in a kind,
professional way, rather than them hearing it on the school yard from a kid in a not-so-nice way.” Then,
Mr.
looked right at me during the staff meeting and said, “Don’t talk down to me. You’re being
condescending.” It didn’t seem like a joke. It was shocking and uncomfortable for everyone. After the
meeting, I asked Ms.
and Ms.
what happened there. They said they had no idea.
Still, I wanted to make amends if I did something to offend him. So, I texted him after work to
apologize and figure out what happened. He responded, “All’s good.” I asked a clarifying question, “Do
you mean I forgive you or you were joking?” In response, he sent me a lengthy text explaining how he
viewed the situation. But it was unclear and difficult to understand. I was unable to understand exactly what
he was saying, but he seemed like he was trying to clarify some of the problems he had with me. I was
confused by the text. So, I sent Ms.
the text, and then gave her a call to talk about it. She said,
“I think we need to talk about this. We’ll do it tomorrow.” She seemed concerned about Mr.
behavior toward me.

2

 The next day, Ms.
called a meeting with Mr.
and me, and she asked how we
were all doing. Mr.
started going on and on about how stressed he is, and how he can’t sleep, and
how he thinks that the job is not a good fit for him. He pointed at me and said, “I’m not like her. She’s
running around doing this, doing that. It’s very difficult to work here.” Then, during the meeting in front of
my boss, he looked directly at me and said, “I need to let you know: You suck the oxygen out of the room
when you walk into it.” I looked at my boss for help. She didn’t do anything. So, I said politely, “This
makes me sad. Is there anything I can do to change?” He said, matter-of-factly, “There’s nothing you can
do to change. It’s who you are. And I need to let you know that when you said you’d pray for me. That
really upset me.” Ms.
is a new supervisor and didn’t seem to know what to do, so she just
ended the meeting, without reprimanding him or coming to my aid. She simply said something like, “We’re
a team and we need to get along.”
I was disappointed that the comment he made to me was not addressed. It was tough for me to
bear the insults. So after the meeting, privately to my supervisor Ms.
I calmly explained that if
things kept going this way, I might have to find a new job. Ms.
said, “I’m not sure I can
continue like this either.” She commented, “I think he’s just feeling inadequate and jealous and comparing
himself to you.”
The next few days, Mr.
would ignore me and bolt home as soon as possible when the day
ended. Then he would get upset if my co-workers and I discussed things as we were winding down for the
day after the students had left and he had left. He was getting more and more hostile toward me.
Co-Worker’s Explosion in the Classroom
On or around September 14, 2016, Mr.

exploded at me in classroom in front of our

students.
The afternoon before, after Mr.
had left, Ms.
Ms.
and I were talking.
Ms.
said that there were some things she felt needed to be addressed with the class the next
day, mostly related to the operation of the classroom. In particular, she wanted to talk about safety and
hygiene issues.
The next day, I was delayed in another classroom and, when I came back into our classroom, Ms.
was just wrapping up her comments to the students. She asked whether I had anything I wanted
to address. Not knowing what already had been discussed, but wanting to make sure we had discussed the
concerns Ms.
mentioned the day before, I said, “Ms.
I noticed that the window over my
desk is open. Why is that?” She took the cue to discuss the fact that the classroom did smell because of
some students’ hygiene issues. When Ms.
was talking, Mr.
began to murmur and
mumble things to himself. He was saying: “I don’t agree with this. I don’t feel comfortable.” He kept
getting louder. It was strange. Ms.
answered his statements but that did nothing to deescalate
his behavior. She abruptly ended the discussion that she had been giving and left the room, stating that she
was going to a meeting.
Then, after Ms.
left, he came right over to where I was standing, leaned over me and
put his finger in my face, speaking very loudly, “I can’t believe you. You are rude. You are wrong!” This
was all in front of the students. I tried to keep my calm in order to avoid upsetting the students. It was
important for the kids to think that I was okay. Ms.
saw what happened and began texting Ms.
telling her to come back immediately. Then Mr.
threw his arms up in the air and
yelled in exasperation, “Maybe I’m the one who stinks! Maybe I should go put on deodorant!” He left and
went into the student bathroom in the class.
Ms.

had gone to get assistance from her boss, Assistant Special Education Director
A team meeting was set up for the end of the school day to address the incident.

Ms.
called a team meeting including Ms.
and myself. She advised us that if we had a problem, we should deal with it, but not in the

3

 classroom and never in front of the students. Mr.
would chime in over and over, agreeing
wholeheartedly with everything that Ms.
said. The specifics of what actually happened never
came up. I felt so overwhelmed that I couldn’t say anything, and the others didn’t come to my defense.
Report Starting an HR Investigation
When I left the meeting, I started crying and thought about quitting. I left the building from the
side staff entrance and drove to the front of the building and sat for a bit. I entered the main entrance to the
school and went to Ms.
office. She was meeting with my boss and motioned for me to come
in. I apologized for staying quiet during the meeting. Ms.
said, “In that meeting, my heart broke
for you. I could tell you were visibly upset.” She also told me, “I was just having
call you to find out
if you were okay.” I told her, “No, I’m not okay.”
At that time, I reported to Ms.
all the comments Mr.
had made to me and all
his erratic behavior over the past weeks. I told her everything, and that I might have to quit if things didn’t
change. When I was done, she said, “I don’t think this is a personality problem anymore. I’ll call Special
Education Director
I’m concerned that this might be an HR situation. I think this might be a
harassment situation.” I told her that I just wanted the chaos to stop. She said, “I want to let you know that
I’m concerned for your safety. I don’t want you in the same room alone together anymore. We need to get
this taken care of.” She arranged to have our schedules switched so Mr.
and I no longer had the
same schedule that would put us alone in the classroom together.1 She also contacted the Director of
Special Education,
starting an HR investigation.
The next morning, Mr.
wrote an email to our team apologizing for his behavior the day
before and for calling me rude. He wrote that he acted on impulse in reaction to something that he thought I
was doing wrong.2 In the morning, he came up to me, coming uncomfortably close. He asked Ms.
and me, “Did you get my email?” I hadn’t checked my email yet. Ms.
asked him,
“Do you want to go in my office and talk.” He said, “No, I just want to make sure you got my email.” He
left abruptly. All of this took place with students in the classroom.
Retaliation and Religious Discrimination
On September 16, 2016, I met with Ms.
and Ms.
For the first portion of the
meeting, I explained everything that had happened. I told them that I didn’t feel comfortable working with
Mr.
I told them that he was confrontational and aggressive, particularly toward me. I told them
about his explosion in the classroom and how he would often get upset with our programming procedures.
The way he reacted when things weren’t going his way caused me so much stress and discomfort that I was
thinking about quitting. Ms.
didn’t make many comments except to write down what I was saying
and occasionally ask fact questions. Then, at the end of the meeting, she shifted to a sharp tone.
Ms.

started grilling me about my religion.

