Case 5:17-cv-00550-FB Document 1 Filed 06/20/17 Page 1 of 40 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION ZOIIJUN2O 'U:. Of :[4 LAURA M. ANDERSEN, Plaintiff, § Nt § M 1:51 -J nt1 vs. CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS, and WILLIAM McMANUS, in his official capacity as Chief of Police the City of San Antonio Police Department Defendants. PLAINTIFF. LAURA M. ANDERSEN'S. ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: NOW COMES Laura M. Andersen, hereinafter called Plaintiff, complaining of and about City of San Antonio, Texas, and William McManus in his official capacity as Chief of Police for the City of San Antonio Police Department, hereinafter called "Defendants," and for cause of action shows unto the Court the following: I. PARTIES AND SERVICE 1. Plaintiff Laura M. Andersen, is a citizen of the United States and the State of Texas and resides in Kendall County, Texas. 2. Defendant City of San Antonio, Texas may be served with citation by serving Sheryl Sculley the ChiefExecutive Officer at City Hall 100 Military Plaza, San Antonio, TX 78205. Page 1 of 40 Case 5:17-cv-00550-FB Document 1 Filed 06/20/17 Page 2 of 40 3. Defendant, William McManus, an individual who is a resident of Texas, may be served with citation at his place of employment, San Antonio Police Department, 315 S. Santa Rosa, San Antonio, TX 78207 4. The action arises under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3) as hereinafter more fully appears. II. JURISDICTION 5. The Court has jurisdiction over this action under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3) III. NATURE OF ACTION 6. This is an action under Title 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e et. seq. as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to correct unlawful employment practices on the basis of sex and retaliation for reporting and having opposed gender discrimination. Iv. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT 7. All conditions precedent to jurisdiction have occurred, and Plaintiff has complied with all conditions precedent. 8. A charge of discrimination was filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission within three-hundred days of the acts complained of herein. 9. Plaintiffs Complaint is filed within ninety (90) days of Plaintiffs receipt ofthe Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's issuance of a right to sue letter. Page 2 of 40 Case 5:17-cv-00550-FB Document 1 Filed 06/20/17 Page 3 of 40 V. FACTS A. Discrimination and Retaliation 10. Plaintiff alleges Defendants discriminated and retaliated against her based upon her gender and for having opposed gender based discrimination. 11. Defendants issued Plaintiff an unwarranted 20-day suspension, without pay, as more fully explained below. 12. Defendants failed to promote Plaintiff when she applied for a position as Deputy Chief/Assistant Chief with the San Antonio Police Department. 13. The suspension and failure to promote constituted retaliation against Plaintiff for opposing unlawful, discriminatory employment practices based upon gender. 14. Plaintiff's opposition to such practices are more fully described below. 15. Plaintiff asserts that she was denied promotion because she is female. 16. Plaintiff asserts that males are granted promotional opportunities because males are given favorable work assignments over women to facilitate promotional opportunities. 17. Plaintiff asserts that contemporaneously with the promotional process for Deputy Chief and Assistant Chief, she was targeted for a baseless complaint to discredit her. 18. She was suspended for 20-days, without pay. 19. William McManus has repeatedly engaged in the identical conduct alleged in Plaintiff's 20-day suspension, without facing any consequences. Page 3 of 40 Case 5:17-cv-00550-FB Document 1 Filed 06/20/17 Page 4 of 40 20. Additionally, in the years prior to the issuance of Plaintiff's 20-day suspension, William McManus has been aware of other male officers engaging in identical conduct without any investigation or discipline taken against those officers. 21. Plaintiff asserts she was denied promotion because she complained about sexual discrimination and thus was retaliated against for such complaint. 22. Plaintiff asserts that she has requested use of leave that she has earned and is being denied the use of her earned leave, which constitutes both discrimination and retaliation. 23. Plaintiff complained about the hostile work environment per the Defendants', San Antonio Police Department [SAPD] General Manual Procedure 918. 24. Based upon Plaintiff's complaint, Defendants conducted a sham investigation. 25. Contrary to SAPD Procedure 918, Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff by suspending her, denying her a promotion, and refusing to allow her to use leave that she has accumulated. B. Historical Background 26. Plaintiff began working for the San Antonio Police Department on August 17, 1987. 