Case 2:17-cv-05421-WB Document 1 Filed 12/01/17 Page 1 of 19 05?17} CIVIL COVER SHEET The 4'8 44 civii cover sheet and the information contained herein?neither replace nor supplement the ?lm and service of pleadings or other papers as re?uired by law, except as prorated local rules of_eourt. This form, approved by the Judicial Con erence of the rated States in 1974, is rcqurred for the use of the lerk of Court for the purpose 0 initiating the docketsheet. ONNEXTPAGE OF THIS mam Laverne; Burton, Anthony: and Bryant, Shamat: DEFENDANTS Guardian Civic League. Phila Chapter of the Net! Ass'n of Black Law City of Philadelphia dlbta Philadelphia Police Dept; Boyle, Anthony; Enforcement Of?cers Evers, Raymond; Doe, John 1-100 County of Residence ofFirst Listed Plainti?? Philadelphia County of Residence of First Listed Defendant Phitadephia {lg US. CASES NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED. (C) Attorneys (Firmilfome, Address, and itblept'ronc Minibar) Attorneys ({anomt} Piease see attached H. BASIS OF JURISDICTI 0N {Place an ?L?iminOne BorOingl Ill. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Fierce on in One Botfor Plaintiff (For [Ji?tre'nriajrt Cares Unix} muf?er; Boxfor De?rridam) 0.3. Government 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF Plaintiff (US. Government NotoPoi-nd Citizen of'l'lLis State it 1 I3 I Incorporated w'Principai Place 4 l3 4 of Business in This State 2 U.S. Goverranent Cl 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State Cl 2 Cl 2 Incorporated and Principal Place El 5 I3 5 Defendant (indicate Citizenship ofPor-n?cs in Item of Business In Another State Citizen or Subject oFa Ci 3 Ci 3 Foreign Nation i3 6 6 Foreign Country I V. NATURE OF SUIT {Mace on a: Good Click here for: Ntaure oFSuit Code Deseri . tions. ieort'ra?naretr om - - - . - Lois: t?rE-?taf- e. ire: WRIT-HI I 10 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY El 625 Drug Related Seizure El 422 Appeal 28 158 Ct 375 False Claims Act 120 Marine C5 310 Airplane 365 Personal Injury of Property 2t USC 381 El 423 Withdrawal 130 Miller Act a 315 AirplanoProdaet Product Liability :3 690 Other 23 use 157 3729(3)) 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability El 36'} Health Care! Cl 400 State Reapportionment El :50 Recovery evaerpay-meat 320 Assault, Libel Plrmoecuticnl El 410 Antitrust 8: Enforcement ofJodgment Slander Personal Injury El 430 Books and Banking El 15 1 Medicare Act E3 330 Fedeml?Empioyers? Product Liability ?3 83!} Patent Cl 450 Commerce 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability 368 Asbestos Personal 335 Patent - Abbreviated El 460 Deportation Student Loans 3-10 Marine Injury Product New Drug Application 470 Racketeer Influenced and (Excludes Veterans) El 345 Marble Product Liability Cl 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations 53 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY a {j 430 Consumcr Credit ofVeteran's Bene?ts CI 350 Motor Vehicle Cl 370 Other Fraud Cl 710 Fair Labor Standards El 36E I-IIA (139511) Cl 490 CableJ'Sat TV CI 160 Stockholders? Suits [3 355 Motor Vehicle 371 Truth htLending Act El 862 Black leg (923) Cl 850 Securitiestommodities/ if?) Other Contract Product Liability.I Cl 380 Other Personal 720 Lahori'Managoment El 863 DIWCIDIW (405(3)) Exchange i3 195 Contract Product Liability I3 360 Other Personal Property Dmnage Relations Cl 864 8310 Title XVI El 890 Other Statutory Actions [96 Franchise Injury CI 385 Property Damage Cl 740 Railway,I Labor Act [3 865 (405(3)) - 89! Agricultural Acts Cl 362 Personal Injury - Product Liability Cl 75! Family and Medical 393 Enviromnenta! Matters Medical Ma] ractiee Leave E3 895 Freedom ofInfoonntion . . 