First, she asked, “Have you ever identified yourself as a Christian to anybody on Cony grounds?”
I told her that I knew some people from outside of Cony and that I have identified myself to some of them
as a Christian. She continued, in a stern tone, “Have you ever made statements that you would pray for
people? Or that you have prayed for people?” I told her that I know some people from different contexts
than school and that we attend different places together and do different activities together and, since we
are familiar with each other inside and outside of school, I had, in fact, said that I would pray for people.
Then, she asked, “Have you ever made a faith-based statement?” I was unsure what she meant, and
1

Mr.
later transferred to the English as a Second Language Program.
Full text of the email: “I sincerely want to apologize to all of you but especially Toni for calling her rude yesterday. I
reacted on impulse and without thinking in reaction to something I perceived as very harmful to our students. I know
this does not undo my actions but want you to know I honestly regret it and will keep my opinions to myself in the
future. I have a meeting with
first thing this morning and will see you later in class. Thank you for putting up
with me and I hope we can move past this as I truly love these kids and working with them.”
2

4

 astonished that she asked, so I asked her for clarification. She explained that she meant any statement
having anything to do with religious belief, even statements like “That’s a blessing.” I told her that I had
sometimes said that.
Finally, she said, “Are you aware of the First Amendment?” She continued, “I want to let you
know that you’re in violation of that. Even if you know someone from your church, you can’t make
statements telling people that you would pray for them on school grounds.” She informed me that she had
reported this to Mr.
the school superintendent of the Augusta School Department. The
meeting ended with the distinct impression that, with the school superintendent involved, this was a serious
situation.
From that point on, I have self-censored my speech in private conversations, stripping it of
anything that sounds religious. I used to say a lot of things to my colleagues during casual, private
conversations. For instance, I might say, “Praise the Lord” when something good is happening or “God
love her” when I’m frustrated with the behavior of my children. But now, things are different. A few coworkers have told me that I’m not as talkative or bubbly anymore, asking me if something was going on. At
times, I have even consciously avoided wearing jewelry with crosses on it for fear of violating the
directives of the coaching memorandum and facing further discipline or dismissal.
I couldn’t believe that in response to my HR report about Mr.
hostile behavior toward
me, I was interrogated about my religious identity and ordered to censor any phrase that could have any
trace of religious content in it, even in private conversations between co-workers on my own time, and that
I was ordered to hide any aspect of my Christian identity from my speech.
The Augusta School Department expressed such extreme hostility toward religion that my
mention of prayer appears to have been investigated more strongly than my complaints about Mr.
hostility toward me in front of our special needs students. He loses it in the classroom after
roughly 12 school days of being erratic and they are more concerned that I told someone who went to my
church that I’d pray for him. It is clearly religious discrimination for the school to take away my First
Amendment right to hold private conversations about my faith with my colleagues—especially those with
whom I attend church.
As far as I know, they never reprimanded Mr.

for his behavior.

Coaching Memorandum
On or around the next school day, I received an official, written “coaching memorandum” from
Ms.
reprimanding me and threatening further disciplinary action if it was not obeyed.3 See
Exhibit A. The memorandum, dated September 19, 2016, recited the following charge against me:
An investigation of your concerns indicated that you may have imposed some strong
religious/spiritual belief system towards Mr.
Stating “I will pray for you”, and
“you were in my prayers” is not acceptable – even if that other person attends the same
church as you.
In the case of, Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court applied the
“establishment clause” of the First Amendment to the states. In the context of the
“separation of church and state,” this case prohibits public school-sponsored religious
expression. Therefore, in the future, it is imperative you do not use phrases that integrate
public and private belief systems when in the public schools.
Going forward, I expect when you disagree with a staff member, you will address it in a
discrete and professional manner with no reference to your spiritual or religious beliefs.
3

The “coaching memorandum” bears the name of “Cony School” and the seal of “Cony High School.” Cony High
School is one of the Cony schools operated and controlled by the Augusta School Department.

5

 The memorandum concluded by reciting that the memorandum is “not considered disciplinary in
nature” and “will not be included in your personnel file.” However, the next sentence continued, “If you
have any additional interactions that are deemed unprofessional by administration, you will be subject to
disciplinary action and/or possibly dismissal.” Thus, the memorandum serves as a predicate for “dismissal”
in the event that I say something the administration believes “impose[s] some strong religious/spiritual
belief systems” on other employees. Additionally, the memorandum serves as a predicate for “disciplinary
action” if I engage in any type of action deemed “unprofessional” in the future, regardless of whether it is
similar to what happened here.
Moreover, Ms.
verbal order and the written memorandum both changed the terms and
conditions of my employment by violating my First Amendment rights and ordering me to censor my
private religious speech under threat of dismissal.
I now fear that I will be dismissed or subject to further discipline merely for making a simple
gesture such as offering to pray for someone. I fear that the administration is hostile to even the most wellintentioned, casual mentions of religious faith, and I am worried that I will be discriminated against again
in the future for similar expressions of my religious beliefs.
The Coaching Memorandum Was Unlawful Under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
My comments to Mr.
were simple expressions of encouragement that I hoped that he
would overcome the challenges he was facing and that he had my spiritual and moral support. Because I am
a devoted Christian, I chose to place my sentiments in the context of my faith, and convey them in a private
conversation with another adult from my church. Even though I merely meant to wish Mr.
well
and voiced my hope that the challenges he faced would dissipate, the Augusta School Department
admonished me for not expressing these sentiments in purely secular terms. The school reprimanded me
because my words, spoken privately to a colleague, involved religious content. It did not matter that I
sincerely believed in the religious foundation for my words or their efficacy as religious concepts. In short,
reprimanding me for my simple expression that I would pray for a colleague was unlawful viewpoint
discrimination.
It is unlawful for Augusta Public Schools to censor the private religious speech of its employees.
The Supreme Court of the United States made clear that viewpoint discrimination is strictly prohibited. See
Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Def. & Educ. Fund, 473 U.S. 788, 811 (1985); Perry Educ. Ass’n v. Perry
Local Educators’ Ass’n, 460 U.S. 37, 46 (1983). Augusta Public Schools violates the law when it
suppresses or excludes private speech simply because the speech expresses a religious viewpoint. See Good
News Club v. Milford Cent. Sch., 533 U.S. 98 (2001); Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the Univ. of Va.,
515 U.S. 819 (1995); Lamb’s Chapel v. Ctr. Moriches Union Free Sch. Dist., 508 U.S. 384 (1993); Widmar
v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263 (1981). The Supreme Court of the United States has characterized viewpoint
discrimination as “an egregious form of content discrimination.” Rosenberger, 515 U.S. at 829; see also id.
at 828, 829; Cornelius, 473 U.S. at 806; Perry Educ. Ass’n, 460 U.S. at 46. Where the religious speech of
its employees are concerned, the Augusta Public Schools, like all Government actors, are required to
remain neutral. See Rosenberger, 515 U.S. at 839. When set against these constitutionally-derived
standards, the coaching memorandum manifested the overt hostility of the Augusta public schools to my
expression of a viewpoint based in my religion and faith.
The circumstances surrounding the coaching memorandum and its wording reveal the Augusta
public school’s hostility to its employees’ use of words containing religious sentiment. First, it is apparent
that this conversation involved one adult employee speaking to another adult employee.
Second, this was a private conversation. There is nothing unlawful about one employee
speaking privately to another employee about religion. Indeed, the First Amendment protects such
conversations from government censorship and Title VII holds liable employers like the Augusta School
Department for discriminating against employees having such conversations.