27. Plaintiff began working as a patrol officer on February 13, 1988. 28. Plaintiff was promoted to the rank of Detective Investigator in March 1993. 29. Plaintiff was promoted to the rank of Sergeant in March of 1997. 30. Plaintiff was promoted to the rank of Lieutenant in August 2005. 31. Plaintiff was promoted to the rank of Captain in October 2010. Page 4 of 40 Case 5:17-cv-00550-FB Document 1 Filed 06/20/17 Page 5 of 40 32. When Plaintiff was promoted to the rank of Captain, there were approximately three female Captains. 33. During the entire existence of the San Antonio Police Department, it has only promoted three females to the rank of Deputy Chief. 34. The first female promoted to Deputy Chief was Rose Mary Flammia, who was promoted by former Chief Al Phillipus. 35. Geraldine Garcia was promoted to Deputy Chief on or about November 2006 by William McManus. 36. In November 2007, Deputy Chief Rose Mary Flammia was demoted to the rank of Captain by William McManus. 37. In April of 2008, Geraldine Garcia was the first female promoted to the rank of Assistant Chief. 38. Even though Geraldine Garcia was promoted to the rank of Assistant Chief, she was not treated as an equal to her male counterpart, Jose Banales. 39. William McManus continuously removed duties and responsibilities from Geraldine Garcia to the point she was merely a figure head. 40. William McManus removed duties and responsibility from Geraldine Garcia by the use of reorganization. 41. William McManus ostracized, excluded, or isolated Geraldine Garcia from the rest of his Commanders and Command Structure. 42. William McManus has claimed Plaintiff was not promoted to the rank of Deputy Chief because male candidates had experience and a resume better than Plaintiff. Page 5 of 40 Case 5:17-cv-00550-FB Document 1 Filed 06/20/17 Page 6 of 40 43. William McManus has claimed the male candidates did better in the interview process. 44. The above explanations are a pretext to engage in gender discrimination. 45. Plaintiff's first assignment as a Captain was overseeing the South Service Area from 2010 to August 2012. 46. During Plaintiff's tenure as Commander of the South Service Area, she received good evaluations. 47. Plaintiff was the Commander of the Prue Service Area from 2012 to 2015. 48. During Plaintiff's tenure as Commander of the Prue Service area, she received good evaluations. 49. When Plaintiff was assigned to the Prue Road substation, she had 100% participation in the United Way campaign; however, this was not recognized by Defendants. 50. From 2015 to 2017, Plaintiff was the Commander of the North Patrol Service Area. 51. During her tenure as a Commander, she received positive evaluations and had no discipline until Defendants began creating a pretext to refuse to promote Plaintiff. 52. During Plaintiff's employment history, she has never called in sick. 53. Consequently, Plaintiff has accrued an extraordinary amount of leave. 54. On or about March2016, Defendants anticipated the San Antonio Police Department would have openings for the ranks of Deputy Chief and Assistant Chief. 55. As a consequence of the anticipated openings, Defendant, William McManus, then ordered Deputy Chiefs, Captains, and Lieutenants to submit resume's for the anticipated openings. Page 6 of 40 Case 5:17-cv-00550-FB Document 1 Filed 06/20/17 Page 7 of 40 56. Per the order, Plaintiff submitted her resume immediately, effectively applying for the position of either Deputy Chief or Assistant Chief. C. Defendants Groom Males for Promotion 57. The San Antonio Police Department provides male officers with role models, mentors and support from upper management to promote to the higher ranks, whereas no such support is provided to female officers. 58. Defendant, City of San Antonio, has enabled William McManus to engage in gender based discrimination. 59. Defendant, City of San Antonio, have been aware of William McManus' history of discrimination complaints before Defendants failed to promote Plaintiff to Deputy Chief or Assistant Chief. 60. William McManus has not used a consistent practice when making promotional appointments to Deputy Chief or Assistant Chief. 61. On or about November 17, 2009, William McManus testified: a. Every Chief that's out there right now will - - will want to appoint someone who he or she knows they're going to get along with. And many times the dirty little secret is that these processes are done just so that there's no issue with the- - selection being made. 62. The above testimony illustrates that William McManus believes that the selection process is a charade and that he can appoint whomever he wishes. Page 7 of 40 Case 5:17-cv-00550-FB Document 1 Filed 06/20/17 Page 8 of 40 63. In the case of William McManus failing to promote Plaintiff, he used a panel composed of Human Resource Director Lori Steward, Fire Chief Charles Hood, and Assistant City Manager Erik Walsh. 