8111?5 ERIE 2' 790 Other Labor Litigation ?To - - $51111; Act I: 2 ed Condemnation a 440 Other Civil Rights Hubcas Corpus: El 79! Employee Retirement El 879 Texas (US. Plaintiff 896 Arbitration El 220 Foreclosure I3 441 Voting El 463 Alien Detainee Income Security Act or Defendant) Cl 899 Administrative Procedure 230 Rent Lease dc 442 Employment El 510 Motions to Vacate Ct 871 Party Act?twiew or Appeal of Cl 240 Torts to Land 443 Housing! Sentence 26 USC 7609 Agency Decision [3 245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations Ct 330 General El 930 Constitutionality of El 290 All Other Real Property El 445 Amer. waisnbilities - Cl 535 Death Penalty .T State Statutes Employment Other: 462 Naturalization Application Cl 446 Amer. - Cl 540 Mandamus Other 465 Other Immigration Other El 550 Civil Rights Actions El 448 Education Cl 535 Prison Condition 13 560 Civil Detainee- Conditions of Con?nement V. ORIGIN {Place on in IS: 1 Original I3 2 Removed from 3 Remanded from 4 Reinstatcd or Transferred Cl 6 Multidistrict El 8 Muttidistriet Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District Litigatlon - Litigation - {Comm Transfer Direct File Cite the US. Civil Statute Eldergiahigr ?ling (Do not mam divemiml: r, 42 USC 8681983811 9 ?8 CAUSE OF ION Briot?dmription ot?cause: Racial discrimination and Retaliaticrn VII. REQUESTED 1N Cl CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND - CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint: COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, JURY DEMAND: to Yes a No RELATED . i IF ANY JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD 1210112017 J?s/Gary Schafkopf view: ,3 (/M?z/Mt FOR OFFICE use ONLY f/ RECEIPT if AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE Case 2:17-cv-05421-WB Document 1 Filed 12/01/17 Page 2 of 19 MILDENBERG LAW FIRM WEISBERG LAW Brian R. Mildenberg, Esq. Matthew B. Weisberg, Esq. Attorney ID No. 84861 Attorney ID No. 85 570 1735 Market St., Suite? 3750 7 South Morton Ave. Philadelphia, PA 19103 Morton, PA 19070 2156454870 610?690?0801 Fax: 215645-4871 Fax: 610-690-0880 Attorney for Plaintiffs Attorney for Plaintiffs SCHAFKOPF LAW, LLC Gary Sehafkopf, Esq. Attorney ID No. 83362 1 1 Beta Ave. Bala PA 19006r 610-664-5200 Ext 104 Fax: 2188-2384334 Attorney for Plaintiffs IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF STAFF INSPECTOR DEBRA FRAZIER, et. al. Plaintiffs, V. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA (Nb/a PHILADELPHIA POLICE DEPARTBIENT, et. Attorneys of Record for Plaintiffs NHLDENBERG LAW FIRM WEISBERG LAW Brian R. Mildenberg, Esq. Matthew B. Weisberg, Esq. Attorney ID No. 84861 Attorney ID No. 85570 1735 Market St, Suite 3750 7 South Morton Ave. Philadelphia, PA 19103 Morton, PA 19070 215-545-4870 610?690-0801 Fax: 2156454871 Fax: 610-690-0880 Attorney for Plaintiffs Attorney for Plaintiffs SCHAFKOPF LAW, LLC Gary Sohafkopf, Esq. Attorney ID No. 83 362 1 1 Bala Ave. Bala PA 19004 610664?5200 Ext 104 Fax: 888-23 8-1334 Attorney for Plaintiffs Case 2:17-cv-05421-WB Document 1 Filed 12/01/17 Page 3 of 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF DESIGNATION FORM to be used by counsel to indicate the category of the case for the purpose of assignment to appropriate calendar. (:10 Weisberg Law 7 South Morton Ave, Morton, PA 19070 1515 Arch St, 16th FL Philadelphia, PA 19102 Narcotics Bureau of the Philadelphia Police Department (Use Reverse Side For Additional Space) Address of Plaintiff: Address ofDefeudant: Place of Accident, Incident or Transaction: Deco this civil action involve a nongovernmental corporate party with any parent corporation and any publicly held corporation DWIlitlg 10% or more of its stock? (Attach two copies of the Disclosure Statement Form in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. chEl NOR Does this case involve multidistrict litigation possibilities? ?Y?esu Neg RELATED CASE, IF ANY: Case Number: Judge Date Terminated: Civil cases are deemed related when yes is answered to any of the following questions: I. Is this case related to property included in an earlier numbered suit pending or within one year previously terminated action in this court? Yuan Nolx 2. Does this case involve the some issue of fact or grow out of the same transaction as a prior suit pending or within one year previously terminated action in this court? YesU New: 3. Does this case involve the validity or infringement of a patent already in suit or any earlier numbered case pending or within one year previously chU No terminated action in this court? 