6

 Third, the coaching memorandum?s assertion that my statements to Mr.? who I knew
to be a fellow parishioner at my church, might have amounted to the ?irnposrtton my ?strong
religious/spiritual belief system towards Mr. is a gross overstatement that even the
memorandum itself cannot sustain.

In its coaching memorandum, the Augusta School Department has explicitly targeted my
religious speech; it has labeled my views as ?not acceptable;" it has prohibited me from, in the future,
making ?reference to [my] spiritual or religious beliefs.? The coaching memorandum made plain that
school of?cials were not merely concerned about the subject matter of my statements, but, rather,
my religious viewpoint. ?When the government targets not subject matter, but particular views taken
by speakers on a subject, the violation of the First Amendment is all the more blatant.? Rosenberger,
515 at 829. The First Amendment ?does not license government to treat religion and those who
teach or practice it, simply by virtue of their status as such, as subversive of American ideals and
therefore subject to unique disabilities.? Bd. of Educ. v. Mergens, 496 US. 226, 248 (1990) (quoting
McDaniel v. Paty, 435 US. 618, 641 (1978)).

In addition to being bound by the First Amendment requirements described above, the Augusta
Public Schools are also subject to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII requires Augusta
Public Schools to respect and accommodate the religious beliefs of its employees. See generally 42
U.S.C. 2000e, et seq. Verbally reprimanding and ordering a school employee to refrain, during a
private conversation, from telling a colleague who attends my same church that I am praying for him is an
unlawful employment practice. See 42 U.S.C. This is particularly so where the coaching
memorandum states that it will serve as the predicate for the imposition of ?disciplinary action and/or
possibly dismissal," if. in the future, I engage in unidenti?ed ?additional interactions,? presumably of a
religious nature, which are ?deemed unprofessional by the administration." Thus, I am concerned that
lawfully expressing sentiments to a fellow employee with religious content will be held against me at
some point in the future. Under Title Vll, this is unlawful.

As the Supreme Court has explained, ?Title VII does not demand mere neutrality with regard to
religious practices-that they be treated no worse than other practices. Rather, it gives them favored
treatment, af?rmatively obligating employers not ?to fail or refuse to hire or discharge any individual

. because of such individual's? ?religious observance and practice.? EEOC v. Abercrombie Fitch
Stores, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 2028, 2034 (2015) (ellipsis original).

As a Christian, my religious practice is to pray for others-especially those with whom [fellowship
at my church. The Augusta School Department could easily provide me with a religious accommodation
that would allow me to tell a fellow employee with whom I attend church, during a private conversation
away from students, that 1 am praying for him. Such an accommodation poses no undue hardship upon
th Augusta School Department. Failing to even consider such an alternative, or rejecting it
altogether, violates Title VII. See EEOC v. Abercrombie Fitch Stores, Inc, 135 S. Ct. 2028, 2033-34
(2015).

Conclusion

In summary, the Augusta School Department has discriminated against me because of my lawful,
private religious speech. It has failed to apologize or acknowledge that my offer to pray for a colleague was
lawful. It has failed to consider implementing any sort of appropriate religious accommodation. The school
retaliated against me for reporting the behavior of a colleague and for exercising my First Amendment
rights.

ank you for looking/In} 0 this truer,

. -3.- Kit ?reign.

Princi al

Cony School

    

60 Pierce Dl?. Assistant Princi ais
Augusta, Maine 04330

Telephone (207) 626-2460 SPED Director

Fax (207) 626?2541 

Asst. SPED Director

Memorandum

To: Toni Richardson

From: Assistant Special Education Director
Date: 9/19/16

Re: Staff Relationships

This is a coaching memorandum pursuant to your professional responsibilities in the areas of
Staff relationships.

On September 15, 2016 I met with you and your teaching team;?, Special
Education Teacher,?, Educational Technician, and Educational
Technician, due to concerns that were expressed by your supervising teacher, Mrs.

and your interactions with During that meeting, I expressed my expectation that you
wereWa "Team? which needed to work respectfully to the mutual goal of student success.

 

 

 

On September 16, 2016 you met with Special Education Director and me. You
stated that you ?did not feel comfortable working with Mr. -, noting that statements he
has made in the classroom were ?challenging I almost aggressive in the way they were
delivered?. You cited an instance where ?he stood over you, pointed and used an aggressive
tone?. In regards to Mr. -s dissatisfaction with programming procedures and the manner
in which he expressed his displeasure, you noted that these are areas of stress and discomfort
for you.

An investigation of your concerns indicated that you may have imposed some strong 2

bkre?gipusis?i?tual belW towards Mr. . Stating, ?Wryou?, and ?you were 

. in my prayers "tenet acceptable - even if that other person attends the same church as you.

in the case of, Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court applied the "establishment
clause" of the First Amendment to the states. In the context of the "separation of church and
state," this case prohibits public school-sponsored religious expression. Therefore, in the future,
it is imperative you do not use phrases that integrate public when in
.






the public schools. ..

.. . . 
Gem-g forward, I expect when you disagree with a staff member, you will address it in a discrete 
4nd professional mannerwith no reference to beliefs. er?a?xi

 

This coaching memorandum is not considered disciplinary in nature and will not be included in
your personnel file. If you have any additional interactions that are deemed unprofessional by
administration, you will be subject to disciplinary action and/or possibly dismissal.