64. The Police Department, Article V, Section 50 of the Defendants' City Charter, puts the police department under the control of the City Manager. 65. Despite William McManus' history of discrimination, Defendant, City of San Antonio has given William McManus unfettered discretion to promote men or women to the ranks of Deputy Chief and Assistant Chief. 66. Defendant, City of San Antonio has given William McManus unfettered discretion to transfer men or women to any assignment, substation, command, or division ofthe San Antonio Police Department. 67. Given William McManus' unfettered exercise of discretion to promote and transfer personnel, he has been able to transfer male Captains to certain commands to groom them for promotion to Deputy Chief and Assistant Chief. 68. Deputy Chiefs, whom William McManus has promoted, have had prior experience working directly under McManus' command in positions that include the Training Academy, Internal Affairs, and the Chief's Office. 69. William McManus has promoted the following Captains from the Training Academy to the rank of Deputy Chief: a. James Flavin, male, b. Janaé Florance, female, c. Jeff Humphrey, male, Page 8 of 40 Case 5:17-cv-00550-FB Document 1 Filed 06/20/17 Page 9 of 40 d. 70. Jimmy Reyes, male. Since the year 2010, there have been no female Captains in charge of the Training Academy. 71. William McManus has promoted the following male Captains from Internal Affairs to the rank of Deputy Chief: 72. a. Anthony Muro b. James Flavin c. Gustavo Guzman Under William McManus' tenure, there has been no female Internal Affairs Commander. 73. During William McManus' tenure, he has not promoted any women to a position in the Chief's Office, save and except Janaé Florance. 74. However, William McManus, as explained below, eventually discriminated against Janaé Florance. 75. During William McManus' tenure as Chief, Rose Mary Flammia, who had been promoted by Al Phillipus to Deputy Chief, held a position as Deputy Chief in Research and Planning, and he demoted her from Deputy Chief to Captain. 76. During William McManus' tenure, he removed Rose Mary Flammia from the position of Deputy Chief in Research and Planning. 77. A few of the Patrol Captains were interviewed, but no Patrol Captain was promoted. 78. During Plaintiff's tenure as a Lieutenant and Captain, William McManus has never offered Plaintiff any assignment other than the Patrol Division. Page 9 of 40 Case 5:17-cv-00550-FB Document 1 Filed 06/20/17 Page 10 of 40 D. Conflict of Interest 79. Plaintiff asserts that her unwarranted 20-day suspension was improperly influenced by males who were also competing for the open Deputy Chief and Assistant Chief positions. 80. At the time Plaintiff was being considered for promotion, her competitors included the following males: 81. a. Gus Guzman, b. James Flavin, c. Anthony Muro, d. Roy Waldheim, and e. Tracy Powers. Captain Gus Guzman was the commander of Internal Affairs [IA] at the time Plaintiff was under IA investigation. 82. James Flavin held the rank of Captain, but was an acting Deputy Chief/Chief of Staff, and Gus Guzman reported directly to James Flavin. 83. Anthony Muro was the Chairman of the Chief's Advisory Action Board [CAAB] when the complaint against Plaintiff was changed from a Line Complaint to a Formal Complaint. 84. Roy Waldhelm was the chairman of the CAAB when the Plaintiffs case was heard and when the CAAB made recommendations to the Chief. 85. Tracy Powers was a Captain on the Board which heard her case. Page lOof 40 Case 5:17-cv-00550-FB Document 1 Filed 06/20/17 Page 11 of 40 86. Not once did any of the males involved in disciplinary process against Plaintiff recuse himself even though all were competing with Plaintiff for the same promotional opportunity. 87. William McManus promoted Gus Guzman and James Flavin in lieu of Plaintiff. 88. When Plaintiff was being "considered" for promotion, William McManus required his existing, all male, Executive Command Staff to reapply and compete for the position of Deputy Chief/Assistant Chief. 89. Two ofthose members of the Executive Command Staff included Anthony Muro and Roy Waldhelm. 90. Both Muro and Waldheim kept their positions as Deputy Chiefs after the CAAB recommended suspending Plaintiff. E. Plaintiff Interviewed for Promotion and was Denied Promotion 91. On May 20, 2016, Plaintiff interviewed for a Deputy Chief/Assistant Chief position. 92. Defendants claim Plaintiffwas invited for the interview based upon her seniority and experience in the San Antonio Police Department. 93. Defendants' claim of seniority is belied by Defendants'decisions on promotions. 94. A male who had less seniority and who scored lower on the Captains promotional examination than Plaintiff's score, was promoted to Deputy Chief. 