4. Is this case a second or successive habeas corpus, social security appeal, or pro se civil rights case tiled by the same individual? YesEl New CIVIL: (Place t/ in ONE CATEGORY ONLY) A. Fedora! Question Cases: 1. I3 Indemnity Contract, Marine Contract, and All Other Contracts Elli Diversity Jurisdiction Cases: I3 Insurance Contract and Other Contracts i?t 2. FELA Airplane Personal Injury 3- Jones ActvPoi?sonal Injury Assault,Defamation Marine Personal Injury Motor Vehicle Personal Injury Other Personal injury (Please specify) Products Liability . Products Liability Asbestos 4. El Antitrust 5. Patent 6. E1 Labor?Management Relations 7. Civil Rights 3. El Habeas Corpus 9 UJBUDUDU . El Securities Act(s) Cases All other Diversity Cases (Please specify) 10. Social Security Review Cases ll. All other Federal Question Cases [Please specily) ARBITRATION CERTIFICATION (Check Appropriate Category) 1, Gary SGhafkopf . counsel of record do hereby certify: I3 Pursuant to local Civil Rule 53.2, Section that to the best of my toiowledge and belief, the damages recoverable in this civil action case exceed the sum of $150,000.th exclusive of interest and costs; Relief other than monetary damages is songht. '7 7 ms: 12:: -201 7 96:3 Schatkopt 33362 Attorney-at-Iaw Attorney NOTE: A trial de novo will he a trial by jury only if there has been compliance with F.R.C.P. 38. I certify that, to my knowledge, the within case is not related to any case now pending or within one year previously terminated action in this court except as noted above. 124-17 mom chasm? 33352 DATE: Attomey?at-Law Attorney cw. 609 (M2012) Case 2:17-cv-05421-WB Document 1 Filed 12/01/17 Page 4 of 19 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CASE MANAGEMENT TRACK DESIGNATION FORM Frazier, at. at. CIVIL ACTION v. . City of Philadelphla dlbfa 0. Philadelphia Police Dept, et. al. In accordance with the Civil Justice Expense and Delay Reduction Plan of this court, counsel for plaintiff shall compiete a Case Management Track Designation Form in at] civil cases at the time of ?ling the complaint and serve a copy on all defendants. (See 1:03 of the plan set forth on the reverse side of this form.) In the event that a defendant does not agree with the plaintiff regarding said designation, that defendant shall, with its first appearance, submit to the clerk of court and serve on the plaintiff and all other parties, a Case Management Track Designation Form specifying the track to which that defendant believes the case should be assigned. SELECT ONE OF THE FOLLOWING CASE MANAGEMENT TRACKS: (21) Habeas Corpus Cases brought under 28 U.S.C. 2241 through 2255. Social Security Cases requesting review of a decision of the Secretary of Health and Human Services denying plaintiff Social Security Benefits. (0) Arbitration Cases required to be designated for arbitration under Local Civil Rule 53.2. Asbestos Cases involving claims for personal injury or property damage from exposure to asbestos. Special Management Cases that do not fall into tracks through that are commonly referred to as complex and that need special or intense management by the court. (See'reverse side of this form for a detailed explanation of special management cases.) (I) Standard Management Cases that do not fall into any one of the other tracks. gem 1244? chafkopf Plaintiffs Date Attorney-at-law Attorney for (510) 664 5200 Ext. 104 (888) 283 1334 Gary@SchafLaw.com T?eiephone FAX Number E-Meii Address (on. 560) mm Case 2:17-cv-05421-WB Document 1 Filed 12/01/17 Page 5 of 19 MLDENBERG LAW WEISBERG LAW FIRM Matthew B. Weisberg, Esq. Brian R. Midenberg, Esq. Attorney ID No. 85570 Attorney ID No. 84861 7 South Morton Ave. 1735 Market St, Suite 3750 Morton, PA 19070 Philadelphia, PA 19103 610-690-0801 215-545-4870 Fax: 610-690?0880 Fax: 215-545-4871 Attorney for Plaintiffs Attorney for Plaintiffs SCHAFKOPF LAW, LLC Gary Schatkopf, Esq. Attorney ID No. 833 62 11 BaIa Ave. Bala PA 19004 610-664?5200 Ext 104? Fax: 888-23 8-1334 Attorney for Plaintiffs IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF STAFF INSPECTOR DEBRA FRAZIER CAPTAIN LAVERNE VANN No. LIEUTENANT ANTHONY BURTON JURY TRIAL OF TWELVE (12) DEMANDED POLICE OFFICER SHAMAL BRYANT and THE GUARDIAN CIVIC LEAGUE, PHILADELPHIA CHAPTER OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BLACK LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA d/b/a PHILADELPHIA POLICE DEPARTMENT 1515 Arch St,16til FL Philadelphia, PA 