If you have any questions regarding this coaching memo, please do not hesitate to contact me.

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Thank you for using the EEOC Assessment System. The information you gave us indicates that your
situation may be covered by the laws we enforce. If you want to file a charge, you can start the process
by filling out the Intake Questionnaire, signing it, and either bringing it or mailing it to the EEOC office
listed below right away. If you live within 50 miles of the EEOC office listed below, we recommend
that you bring the completed questionnaire with you to this office to discuss your situation.
EEOC Boston Area Office
John F. Kennedy Fed Bldg
Government Ctr, Room 475
Boston, MA 02203

If you would like to bring the questionnaire to us in person instead of mailing it to us, please click
http://www.eeoc.gov/field/index.cfm to find out the office hours of the EEOC office closest to you.
If you would like to fax the questionnaire to us, please click http://www.eeoc.gov/field/index.cfm to
find out the fax number of the office nearest to you.
You should be aware that filing a charge can take up to two hours. If you find that you are having
difficulty completing the questionnaire on your own, you may call the number below for assistance.
Please be sure to:
·
·
·
·

Answer all questions as completely as possible.
Include the location where you work(ed) or applied.
Complete all pages and sign the last page.
Attach additional pages if you need more space to complete your responses.

You can find out more information about the laws we enforce and our charge-filing procedures on
our website at www.eeoc.gov.
If you want to file a charge about job discrimination, there are time limits to file the charge. In many
States that limit is 300 days from the date you knew about the harm or negative job action, but in
other States it is 180 days. To protect your rights, it is important that you fill out the questionnaire,
sign it, and bring it or send it to us right away.
Filling out and bringing us or sending us this questionnaire does not mean that you have filed a
charge. This questionnaire will help us look at your situation and figure out if you are covered by the
laws we enforce. If you live within 50 miles of the office listed above, we recommend that you bring
the completed questionnaire to us to discuss your situation. If you mail the completed questionnaire
to us, someone from the EEOC should contact you by mail or by phone within 30 days. If you don't
hear from us in 30 days, please call us at 1-800-669-4000.
Sincerely,
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Phone: 1-800-669-4000

TTY: 1-800-669-6820

Internet: www.eeoc.gov

Email: info@eeoc.gov

 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
INTAKE QUESTIONNAIRE
Please immediately complete the entire form and return it to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
("EEOC"). REMEMBER, a charge of employment discrimination must be filed within the time limits imposed by law,
generally within 180 days or in some places 300 days of the alleged discrimination. Upon receipt, this form will be
reviewed to determine EEOC coverage. Answer all questions as completely as possible, and attach additional pages if
needed to complete your response(s). If you do not know the answer to a question, answer by stating "not known."
If a question is not applicable, write "n/a." Please Print.
1.

Personal Information

Last Name: Richardson

First Name: Toni

MI: L

Street or Mailing Address:

Apt Or Unit #:

City:

County:

Phone Numbers: Home: (

State:

)

Work: (

Cell: (
)
Date of Birth:

Email Address:
Sex: Male
Female

Please answer each of the next three questions.

ZIP:

)
Do You Have a Disability?

i. Are you Hispanic or Latino?

ii. What is your Race? Please choose all that apply.

Yes

American Indian or Alaska Native

Black or African American

Yes

No

No
Asian

White

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

iii. What is your National Origin (country of origin or ancestry)?
Please Provide The Name Of A Person We Can Contact If We Are Unable To Reach You:
Name: Timothy Woodcock, Eaton Peabody
Address: 80 Exchange Street
Home Phone: (

Relationship: Attorney
City: Bangor

)

Other Phone: (

State: ME Zip Code:

04401

)

2. I believe that I was discriminated against by the following organization(s): (Check those that apply)
Employer

Union

Employment Agency

Other (Please Specify)

Organization Contact Information (If the organization is an employer, provide the address where you actually worked. If you work
from home, check here
and provide the address of the office to which you reported.) If more than one employer is involved, attach
additional sheets.
Organization Name: Augusta Schools Department (Cony High School)
Address: 40 Pierce Drive, Suite #3
City: Augusta

County: Kennebec County
State: ME Zip:

Type of Business: School District

04330

Phone: ( 207 ) 626-2468

Job Location if different from Org. Address: Cony High, 60 Pierce Dr., Augusta

Human Resources Director or Owner Name:

, HR Admin Assistant

Phone:

Number of Employees in the Organization at All Locations: Please Check (√) One
Fewer Than 15

15 - 100

101 - 200

201 - 500

3. Your Employment Data (Complete as many items as you can)
Date Hired: 08/30/2016
Pay Rate When Hired: Approx.

Are you a Federal Employee?

Yes

Job Title At Hire: Functional Skills Educational Technician
Last or Current Pay Rate:Approx.

Job Title at Time of Alleged Discrimination: Functional Skills Ed Tech
Name and Title of Immediate Supervisor:

More than 500

Date Quit/Discharged: N/A

Functional Skills Teacher

No

 2
If Job Applicant, Date You Applied for Job

Job Title Applied For

4. What is the reason (basis) for your claim of employment discrimination?
FOR EXAMPLE, if you feel that you were treated worse than someone else because of race, you should check the box next to Race. If
you feel you were treated worse for several reasons, such as your sex, religion and national origin, you should check all that apply. If
you complained about discrimination, participated in someone else's complaint, or filed a charge of discrimination, and a negative
action was threatened or taken, you should check the box next to Retaliation.
Race

Sex

Age

Disability

National Origin

difference in skin shade within the same race)
i. genetic testing

Religion

Retaliation

Pregnancy

Color (typically a

Genetic Information; choose which type(s) of genetic information is involved:

ii. family medical history

iii. genetic services (genetic services means counseling, education or testing)

If you checked color, religion or national origin, please specify: Christian (Baptist)
If you checked genetic information, how did the employer obtain the genetic information?