95. Defendants have claimed that Plaintiff was not promoted based upon a lack of qualifications, yet William McManus has never transferred Plaintiff to a position which would have improved her promotional opportunities. Page 11 of 40 Case 5:17-cv-00550-FB Document 1 Filed 06/20/17 Page 12 of 40 96. William McManus promoted five males to the ranks of Assistant Chief or Deputy Chief who had past complaints or disciplinary issues: 97. a. Jose Banales, b. Anthony Trevino, c. Jeff Humphrey, d. Jimmy Reyes, and e. Rudy Gonzales. Jose Banales had a prior suspension of 30-days for an alcohol related driving incident. 98. Anthony Trevino has been accused of assaulting a fellow officer. 99. Despite the accusation, Anthony Trevino was promoted to Assistant Chief. 100. Jeff Humphrey had an incident wherein he was suspended for being untruthful. 101. Jimmy Reyes was promoted despite William MeManus being aware he wrote a memorandum in IA case number FC-2012-19 that was untruthful. 102. The documentary evidence against Reyes includes radio dispatch recordings, cell phone billing details, telephone recordings, and photographs of text messages that conclusively prove that Reyes statements were untruthful and factually impossible. 103. Despite the documentary evidence, William McManus refused to permit an untruthfulness investigation to be conducted against Jimmy Reyes. 104. William McManus knowingly promoted Rudy Gonzales to Assistant Chief despite Gonzales having been previously investigated for associating with a prostitute. Page 12 of 40 Case 5:17-cv-00550-FB Document 1 Filed 06/20/17 Page 13 of 40 F. Defendants Isolate Women 105. During Plaintiff's tenure as a substation commander, William McManus never communicated with Plaintiff about operations at her assigned substation. 106. During Plaintiff's tenure as a substation commander, William McManus would schedule Management Accountability Program [MAP] meetings, wherein Plaintiff was expected to attend. 107. William McManus would often cancel the MAP meetings; however, during the rare times he was present, he rarely solicited any input from the females present. 108. In the course of Plaintiff's official duties, she has sought access to William McManus many times to carry out her assigned duties for the good of the Department. 109. When Plaintiff has done so, William McManus has ignored Plaintiff or failed to respond to her request for meetings, communication, or responses to questions. 110. On May 6, 2016, Plaintiff scheduled a meeting with William McManus' secretary, Doris Fegghi, for May 9, 2016. 111. Later on May 6,2016, Acting Deputy Chief Robert Blanton called and left a message on Plaintiff's voicemail that Plaintiff's meeting with the Chief was cancelled. 112. On May 9, 2016, Plaintiff sent an email to Doris Fegghi requesting a meeting with the Chief. 113. On May 9,2016, Robert Blanton sent an email to Plaintiff stating that the request for a meeting was denied, setting forth the purported explanation that Plaintiff was seeking to discuss a pending grievance with the Chief. Page 13 of 40 Case 5:17-cv-00550-FB Document 1 Filed 06/20/17 Page 14 of 40 114. Plaintiff responded that she was not attempting to discuss the grievance with the Chief, that she had other mafters to discuss with the Chief. 115. On May 10, 2016, Plaintiff sent an email to Robert Blanton stating that on March 9, 2016, William McManus had sent an email to all officers stating: a. If you hear something and want clarification, call me, email me, or stop by my office and we'll set the record straight. 116. Additionally, on or about March 11, 2016, the Chief sent a video message stating: a. 117. If you have any questions, contact me and I will be happy to talk with you. On May 11, 2016, Robert Blanton gave Plaintiff the instruction that despite the Chief's invitation to contact him directly via mail, meeting, or otherwise, that, "If there are issues outside the grievance that you need addressed, please provide them to me in writing." 118. Thus, Robert Blanton, with the Chiefs authority, rescinded the Chief's Open Door policy if it was the Plaintiff seeking access to the Chief. 119. On or about November 17, 2009, William McManus has testified under oath that he has an open door policy and in response to the question: a. Q: A: 120. How does one of your command staff get in to see you? You walk in the door. On June 14, 2016, Plaintiff sought to meet with the Chief, via email to Robert Blanton and Anthony Trevino, but such request was ignored. 121. On July 1,2016, Plaintiff sought to meet with the Chief, via email to Robert Blanton and Anthony Trevino, but such request was ignored. Page l4of 40 Case 5:17-cv-00550-FB Document 1 Filed 06/20/17 Page 15 of 40 122. On July 25, 2016, Plaintiff sought to meet with the Chief, via email to Anthony Trevino, but such request was ignored. 123. On September 6, 2016, Plaintiff sought to meet with the Chief, via email to Gus Guzman, but such request was deflected by Guzman by insisting that Plaintiff put her concerns in writing. 124. Gus Guzman's directive to Plaintiff provided no promise that a meeting would thereafter be arranged if Plaintiff complied with Guzman's suggestion which were at odds with the Chief's video message and his March 9, 2016 email that he had an open door policy. 