19102 and Case 2:17-cv-05421-WB Document 1 Filed 12/01/17 Page 6 of 19 CHIEF INSPECTOR ANTHONY BOYLE Individually, and in his of?cial capacity as a Chief Inspector for the PHILADELPHIA POLICE DEPARTMENT 1515 Arch St, 16?1 FL Philadelphia, PA 19102 and INSPECTOR RAYMOND EVERS Individually, and in his of?cial capacity as an Inspector for the PHILADELPHIA POLICE DEPARTNIENT 1515 Arch St, 16?? FL Philadelphia, PA 19102 and JOHN DOES ##1400, Defendants. CIVIL ACTION Plaintiffs, Staff Inspector Debra Frazier, Captain Laverne Venn, Lieutenant Anthony Burton, Police Of?cer Shamal Bryant, and the Guardian Civic League of Philadelphia (collectively, ?Plaintiffs?) bring this action against their employer, the City of Philadelphia d/bx? a the Philadelphia Police Department and their commanding of?cers, Chief Inspector Anthony Boyle and Inspector Raymond Evers (collectively, Boyle and Evers are referred to herein as ?Commanding Of?cers?) (collectively, the City and the Commanding Of?cers are referred to herein as ?Defendants?). Defendants have intentionally discriminated against Plaintiffs and have created a racially hostile work environment in violation of the civil rights of Plaintiffs under federal and state law. Defendants have also retaliated against Plaintiffs because of Plaintiffs? refusal to follow, or opposition to, illegal policies, practices, customs and orders that were created, implemented, and rati?ed by Defendants. Case 2:17-cv-05421-WB Document 1 Filed 12/01/17 Page 7 of 19 JURISDICTION AND VENUE I. This Court has jurisdiction and venue is appropriate in this judicial district because the facts complained of herein occurred in this judicial district, and this Complaint arises under the laws of the United States and seeks redress for violations of federal laws. PARTIES 2. Plaintiff, Debra Frazier is a female African American adult individual who is a Staff Inspector assigned to the Narcotics Bureau of the PPD and resides in the Commonwealth of Plaintiff can be served care of her attorneys at the above-captioned address. 3. Plaintiff, Laverne Vann is a female African American adult individual who is a Captain assigned to?the Narcotics Bureau of the PPD and resides in the Cotmnonwealth of Plaintiff can be served care of her attorneys at the above?captioned address. 4. Plaintiff, Anthony Burton is a male African American adult individual who is a Lieutenant assigned to the Narcotics Bureau of the PPD and resides in the Commonwealth of Plaintiff can be served care of her attorneys at the above-captioned address. 5. Plaintiff, Shamal Bryant is a female African American adult individual who is a Police Of?cer assigned to the Narcotics Bureau of the PPD and resides in the Commonwealth of Plaintiff can be served care of her attorneys at the above-captioned address. 6. Plaintiff, Guardian Civic League, Philadelphia Chapter of the National Association of Black Law Enforcement Officers (?Civic League?) is an organization in the Commonwealth of that was formed for the bene?t of African American police of?cers and supports Plaintiffs in their effort to address the inequities endured by Plaintiffs and African American police of?cers. Case 2:17-cv-05421-WB Document 1 Filed 12/01/17 Page 8 of 19 7. Defendant, City of Philadelphia, doing business as the Philadelphia Police Department is a mimicipality, duly organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of with an address for service at the above captioned address. 8. Defendant, Anthony Boyle, is a white male adult individual who, at all times material herein, was employed as a Chief Inspector for the Narcotics Bureau of the PPD. Defendant is sued both individually and in his of?cial capacity. 9. Defendant, Raymond Evers, is a white male adult individual who, at all times material herein, was employed as an Inspector for the Narcotics Bureau of the PPD. Defendant is sued both individually and in his of?cial capacity. 10. Defendants, John Does 1-10, is a moniken??ctitious name for individuals and entities currently unknown but will be substituted when known, as af?liated, associated or liable hereunder for the reasons set forth below or inferred therefrom. Each of these parties are incorporated as Defendants in each and every count and averment listed above and below. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 11. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiffs and Defendants Commanding Of?cers Boyle and Evers were assigned to the Narcotics Bureau of the PPD. 12. At all times relevant, Defendants Boyle and Evers were and are the Commanding Of?cers of the Narcotics Bureau whose responsibilities consist of overseeing the operations and conduct of PPD personnel assigned to the Narcotics Bureau. 13. Plaintiffs are all members of a protected class, to wit: African American. 14. PPD meets the de?nition of employer as de?ned under Federal and Commonwealth laws. Case 2:17-cv-05421-WB Document 1 Filed 12/01/17 Page 9 of 19 15. At all times relevant, Plaintiff, Staff Inspector Frazier is and was the only A?'ican American assigned to the Narcotics Bureau who holds the rank of Staff Inspector. Plaintiff Staff Inspector Frazier is also the designated Integrity Officer of the Narcotics Bureau. Plaintiff Staff Inspector Frazier is the highest ranking African American police of?cial in the Narcotics Bureau. 16. At all times relevant, Plaintiff, Of?cer Bryant, is and was assigned and employed as Staff Inspector razier?s aide. Of?cer Bryant is the only black aide for the only black Inspector in the Narcotics Unit. 17. At all times relevant, Plaintiff, Captain Vann, is and was the only African American assigned to the Narcotics Bureau who holds the rank of Captain. 18. At all? times relevant Plaintiff, Lieutenant Burton, is an African American assigned to the Narcotics Bureau. 19. At all times relevant, each of the Plaintiffs performed their duties of employment in a satisfactory manner. 20. In or around March 2017, Defendants Boyle and Evers became the Commanding Of?cers of the Narcotics Unit. 21. Upon information and belief, since becoming Commanding Of?cers, said Defendants have systemically and intentionally discriminated against Plaintiffs based on their race, creating a hostile work environment. 22. Additionally, Defendants implemented illegal policies, practices, customs and orders and subsequently retaliated against Plaintiffs as a direct result of their refusal to follow and/or opposition to same. Case 2:17-cv-05421-WB Document 1 Filed 12/01/17 Page 10 of 19 ILLEGAL ORDERS TO FALSIFY NARCOTICS PROPERTY RECEIPTS 23. In March 2017, the Commanding Officers conducted a Narcotics Bureau?wide meeting at which Plaintiffs were present. 24. At said meeting, Defendants directed Plaintiffs and all of?cers of the Narcotics Bureau to gather information by ??ipping? arrestees, which policies included illegal commands and procedures to make ?make the drugs go away? by falsi?cation of property receipts that are used in court prosecutions to identify narcotics and chain of custody of evidence. 25. Through ??ipping,? Commanding Of?cers expect and require of?cers to obscure the source of recovered narcotics if an arrestee is willing to provide information by falsifying the property receipt required pursuant to the arrest, which circumvents the approved Con?dential Informant Directive that is currently in place in the Department. 26. Property Receipts are official police records that are required to be completed truthfully upon the recovery or seizure of narcotics or other property by police. 27. Each time items are recovered incident to an arrest, drugs, money, or other evidence, of?cers are required to include the recovered property in Property Receipt that identi?es the purported owner (the arrestee) of said property as well as the speci?c location and description of the recovered property. 28. However, through the illegal ?flipping? policies, Boyle and Evers have instructed the Narcotics Unit of?cers not to truthfully state the source of the recovered narcotics. 29. ?Making the drugs go away? is achieved by falsifying the Property Receipt that lists the recovered items. 3 0. Commandng Of?cers explicitly instruct of?cers to omit the arrestees? name, andfor the speci?c location of the recovered item as well as by listing recovered items on the 6 Case 2:17-cv-05421-WB Document 1 Filed 12/01/17 Page 11 of 19 property receipt as ?investigative objects? and/or as ?recovered on the highway,? without identifying the arrestee from whom the narcotics were taken. 