Other reason (basis) for discrimination (Explain).
5. What happened to you that you believe was discriminatory? Include the date(s) of harm, the action(s), and the name(s) and
title(s) of the person(s) who you believe discriminated against you. Please attach additional pages if needed.
(Example: 10/02/06 - Discharged by Mr. John Soto, Production Supervisor)
A) Date: See Attached
Action:
Name and Title of Person(s) Responsible:
B) Date: See Attached
Action:
Name and Title of Person(s) Responsible:
6. Why do you believe these actions were discriminatory? Please attach additional pages if needed.
See Attached

7. What reason(s) were given to you for the acts you consider discriminatory? By whom? His or Her Job Title?
See Attached

8. Describe who was in the same or similar situation as you and how they were treated. For example, who else applied for the
same job you did, who else had the same attendance record, or who else had the same performance? Provide the race, sex,
age, national origin, religion, or disability of these individuals, if known, and if it relates to your claim of discrimination. For
example, if your complaint alleges race discrimination, provide the race of each person; if it alleges sex discrimination, provide
the sex of each person; and so on. Use additional sheets if needed.
Of the persons in the same or similar situation as you, who was treated better than you?
A. Full Name
See Attached

Race, sex, age, national origin, religion or disability Job Title

Description of Treatment
B. Full Name

Description of Treatment

Race, sex, age, national origin, religion or disability Job Title

 Of the persons in the same or similar situation as you, who was treated worse than you?
A. Full Name

Race, sex, age, national origin, religion or disability Job Title

See Attached
Description of Treatment
B. Full Name

Race, sex, age, national origin, religion or disability Job Title

Description of Treatment
Of the persons in the same or similar situation as you, who was treated the same as you?
A. Full Name
See Attached

Race, sex, age, national origin, religion or disability Job Title

Description of Treatment
B. Full Name

Race, sex, age, national origin, religion or disability Job Title

Description of Treatment

Answer questions 9-12 only if you are claiming discrimination based on disability. If not, skip to question 13. Please tell us if
you have more than one disability. Please add additional pages if needed.
9.

Please check all that apply:

Yes, I have a disability

I do not have a disability now but I did have one
No disability but the organization treats me as if I am disabled
10. What is the disability that you believe is the reason for the adverse action taken against you? Does this disability prevent
or limit you from doing anything? (e.g., lifting, sleeping, breathing, walking, caring for yourself, working, etc.).

11. Do you use medications, medical equipment or anything else to lessen or eliminate the symptoms of your disability?
Yes

No

If “Yes,” what medication, medical equipment or other assistance do you use?

12. Did you ask your employer for any changes or assistance to do your job because of your disability?
Yes

No

If "YES", when did you ask?
Who did you ask? (Provide full name and job title of person)

Describe the changes or assistance that you asked for:

How did your employer respond to your request?

How did you ask (verbally or in writing)?

3

 13. Are there any witnesses to the alleged discriminatory incidents? If yes, please identify them below and tell us what they
will say. (Please attach additional pages if needed to complete your response)

A. Full Name Job Title Address Phone Number
See Attached

 

 

 

 

What do you believe this person will tell us?

 

B. Full Name Job Title Address Phone Number

 

 

 

What do you believe this person will tell us?

 

14. Have you filed a charge previously in this matter with EEOC or another agency? Yes No-

15. If you have ?led a complaint with another agency, provide name of agency and date of ?ling:

16. Have you sought help about this situation from a union, an attorney, or any other source? Yes No 

Provide name of organization, name of person you spoke with and date of contact. Results, if any?
I met with attorney Jeremy ot?First Liberty Institute. As of September 27, 2016, I am represented by First Liberty Institute.

Please check one of the boxes below to tell us what you would like us to do with the information you are providing on this
questionnaire. If you would like to ?le a charge of job discrimination, you must do so either within 180 days from the day you knew
about the discrimination, or within 300 days from the day you knew about the discrimination if the employer is located in a place
where a state or local government agency enforces laws similar to the laws. If you do not file a charge of discrimination
within the time limits, you will lose your rights. If you would like more information before ?ling a charge or you have
concerns about EEOC's notifying the employer, union, or employment agency about your charge, you may wish to check Box
1. If you want to ?le a charge, you should check Box 2.

 

Box 1 El I want to talk to an EEOC employee before deciding whether to ?le a charge. I understand that by checking this box, I
have not ?led a charge with the EEOC. I also understand that I could lose my rights if I do not ?le a charge in time.

 

 

BOX 2 I want to ?le a charge of discrimination, andI authorize the EEOC to look into the discrimination I described above. I
understand that the EEOC must give the employer, union, or employment agency that I accuse of discrimination
information about the charge, including my name. I also understand that the EEOC can only accept charges of job
discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, age, genetic information, or retaliation for
discrimination.

Mr
v.

 

 

i: i. 7

Signature Today?s Date

(PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT: This form is covered by the Privacy Act of 1974: Public Law 93?579. Authority for requesting personal data and the uses thereof are:

1. FORM EEOC Intake Questionnaire (QXZOIDS).

2. AUTHORITY. 42 U.S.C. 20008-503), 29 U.S.C. 211, 29 U.S.C. 626. 42 U.S.C. 1211713), 42 USC ?2000ff?6.

3. PRINCIPAL PURPOSE. The purpose of this questionnaire is to solicit information about claims of employment discrimination, determine whether the EEOC has
jurisdiction over those claims, and provide charge ?ling counseling, as appropriate. Consistent with 29 CPR 1601.12(b) and 29 CPR this questionnaire
may serve as a charge if it meets the elements of a charge.

4. ROUTINE USES. EEOC may disclose information from this form to other state, local and federal agencies as appropriate or necessary to carry out the
Commission's ?rnctions, or if EEOC becomes aware of a civil or criminal law violation. EEOC may also disclose information to respondents in litigation, to
congressional of?ces in response to inquiries from parties to the charge, to disciplinary committees investigating complaints against attorneys representing the
parties to the charge, or to federal agencies inquiring about hiring or security clearance matters

5. WHETHER DISCLOSURE IS MANDATORY 0R VOLUNTARY AND EFFECT ON INDIVIDUAL FOR NOT PROVIDING INFORMATION.
Providing of this information is voluntary but the failure to do so may hamper the Commission?s investigation of a charge. It is not mandatory that this Form be
used to provide the requested information.

Primer??