125. On November 8, 2016, Plaintiff sought to meet with William McManus, but such request was ignored. 126. On January 17, 2017, Plaintiff sought to meet with William McManus, but such request was ignored. 127. William McManus refused to speak with Plaintiff because he does not respect the opinions of female officers and commanders. 128. William McManus does not include women officers in his decision making process. 129. When McManus has aftended homeowner's association meetings which Plaintiff has attended, he has refused to greet, shake hands, and speak with Plaintiff but will do so with male officers of lower rank who are next to Plaintiff. Page 15 of 40 Case 5:17-cv-00550-FB Document 1 Filed 06/20/17 Page 16 of 40 G. Department Permits Gender Bias to Permeate Management and Judgment of Females 130. The San Antonio Police Department has permitted gender biased evaluations in favor of men and prejudice against women to permeate the Police Employee Annual Evaluation. 131. Defendants permit males to discriminate against female subordinates. 132. Defendants have failed to offer training in gender bias. 133. The failure to properly train in recognizing gender bias has resulted in male and female supervisors treating female employees [their work habits, work ethics, and performance] differently than their male counterparts. 134. When a female supervisor rates a female subordinate, the supervisor will identify work habit, work ethics, and performance that will be praised, recognized, and encouraged. 135. Whereas, when a male rater evaluates the same employee, those characteristics will be criticized, discouraged, and will serve as the basis to downgrade the female employee. 136. On February 14, 2015, Deputy Chief Janaé Florance, a female, rated Plaintiff on the Police Employee Annual Evaluation. 137. Deputy Chief Janaé Florance's evaluation was positive and included comments about Plaintiff's skill sets and qualities. 138. In an evaluation conducted two years later by a male, Deputy Chief Gus Guzman, the same skill sets and qualities were criticized. Page l6of 40 Case 5:17-cv-00550-FB Document 1 Filed 06/20/17 Page 17 of 40 139. As a consequence of the male rater's criticism for the identical skill sets and qualities possessed by Plaintiff, she received lower ratings in many of the categories in her evaluation by the male, compared to the female. 140. In the category Initiative/Cooperation Responsiveness Plaintiff receives a rating of exceeds expectations, the highest rating. 141. In this category Deputy Chief Florance added the following comments: a. 142. Captain Andersen can be counted on to actively participate in meetings. She is always willing to provide input into decision making. She is very responsive to her duties and can be counted on to complete paperwork and tasks not just on time, but with a few exceptions, early. However, in the category of Interpersonal Skills, Chief Guzman gave Plaintiff a rating of below expectations. 143. In this category, Deputy Chief Guzman added the following comments: a. Captain Andersen often questions directions or instructions given to her for execution. She is often critical when a new edict or policy is implemented and does not offer constructive feedback as an alternative. 144. Although these are different categories, the same action is being evaluated. 145. The identical personal quality is seen as positive in one category, when rated by the female evaluator. 146. However, the same personal quality is seen as negative when rated by the male evaluator. 147. In the category Use and Care of Equipment Plaintiff receives a rating of exceeds expectations, the highest rating. 148. In 2015, a female Deputy Chief Florance added the following comments: Page l7of 40 Case 5:17-cv-00550-FB Document 1 Filed 06/20/17 Page 18 of 40 a. 149. She is proactive in dealing with facility issues at her substation. She is aware of and does not hesitate to report facility and equipment issues and she works to remedy issues at her level. In the category Leadership Plaintiff receives a rating of exceeds expectations, the highest rating. 150. In 2015, a female Deputy Chief Florance added the following comments: a. 151. Captain Andersen has assembled an outstanding team in both Property Crimes and SAFFE. Both units are highly motivated and very effective in their relationships within the community. They are innovative in their approach to dealing with crime and quality of life issues in their service area. When an issue arises departmentally, she and her staff have often already found an effective way to deal with the issue at her substation. In the category Supervising/Managing Plaintiff received a rating of exceeds expectations, the highest rating. 