31. Property receipts are aprimary item of evidence in any drug prosecution because such receipts establish the source of the alleged illegal narcotics or property, and documenting the chain of custody of same. 32. Property Receipts are signed by police of?cers and approved by supervisors. 33. The practice of falsi?cation of property receipts brings into question the integrity of evidence, validity of prosecutions, and credibility of those narcotics of?cers who sign false receipts, and further puts arrestees? constitutional rights at serious risk. PLAINTIFF REFUSAL TO ENGAGE IN ILLEGAL PRACTICES 34. At all times relevant hereto, each of the Plaintiffs have refused to engage in the illegal ?ipping practices and have taken actions to oppose the said practices. 35. Subsequent to said opposition, Defendants have retaliated against each of the Plaintiffs by subjecting them to adverse actions, including but not limited to the following: a. Commanding of?cers have threatened to change the locks to Plaintiff Staff Inspector Frazier?s of?ce with no explanation or cause; have harassed her aide, Plaintiff Officer Bryant; have nitpicked her weekly reports in an effort to create a paper trail to indicate she is not doing her job properly; have required her to discipline her aide, Of?cer Bryant, for false reasons; have intentionally shunned and excluded her from proper participation in the leadership of the Narcotics Unit; and, have accused her of not working when she was in fact working. Case 2:17-cv-05421-WB Document 1 Filed 12/01/17 Page 12 of 19 b. Plaintiff Captain Venn was ordered to undergo ?bike training? which is task for ?bike cops? that a Captain has never been required to perform in the Narcotics Unit. As a result of this unprecedented directive, Captain Venn, who informed Commanding Of?cers that she never learned how to ride a bicycle, and that she would not be able to complete the ?training,? fell off of the bicycle and sustained serious injuries that left her hospitalized for several days and forced her to go out on medical leave. Commanding Of?cers have also made it known to Captain Vann that they intend to involuntarily transfer her to keep her quiet and punish her for her opposition to the illegal practices. 0. Commanding Of?cers have falsely accused Plaintiff Lieutenant Anthony Burton of misusing his assigned squad vehicle, and took that vehicle away from him so it could be assigned to more junior of?cer. Additionally, Lieutenant Burton has been subjected to false discipline and accusations for non-existent policy violations; has been secretly recorded in his office; has had his transfer requests intentionally delayed by inclusion of a disparaging and false memorandum in his transfer ?le, in an attempt to thwart his opportunity to transfer; and, has been falsely accused of submitting incorrect paperwork. d. Commanding Of?cers intentionally delayed or ignored Plaintiff Police Officer Shamal Bryant?s overtime requests; have denied her opportunities for overtime without cause and despite there being shifts available; have harassed her with false acousations of disciplinary Violations, and have directed her to Case 2:17-cv-05421-WB Document 1 Filed 12/01/17 Page 13 of 19 cease inquiries concerning the overtime and assignments to which she is entitled. INTENTIONAL RACIAL DISCRMINATION 36. Additionally and/or in the alternative, Commanding Of?cers have and continue to foster a racially hostile work environment by intentionally targeting and discriminating against African American police of?cers to such a severe degree that there is a crisis of racial discrimination in the Narcotics Bureau that is currently coming increasingly hostile by the day. 37. Examples of discrimination are as follows: a. Commandng Of?cers allowed a confederate ?ag, a symbol of racism, white . supremacy, and slavery, to be displayed on a Corporal?s vehicle while parked at the workplace in full View of fellow law enforcement of?cers as well as persons in minority communities; Commanding Of?cers have referred to persons in minority communities by offensive names including ?scam,? and refer to the killing of persons in minority communities as ?thinning the herd;? Commanding Of?cers have assigned