   

 

Questionnaire Supplemental Information
5. What happened to you that you believe was discriminatory? Include the date(s) of
harm, the action(s), and the name(s) and title(s) of the person(s) who you believe
discriminated against you.
Date: Week of 9/5/2016
Action:
During the week of September 5, 2016, I reported to
my
immediate supervisor, a series of comments, text messages, and erratic behavior from my
co-worker,
After reviewing the information, Ms.
said, “I
think we need to talk about this. We’ll do it tomorrow.” She seemed genuinely concerned
about Mr.
behavior toward me and wanted to try to resolve the problem. The
next day, Ms.
held the meeting with Mr.
and me. During that
meeting, Mr.
made statements to me like, “I need to let you know: You suck the
oxygen out of the room when you walk into it” and “There’s nothing you can do to
change. It’s who you are.” Ms.
ended the meeting, and soon after, her
supervisor, the head of the department, and even the superintendent became involved.
Name and Title of Person(s) Responsible:
Special Education Teacher
Date: On or around 9/14-15/2016
Action:
On or around September 14, 2016, Mr.
exploded at me in classroom in
front of our students.
The afternoon before, after Mr.
had left, Ms.
Ms.
and I were talking. Ms.
said that there were some things she felt needed to be
addressed with the class the next day, mostly related to the operation of the classroom. In
particular, she wanted to talk about safety and hygiene issues.
The next day, I was delayed in another classroom and, when I came back into our
classroom, Ms.
was just wrapping up her comments to the students. She
asked whether I had anything I wanted to address. Not knowing what already had been
discussed, but wanting to make sure we had discussed the concerns Ms.
mentioned the day before, I said, “Ms.
I noticed that the window over my desk is
open. Why is that?” She took the cue to discuss the fact that the classroom did smell
because of some students’ hygiene issues. When Ms.
was talking, Mr.
began to murmur and mumble things to himself. He was saying: “I don’t agree
with this. I don’t feel comfortable.” He kept getting louder. It was strange. Ms.
answered his statements but that did nothing to deescalate his behavior. She
abruptly ended the discussion that she had been giving and left the room, stating that she
was going to a meeting.
Then, after Ms.
left, he came right over to where I was standing,
leaned over me and put his finger in my face, speaking very loudly, “I can’t believe you.
You are rude. You are wrong!” This was all in front of the students. I tried to keep my
calm in order to avoid upsetting the students. It was important for the kids to think that I
was okay. Ms.
saw what happened and began texting Ms.
telling her

1

 to come back immediately. Then Mr.
threw his arms up in the air and yelled in
exasperation, “Maybe I’m the one who stinks! Maybe I should go put on deodorant!” He
left and went into the student bathroom in the class.
Ms.
had gone to get assistance from her boss, Assistant Special
Education Director
A team meeting was set up for the end of the
school day to address the incident.
Ms.
called a team meeting including Ms.
and myself. She advised us that if we had a problem, we should deal
with it, but not in the classroom and never in front of the students. Mr.
would
chime in over and over, agreeing wholeheartedly with everything that Ms.
said. The specifics of what actually happened never came up. I felt so overwhelmed that I
couldn’t say anything, and the others didn’t come to my defense.
When I left the meeting, I started crying and thought about quitting. I left the
building from the side staff entrance and drove to the front of the building and sat for a
bit. I entered the main entrance to the school and went to Ms.
office. She
was meeting with my boss and motioned for me to come in. I apologized for staying quiet
during the meeting. Ms.
said, “In that meeting, my heart broke for you. I could
tell you were visibly upset.” She also told me, “I was just having
call you to find out
if you were okay.” I told her, “No, I’m not okay.”
At that time, I reported to Ms.
all the comments Mr.
had
made to me and all his erratic behavior over the past weeks. I told her everything, and
that I might have to quit if things didn’t change. When I was done, she said, “I don’t
think this is a personality problem anymore. I’ll call Special Education Director
I’m concerned that this might be an HR situation. I think this might be a
harassment situation.” I told her that I just wanted the chaos to stop. She said, “I want to
let you know that I’m concerned for your safety. I don’t want you in the same room alone
together anymore. We need to get this taken care of.” She arranged to have our schedules
switched so Mr.
and I no longer had the same schedule that would put us alone
in the classroom together.1 She also contacted the Director of Special Education,
starting an HR investigation.
Name and Title of Person(s) Responsible:
Assistant Special
Education Director;
Special Education Teacher
Date: On or around 9/16/2016
Action:
In response to the report that triggered the HR investigation, Director of Special
Education
came to speak with me. I was shocked when Ms.
started
grilling me about my religion.
First, she asked, “Have you ever identified yourself as a Christian to anybody on
Cony grounds?” I told her that I knew some people from outside of Cony and that I have
identified myself to some of them as a Christian. She continued, in a stern tone, “Have
you ever made statements that you would pray for people? Or that you have prayed for
people?” I told her that I know some people from different contexts than school and that
we attend different places together and do different activities together and, since we are
1

Mr.

later transferred to the English as a Second Language Program.

2

 familiar with each other inside and outside of school, I had, in fact, said that I would pray
for people. Then, she asked, “Have you ever made a faith-based statement?” I was unsure
what she meant, and astonished that she asked, so I asked her for clarification. She
explained that she meant any statement having anything to do with religious belief, even
statements like “That’s a blessing.” I told her that I had sometimes said that.
Finally, she said, “Are you aware of the First Amendment?” She continued, “I
want to let you know that you’re in violation of that. Even if you know someone from
your church, you can’t make statements telling people that you would pray for them on
school grounds.” She informed me that she had reported this to Mr.
the
school superintendent of the Augusta School Department. The meeting ended with the
distinct impression that, with the school superintendent involved, this was a serious
situation.
From that point on, I have self-censored my speech in private conversations,
stripping it of anything that sounds religious. I used to say a lot of things to my
colleagues during casual, private conversations. For instance, I might say, “Praise the
Lord” when something good is happening or “God love her” when I’m frustrated with the
behavior of my children. But now, things are different. A few co-workers have told me
that I’m not as talkative or bubbly anymore, asking me if something was going on. At
times, I have even consciously avoided wearing jewelry with crosses on it for fear of
violating the directives of the coaching memorandum and facing further discipline or
dismissal.
I couldn’t believe that in response to my HR report about Mr.
hostile
behavior toward me, I was interrogated about my religious identity and ordered to censor
any phrase that could have any trace of religious content in it, even in private
conversations between co-workers on my own time, and that I was ordered to hide any
aspect of my Christian identity from my speech.
The Augusta School Department expressed such extreme hostility toward religion
that my mention of prayer appears to have been investigated more strongly than my
complaints about Mr.
hostility toward me in front of our special needs
students. He loses it in the classroom after roughly 12 school days of being erratic and
they are more concerned that I told someone who went to my church that I’d pray for
him. It is clearly religious discrimination for the school to take away my First
Amendment right to hold private conversations about my faith with my colleagues—
especially those with whom I attend church.
As far as I know, they never reprimanded Mr.
for his behavior.
Name and Title of Person(s) Responsible:
Director of Special
Education;
Superintendent
Date: On or around 9/19/2016
Action:
On or around the next school day, I received an official, written “coaching
memorandum” from Ms.
reprimanding me and threatening further
disciplinary action if it was not obeyed. 2 See Exhibit A. The memorandum, dated
September 19, 2016, recited the following charge against me:
2

The “coaching memorandum” bears the name of “Cony School” and the seal of “Cony High School.” Cony High
School is one of the Cony schools operated and controlled by the Augusta School Department.