152. In 2015, a female Deputy Chief Florance added the following comments: a. 153. Captain Andersen does very well at maintaining awareness of the activities, productivity and personnel at her substation. Anytime I have contacted her with a concern or issue it is obvious that she is aware of the issue and can readily describe her plan of action for the particular problem or employee. She is aware of crime trends in her area and works with staff to develop innovative strategies and solutions. In the category Evaluating the Rater Plaintiff receives a rating of exceeds expectations, the highest rating. 154. In 2015, a female Deputy Chief Florance added the following comments: a. 155. Captain Andersen is fair and professional with her employee evaluations, providing relevant comments. The above described skills prove Plaintiffs ability and experience to perform duties and functions of Deputy Chief. Page 18 of 40 Case 5:17-cv-00550-FB Document 1 Filed 06/20/17 Page 19 of 40 H. Unequal Working Conditions 156. Texas Local Government Code Chapter 143, Municipal Civil Service For Firefighters and Police Officers and Chapter 174, the Fire and Police Employee Relations Act confers upon police officers the right to engage in Collective Bargaining. 157. The City of San Antonio has recognized the San Antonio Police Officers Association [SAPOA] as the bargaining agent to represent San Antonio Police Officers to engage in collective bargaining to set working conditions, including pay, leave, benefits and discipline. 158. The Collective Bargaining Agreements sets forth the rights of Officers and the rights of the City of San Antonio. 159. The Collective Bargaining Agreement sets forth the process for an officer to file a grievance. 160. Grievances may be filed by any member when she believes she has been deprived of a right or benefit. 161. One of the benefits the Defendants have agreed to confer to an officer includes the accrual, use, banking, and payout of unused Holiday, Vacation, and miscellaneous leave as set forth in Articles 20 - 22 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. 162. Accrued leave is a property right of an officer and cannot be taken away arbitrarily and capriciously by Defendants. Page l9of 40 Case 5:17-cv-00550-FB Document 1 Filed 06/20/17 Page 20 of 40 163. During the course of Plaintiff's tenure with SAPD, she has never called in sick; consequently, as of November 24, 2015, SAPD she has accrued over 3,700 hours of leave time. 164. The Collective Bargaining Agreement contains a provision entitled Maintenance of Standards which makes past practices part of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. 165. SAPD has implemented a past practice of permitting officers with large amounts of leave to donate that leave to other officers. 166. Assistant Chief Anthony Trevino was one of the persons who established the past practice. 167. Assistant Chief Anthony Trevino donated leave to his wife Analisa Chavez [at the time of donation, Analisa Trevino]. 168. Sergeant Pete Velasquez donated leave to Assistant Chief Jose Banales. 169. Sergeant Richard Floores donated leave to his wife, Rosemary Floores. 170. On November 24, 2015, Plaintiff submitted a request through her chain of command to donate excess vacation leave time to her husband, Captain Cris Andersen. 171. On December 9, 2015, even though other (male) officers have made the same request, Plaintiffs request was denied by William McManus without reason or any explanation. 172. SAPD has implemented a Substitute Employment System which permits one employee to substitute for another employee, permitting the originally assigned employee to be paid while another employee works in his place. Page 20 of 40 Case 5:17-cv-00550-FB Document 1 Filed 06/20/17 Page 21 of 40 173. The employee showing up, the substitute, must be off either as the result of it being a relief day or must voluntarily give up leave to take a day off. 174. On December 16, 2015, Plaintiff submitted a written request through her chain of command, asking to utilize the substitute employment system (SASE) to work for her husband, Captain Cris Andersen, by giving up part of her excess accumulated personal leave time to do so. 175. This request has been granted previously to Plaintiff and is an accepted past practice engaged in by many other officers. 176. Plaintiff has worked for other employees, including her husband, in the past. 177. On December 21, 2015, William McManus denied Plaintiffs request of December 16, 2015, without explanation. 178. On January 15, 2016, Plaintiff submitted a second written request up her chain of command to contribute excess personal leave to her husband. 179. In Plaintiffs second request, she indicated there were others who had been allowed to donate leave time to co-workers. 180. On February 10, 2016, Plaintiff received her written request back as denied by William McManus, again absent any reason or explanation. 181. On February 10, 2016, Plaintiff received notice from the SAPD Payroll Office that she had leave balances exceeding the maximum allowable. 