African American of?cers to more dangerous locations and less favorable assignments and while assigning the more beneficial shifts and safer locations to similarly situated white of?cers; and Coinmanding Of?cers have subjected African American supervising of?cers to terms and conditions of employment different from those of similarly situated white supervising of?cers. Case 2:17-cv-05421-WB Document 1 Filed 12/01/17 Page 14 of 19 38. Defendants? conduct compromises the integrity of the narcotics unit, the PPD and justice system whose protections are gum?anteed by the Constitutions of the United States as well as the of 39. As such, there is an unjusti?able risk that cases and testimony against minority arrestees have been and will continue to be tainted by racial bias and intentional discrimination and it is imperative that prosecutions and convictions be reviewed due to both discriminatory intention as well as falsi?cation of property receipts and other evidence, as stated. COUNT I - CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION 42 U.S.C. 1983 RETALIATION FOR OPPOSITION T0 ILLEGAL POLICIES. HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONNIENT. AND DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF RACE 40. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all prior paragraphs as if fully set forth at length herein. 4l. Defendants took the aforementioned adverse actions against Plaintiffs in retaliation their participation in the protected activity of opposing illegal ?ipping practices, which includes falsifying documents and evidence related to the recovery of drugs in arrests and operations. 42. As a result of Defendants? actions as aforesaid, Defendants have denied Plaintiffs the right to the same terms, conditions, privileges and bene?ts of their employment agreement with the City of Philadelphia Police Department, in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1981. 43. Such violation of 42 U.S.C. 1981 is actionable against the City of Philadelphia, a municipal entity, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. 44. Plaintiffs have been discriminated against on the basis of their race, made to suffer humiliation and embarrassment, emotional distress, and have sustained damages for which 10 Case 2:17-cv-05421-WB Document 1 Filed 12/01/17 Page 15 of 19 recovery of compensatory damages may be had pursuant to 42 U.S.C. I983.Said retaliation and discrimination against Plaintiffs were pervasive and regular. 45. Said retaliation and discrimination against have affected Plaintiffs to their detriment. 46. Said retaliation and discrimination would detrimentally affect a reasonable person under similar circumstances. 47. Said racial discrimination has caused a hostile work environment. 48. Said retaliation exacerbated the already hostile work environment to the point of a crisis. 49. Said violations were done intentionally and/or knowingly with malice or reckless indifference, and warrant the imposition of punitive damages. 50. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants? violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 Plaintiffs have suffered the damages and losses set forth herein and have incurred attorneys' fees and costs. 51. Plaintiffs are suffering and will continue to sufferirreparable injury and monetary damages as a result of Defendants? discriminatory and retaliatory acts unless and until this Court grants the relief requested herein. 52. The wrongful acts and conduct of Defendants were done with deliberate indifference to the statutory and constitutional rights of Plaintiffs. 53. As such, Plaintiffs have and continue to suffer damages as set forth herein. 1] Case 2:17-cv-05421-WB Document 1 Filed 12/01/17 Page 16 of 19 COUNT II - TITLE VII VIOLATION RACIAL HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT AND RETALIATION 54. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all prior paragraphs as if fully set forth at length herein. 55. Defendants have intentionally discriminated against Plaintiffs based on their race. 56. Defendants have subjected Plaintiffs to the aforementioned adverse actions in retaliation of Plaintiffs engaging in the protected activity of refusing to follow illegal directives. 