3

 An investigation of your concerns indicated that you may have imposed
some strong religious/spiritual belief system towards Mr.
Stating
“I will pray for you”, and “you were in my prayers” is not acceptable –
even if that other person attends the same church as you.
In the case of, Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court applied
the “establishment clause” of the First Amendment to the states. In the
context of the “separation of church and state,” this case prohibits public
school-sponsored religious expression. Therefore, in the future, it is
imperative you do not use phrases that integrate public and private belief
systems when in the public schools.
Going forward, I expect when you disagree with a staff member, you will
address it in a discrete and professional manner with no reference to your
spiritual or religious beliefs.
The memorandum concluded by reciting that the memorandum is “not considered
disciplinary in nature” and “will not be included in your personnel file.” However, the
next sentence continued, “If you have any additional interactions that are deemed
unprofessional by administration, you will be subject to disciplinary action and/or
possibly dismissal.” Thus, the memorandum serves as a predicate for “dismissal” in the
event that I say something the administration believes “impose[s] some strong
religious/spiritual belief systems” on other employees. Additionally, the memorandum
serves as a predicate for “disciplinary action” if I engage in any type of action deemed
“unprofessional” in the future, regardless of whether it is similar to what happened here.
Moreover, Ms.
verbal order and the written memorandum both changed
the terms and conditions of my employment by violating my First Amendment rights and
ordering me to censor my private religious speech under threat of dismissal.
I now fear that I will be dismissed or subject to further discipline merely for
making a simple gesture such as offering to pray for someone. I fear that the
administration is hostile to even the most well-intentioned, casual mentions of religious
faith, and I am worried that I will be discriminated against again in the future for similar
expressions of my religious beliefs.
Name and Title of Person(s) Responsible:
Director of Special
Education;
Superintendent;
Assistant Special
Education Director
Please see the attached statement for additional information.

4

 6. Why do you believe these actions were discriminatory?
The school acted unlawfully for several reasons, as explained in the attached
letter.
It is unlawful for Augusta Public Schools to censor the private religious speech of
its employees. The Supreme Court of the United States made clear that viewpoint
discrimination is strictly prohibited. See Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Def. & Educ. Fund,
473 U.S. 788, 811 (1985); Perry Educ. Ass’n v. Perry Local Educators’ Ass’n, 460 U.S.
37, 46 (1983). Augusta Public Schools violates the law when it suppresses or excludes
private speech simply because the speech expresses a religious viewpoint. See Good
News Club v. Milford Cent. Sch., 533 U.S. 98 (2001); Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors
of the Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819 (1995); Lamb’s Chapel v. Ctr. Moriches Union Free
Sch. Dist., 508 U.S. 384 (1993); Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263 (1981). The Supreme
Court of the United States has characterized viewpoint discrimination as “an egregious
form of content discrimination.” Rosenberger, 515 U.S. at 829; see also id. at 828, 829;
Cornelius, 473 U.S. at 806; Perry Educ. Ass’n, 460 U.S. at 46. Where the religious
speech of its employees are concerned, the Augusta Public Schools, like all Government
actors, are required to remain neutral. See Rosenberger, 515 U.S. at 839. When set
against these constitutionally-derived standards, the coaching memorandum manifested
the overt hostility of the Augusta public schools to my expression of a viewpoint based in
my religion and faith.
The circumstances surrounding the coaching memorandum and its wording
reveal the Augusta public school’s hostility to its employees’ use of words containing
religious sentiment. First, it is apparent that this conversation involved one adult
employee speaking to another adult employee.
Second, this was a private conversation. There is nothing unlawful about one
employee speaking privately to another employee about religion. Indeed, the First
Amendment protects such conversations from government censorship and Title VII
holds liable employers like the Augusta School Department for discriminating against
employees having such conversations.
Third, the coaching memorandum’s assertion that my statements to Mr.
who I knew to be a fellow parishioner at my church, might have amounted
to the “imposition” of my “strong religious/spiritual belief system towards Mr.
is a gross overstatement that even the memorandum itself cannot sustain.
In its coaching memorandum, the Augusta School Department has explicitly
targeted my religious speech; it has labeled my views as “not acceptable;” it has
prohibited me from, in the future, making “reference to [my] spiritual or religious
beliefs.” The coaching memorandum made plain that school officials were not
merely concerned about the subject matter of my statements, but, rather, my
religious viewpoint. “When the government targets not subject matter, but particular
views taken by speakers on a subject, the violation of the First Amendment is all the
more blatant.” Rosenberger, 515 U.S. at 829. The First Amendment “does not license

5

 government to treat religion and those who teach or practice it, simply by virtue of
their status as such, as subversive of American ideals and therefore subject to unique
disabilities.” Bd. of Educ. v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226, 248 (1990) (quoting McDaniel v. Paty,
435 U.S. 618, 641 (1978)).
In addition to being bound by the First Amendment requirements described
above, the Augusta Public Schools are also subject to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964. Title VII requires Augusta Public Schools to respect and accommodate the
religious beliefs of its employees. See generally 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. Verbally
reprimanding and ordering a school employee to refrain, during a private conversation,
from telling a colleague who attends my same church that I am praying for him is an
unlawful employment practice. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). This is particularly so where
the coaching memorandum states that it will serve as the predicate for the imposition of
“disciplinary action and/or possibly dismissal,” if, in the future, I engage in
unidentified “additional interactions,” presumably of a religious nature, which are
“deemed unprofessional by the administration.” Thus, I am concerned that lawfully
expressing sentiments to a fellow employee with religious content will be held against
me at some point in the future. Under Title VII, this is unlawful.
As the Supreme Court has explained, “Title VII does not demand mere
neutrality with regard to religious practices-that they be treated no worse than other
practices. Rather, it gives them favored treatment, affirmatively obligating employers
not ‘to fail or refuse to hire or discharge any individual . . . because of such
individual's’ ‘religious observance and practice.’” EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.,
135 S. Ct. 2028, 2034 (2015) (ellipsis original).
As a Christian, my religious practice is to pray for others-especially those with
whom I fellowship at my church. The Augusta School Department could easily provide
me with a religious accommodation that would allow me to tell a fellow employee with
whom I attend church, during a private conversation away from students, that I am
praying for him. Such an accommodation poses no undue hardship upon t h e
Augusta School Department. Failing to even consider such an alternative, or rejecting
it altogether, violates Title VII. See EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., 135 S. Ct.
2028, 2033-34 (2015).