182. The notice states "Failure to use the excess time by June 30, 2016 will result in an automatic loss of hours in excess of the maximum allowed." Page 21 of 40 Case 5:17-cv-00550-FB Document 1 Filed 06/20/17 Page 22 of 40 183. Plaintiff was well aware of the consequences of losing a benefit she had earned if she did not use leave, which is why she requested the ability to donate leave time to her husband or, in the alternative, be permitted to use leave while working for her husband. 184. On February 11, 2016, Plaintiff filed a grievance with the San Antonio Police Officers' Association Grievance Committee, referencing the denial by William McManus to donate leave time. 185. On March 23, 2016, Plaintiffs grievance was accepted by the SAPOA as a valid grievance. 186. A past practice of male officers donating leave time to other officers existed and the SAPOA upheld the grievance as valid based on the Maintenance of Standards clause in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. 187. On April 12, 2016, the SAPOA Grievance Committee forwarded the grievance to William McManus for his determination. 188. William McManus denied the grievance on May 5, 2016, without explanation. 189. The grievance is currently awaiting a hearing before an arbitrator. 190. Defendants have repeatedly refused to take affirmative steps to proceed to arbitration. 191. On May 6,2016, Plaintiff contacted William McManus's secretary, Doris Fegghi, and requested a meeting with William McManus. 192. She set an appointment for May 9, 2016 at 9:30 am. 193. On May 6, 2016, Plaintiff received an email from her immediate supervisor, Acting Deputy Chief Robert Blanton, saying the appointment had been cancelled. Page 22 of 40 Case 5:17-cv-00550-FB Document 1 Filed 06/20/17 Page 23 of 40 194. On May 9, 2016, the Combined Law Enforcement Association of Texas (CLEAT) forwarded the grievance (on behalf of SAPOA and Plaintiff) to Ms. Lori Steward, Human Resources Director for the City of San Antonio. 195. On May 9, 2016, Internal Affairs (IA) received information about an email Plaintiff sent on Jan. 13, 2016. 196. On May 9, 2016, Plaintiff requested a meeting with William McManus. 197. The May 9, 2016 meeting request was denied. 198. Between March and May 2016, Defendants began preparing for the promotional process for Deputy Chief/Assistant Chief for SAPD. 199. During the later part of the above referenced promotional process Plaintiff suddenly became the focus of an Internal Affairs (IA) investigation. 200. The IA investigation and its results had the effect of discrediting Plaintiff as a candidate for promotion to Deputy Chief or Assistant Chief. 201. On May 16,2016, Plaintiff received notice she had been selected to interview for the position of Deputy Chief/Assistant Chief. 202. Plaintiff was the only female candidate for the positions of Deputy Chief/Assistant Chief. 203. On May 20, 2016, Plaintiff had an interview for the positions of Deputy Chief/Assistant Chief. 204. During the interview, Erik Walsh asked what Plaintiff would do to improve the Department. Page 23 of 40 Case 5:17-cv-00550-FB Document 1 Filed 06/20/17 Page 24 of 40 205. Plaintiff was responsive to the question by stating she would improve the communication process within the Department and began to cite an example of how she had been trying to meet with William McManus. 206. William McManus became visibly agitated and stated it was not the time or the place to discuss that and abruptly terminated the interview. 207. On June 2, 2016, Erik Walsh, Deputy City Manager, denied Plaintiffs grievance. 208. On June 14, 2016, Plaintiff requested a meeting with William McManus. 209. William McManus ignored the June 14, 2016 request. 210. On June 14, 2016, Plaintiff represented the North Patrol Substation at a Northwood Homeowners' Association Meeting at St. Andrew's United Methodist Church. 211. William McManus also attended and refused to acknowledge Plaintiff. 212. On June 15,2016, Internal Affairs forwarded a line complaint (LC2O 16-116) against Plaintiff to the Patrol Division. 213. San Antonio Police Department General Manual Procedure 303.03 defines a Line Complaint: a. 214. Line complaints generally constitute disciplinary matters limited to and involving a minor variance from the routine activities and responsibilities of the sworn member in question. On June 22, 2016, Plaintiff represented the North Patrol Substation at the Northern Hills Homeowners' Association Meeting at Grady's BBQ, 13525 Wetmore Road. 215. William McManus also attended the Northern Hills Homeowner's Association Meeting and made no effort or refused to acknowledge Plaintiff. Page 24 of 40 Case 5:17-cv-00550-FB Document 1 Filed 06/20/17 Page 25 of 40 216. William McManus greeted the male officers in attendance, shaking hands with them but did not shake hands with Plaintiff who was in immediate proximity to the males William McManus greeted. 217. The City has claimed that on June 29, 2016, the CAAB sought to convert Plaintiff's line complaint into a formal complaint. 