57. Said retaliation and discrimination against Plaintiffs was pervasive and regular. 58. Said retaliation and discrimination against has affected Plaintiffs to their detriment. 59. Said retaliation and discrimination would detrimentally affect a reasonable person under similar circumstances. 60. Said racial discrimination has caused this hostile work environment. 61. Said retaliation exacerbated the already hostile work environment to the point of a crisis. 62. Due to Defendants? violations, Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable injuries and monetary damages unless and until this Court grants the relief requested herein. COUNT PHRA VIOLATION 63. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all prior paragraphs as if fully set forth at length herein. l2 Case 2:17-cv-05421-WB Document 1 Filed 12/01/17 Page 17 of 19 64. Defendants discriminated against Plaintiffs based on their race and retaliated against Plaintiffs for their refusal to follow illegal directives in violation of the PHRA. 65. Said violations were intentional and willful. 66. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants? violation of the PHRA, Plaintiffs have sustained the injuries, damages, and losses set forth herein and have incurred attorneys" fees and costs. 67. Plaintiffs suffer and will continue to suffer irreparable injuries and monetary damages as a result of Defendants? acts unless and until the Court grants the relief requested herein. COUNT IV - PFPO VIOLATION 68. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all prior paragraphs as if fully set forth at - length herein. 69. Plaintiffs are Defendants, by the above improper and retaliatory acts, have violated the PFPO. - 70. Said violations were hitentional and willful. 71. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants? conduct, Plaintiffs have sustained the injuries, damages, and losses set forth herein and have incurred attorneys? fees and costs. 72. Plaintiffs suffer and will continue to suffer irreparable injuries and monetary damages as a result of Defendants? acts unless and until the Court grants the relief requested herein. 13 shuts-k. Case 2:17-cv-05421-WB Document 1 Filed 12/01/17 Page 18 of 19 RELIEF WPIEREFORE, Plaintiffs seek damages and legal and equitable relief in connection with Defendants? improper conduct and speci?cally prays that this Court grant the following relief to Plaintiffs: a) declaring the acts and practices complained of herein to be in violation of Sections 1981 and 1983; b) declaring the acts and practices complained of herein to be in violation of Title 0) declaring the acts and practices complained of herein tobe in Violation of the d) declaring the acts and practices complained of herein to be in violation of the e) enjoining and permanently restraining the violations alleged herein; t) entering judgment against the Defendants and in favor of Plaintiffs in an amount to be determined; g) awarding compensatory damages to make Plaintiffs Whole for all lost earnings, earning capacity and bene?ts, past and future, which Plaintiffs have suffered or may suffer as a result of Defendants? improper conduct; h) awarding compensatory damages for Plaintiffs for past and future pain and suffering, emotional upset, mental anguish, humiliation, and loss of life's pleasures, which Plaintiffs have and continue to suffer as a result of Defendants' improper conduct i) awarding punitive damages to Plaintiffs; j) awarding Plaintiffs such other damages as are appropriate under Sections 1981 and 1983, Title VII, the PHRA, and the k) awarding Plaintiffs the costs of suit, attorneys? fees and expert fees and other; and .1) granting such other and further relief as this Court may deem just, proper, or 14 Case 2:17-cv-05421-WB Document 1 Filed 12/01/17 Page 19 of 19 equitable including other equitable and injunctive relief providing restitution for past violations and preventing future Violations. Respectfully Submitted, WEISBERG LAW MILDENBERG LAW FIRM BY: Matthew Weisberg BY: Brian Miidenberg MATTHEW B. WEISBERG, ESQ BRIAN R. MILDENBERG, ESQ DATED: 12?1-2017 DATED: 124?2017 SCHAFKOPF LAW, LLC BY: /S/m ?h?W GARY SCHAFKOPF, ESQ. DATED: 12-1-2017 Of counsel on the Complaint: Deanna E. Watson, Esq. 15