6

 7. What reason(s) were given to you for the acts you consider discriminatory? By
whom? His or Her Job Title?
Right after I made a report that triggered an HR investigation into my co-worker,
my employer violated my First Amendment rights, censored my religious speech, and
threatened me with dismissal or other disciplinary actions for making any additional
“faith-based statements,” even in my own private speech to other employees. The only
explanation Director of Special Education
and Assistant Special Education
Director
gave was the false statement that the First Amendment
prohibits me from speaking privately to my co-worker about religion while at school.

7

 8. Describe who was in the same or similar situation as you and how they were
treated. For example, who else applied for the same job you did, who else had the
same attendance record, or who else had the same performance? Provide the race,
sex, age, national origin, religion, or disability of these individuals, if known, and if
it relates to your claim of discrimination. For example, if your complaint alleges
race discrimination, provide the race of each person; if it alleges sex discrimination,
provide the sex of each person; and so on. Use additional sheets if needed.
Of the persons in the same or similar situation as you, who was treated better than
you?
Full Name:
Job Title: Functional Skills Education Technician
Description of Treatment: Although he made personal statements toward his coworkers that upset us and caused us discomfort, he was not reprimanded or ordered to
silence his speech, to my knowledge.
Of the persons in the same or similar situation as you, who was treated worse than
you?
Full Name: N/A
Religion:
Job Title:
Description of Treatment:
Of the persons in the same or similar situation as you, who was treated the same as
you?
Full Name: None known at this time
Religion:
Job Title:
Description of Treatment:

8

 13. Are there any witnesses to the alleged discriminatory incidents? If yes, please
identify them below and tell us what they will say.
Full Name:
Job Title: Special Education Teacher
Address & Phone Number: Shared Work Phone Number
What do you believe this person will tell us:
She witnessed Mr.
erratic behavior in the classroom. She also was present at
our team meetings.
Full Name:
Job Title: Functional Skills Educational Technician
Address & Phone Number: Shared Work Phone Number
What do you believe this person will tell us:
She witnessed Mr.
erratic behavior in the classroom. She also was present at
our team meetings.

9

 TOLLING 

This Tolling Agreement is made as of March 14, 2017 (the ?Effective Date?), by and
between Toni Richardson (?Richardson?), an individual and resident of Augusta, Maine,
and City of Augusta School Department referred to collectively as ?the
Parties.?

WHEREAS, Richardson has alleged that ASD violated certain of her employment and
religious rights, including an improper placement of a ?coaching memorandum? in
Richardson?s employment ?le based on Richardson?s religious beliefs;

WHEREAS, ASD has contended that it has not violated any of Richardson?s rights;

WHEREAS, Richardson has a right to ?le a charge of discrimination with the US. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission within one-hundred and eighty (180)
days from the conduct on the part of ASD alleged to be discriminatory;

WHEREAS, Richardson also has the right to ?le a Notice of Tort Claim within 180 days
of the conduct on the part of ASD that is alleged to have been wrongful.

WHEREAS, Richardson and ASD are currently working in good faith to reach a
settlement of the dispute;

WHEREAS, Richardson and ASD mutually agree that additional time is needed in order
to continue good-faith negotiations to reach a settlement of the dispute and in order to
avoid unnecessary litigation expenses; and

WHEREAS, in order to protect against the possible expiration of the relevant statute of

to enter into this Telling Agreement to

 

preserve any and all claims of either party against the other and to toll and suspend the
applicable ?ling deadline as set out herein.

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises, covenants, and
agreements hereinafter set forth, Richardson and ASD agree as follows:

1. Richardson and ASD, through counsel, will continue to negotiate in good faith in
an attempt to reach a settlement, and Richardson and ASD warrant that each understands
that the present Telling Agreement does not constitute any agreement to any terms of
potential settlement.

2. Richardson and ASD agree to tell the statute of limitations for ?ling a charge with
the EEOC and any Notice of Claim obligations under the Maine Tort Claims Act, until
May 17, 2017. The Parties may agree to further toll the deadlines, in writing, at any time
prior to the expiration of the initial term (or any subsequent renewal term).

Tolling Agreement
Toni Richardson-Augusta School Department
Page 2 of 3

3. ASD agrees that, if Richardson ?les a charge with the EEOC on or serves a
Notice of Tort Claim, or both, on or before the tolled deadline of May 17, 2017, ASD
will not challenge the timeliness of the ?ling.

4. Richardson agrees that, unless this Tolling Agreement is extended as provided in
Paragraph 2, above, if Richardson were to ?le a charge with the EEOC or a Notice of
Tort Claim or both after the deadline of May 17, 2017, the charge will be untimely under
the statute of limitations and will be barred, absent additional circumstances that may
warrant a ?nding of equitable tolling or estoppel.

5. This Tolling Agreement shall be binding on the parties to this Tolling Agreement
and their respective assignees, successors, bene?ciaries, or heirs at law. This Agreement
applies only between ASD and Richardson, and, with the exception of any loss of
consortium claims arising from Richardson?s claims, shall not inure to the bene?t of any
other person, entity or claim.

6. This Tolling Agreement constitutes the entire agreement and understanding
between the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior
agreements or understandings, oral or mitten, with reSpect to such matters, including as
reached or communicated between the Parties directly, through counsel, or otherwise.
The Parties may amend, waive, or modify the provisions of this Agreement, including
this provision, only by mutual agreement in writing duly executed by the Parties hereto.

7. The terms of this Tolling Agreement are contractual and not mere recitals, and no
representations have been made which are not contained herein. In the event of a diSpute
concerning the interpretation of any provision of this Tolling Agreement or any related
document, the rule of construction to the effect that certain ambiguities are to be
construed against the party drafting a document will not apply.

8. The Parties individually represent, warrant, and agree that: each Party is fully
aware of and clearly understand all of the terms and provisions contained in this
Agreement; each Party has voluntarily, with full knowledge and without coercion or
duress of any kind, entered into this Tolling Agreement; each Party is not relying on
any representation, either written or oral, express or implied, made to them by any person
other than as set forth in this Tolling Agreement; and the consideration received by
them to enter into this Tolling Agreement and the arrangement contemplated by this
Tolling Agreement have been actual and adequate.

9. Each of the individuals signing this Tolling Agreement represents and warrants
that he has full power and authority to bind the party identi?ed above his name.

Tolling Agreement
Toni Richardson-Augusta School Department
Page 3 of 3

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Tolling Agreement has been executed by the duly
authorized representatives of the Parties.

FWSM

Court: I for Toni Richardson
Date: Marchfi, 2017

   
 
     

By: 4?25 
Name: Daniel Stockford

Counseifar Augusta Schoo! Department
Date: March L2, 2017