218. The assertion that the CAAB made the decision to convert the line complaint into a formal complaint is belied by a statement of Captain Guzman. 219. On June 28, 2016, the day before the putative CAAB recommendation to send the Line Complaint to Internal Affairs, Plaintiff spoke with Captain Guzman about an investigation against her. 220. In the June 28, 2016, conversation, Captain Guzman [then Captain, now Deputy Chief] stated, "we talked about it a couple of weeks ago." 221. In the June 28, 2016, conversation, Captain Guzman stated, "today was the real decision" to initiate a formal Internal Affairs investigation into Plaintiff. 222. Thus, based upon Captain Guzman' s statements about when the decision to make the Line Complaint a Formal Complaint and who made the decision to do so, the Defendants' claim that the CAAB made the decision to convert the Line Complaint is a pretext. 223. On June 29,2016, Internal Affairs recalled LC2O 16-116 from the Patrol Division for Internal Affairs to handle. 224. Recalling complaints in this manner is not typical. Page 25 of 40 Case 5:17-cv-00550-FB Document 1 Filed 06/20/17 Page 26 of 40 225. On June 30, 2016, Plaintiff was contacted by Internal Affairs Sergeant Dan Zamora and given a Formal Complaint Notice alleging wrongdoing. 226. The complaint notice cites information "from an Administrative source." 227. The allegations stem from emails on January 13, 2016 and March 3, 2016. 228. On July 1, 2016, Plaintiff requested a meeting with William McManus. 229. The July 1, 2016, meeting request was ignored. 230. On July 8, 2016, Plaintiff filed a complaint on William McManus at the Federal EEOC office alleging sexual discrimination. EEOC Charge 451-2016-02489. 231. Also on July 8, 2016, Plaintiff filed a formal complaint of sexual discrimination against William McManus with SAPD Internal Affairs. 232. On July 14, 2016, Plaintiff was interrogated by Sergeant Dan Zamora and Sergeant Daniel Gonzales at Internal Affairs. 233. It is atypical that two IA investigators conducted the interrogation. 234. The usual practice is that a respondent officers is given written questions to answer with a wordprocessor, then have the answers printed and signed. 235. The original allegation of the Internal Affairs investigation would expire before any discipline could be taken against Plaintiff. 236. The Internal Affairs investigation was used as a pretext to conduct a fishing expedition into Plaintiffs email account, hunting for material to be used against Plaintiff. 237. On July 19, 2016, Plaintiff received an email from Erik Walsh, Deputy City Manager, stating "Last week, Internal Affairs forwarded your complaint to me. Page 26 of 40 I Case 5:17-cv-00550-FB Document 1 Filed 06/20/17 Page 27 of 40 have forwarded the complaint to Lori Steward, the City's Human Resources Director, to have one of our EEO Investigators follow up with you." 238. On July 25, 2016, Plaintiff requested a meeting with William McManus which was again ignored. 239. On July 27, 2016, Plaintiff appeared before the CAAB on the complaint LC2O 16-116 - 240. Administration. On July 28,2016, William McManus, after having unnecessarily delayed announcing the pending promotions to Assistant Chief and Deputy Chief, announced, after Plaintiff's CAAB appearance, Jimmy Reyes, Gus Guzman, Anthony Trevino, and James Flavin's promotions, effective July 27, 2016. 241. On August 5, 2016, Plaintiff was served with a contemplated 20-day suspension issued by William McManus. 242. On September 6, 2016, Plaintiff requested a meeting with William McManus which was again ignored. 243. On September 16, 2016, Plaintiff was served with a 20-day suspension issued by William McManus. 244. On November 8, 2016, Plaintiffemailed her supervisor, Deputy Chief Guzman - the first step in her chain of command - to remind him Plaintiff was still hoping to get a meeting with William McManus. 245. Deputy Chief Guzman responded on November 10, 2016, directing Plaintiff to forward her concerns to him first. 246. Deputy Chief Guzman's gate keeping constituted discrimination against Plaintiff. Page 27 of 40 Case 5:17-cv-00550-FB Document 1 Filed 06/20/17 Page 28 of 40 247. Plaintiff had advised Chief Guzman of the intended subject matter of the meetings. 248. Plaintiff advised Chief Guzman that she wished to discuss how she could best use the leave time she had earned per the contract as described in Paragraphs 161 through 167 above. 249. When Plaintiff sought these discussions, she was well aware of a former female, Captain Rosalinda Vasquez, having accrued leave in amounts similar to Plaintiff. 250. When Rosalinda Vasquez attempted to use her extended leave which had been approved by William McManus, the approved extended leave was rescinded. 251. Plaintiff and Vasquez believe that the recision of Vasquez' extended leave was orchestrated to assure the promotion of Robert Blanton to a Captain's position. 252. Thus, when Plaintiff requested meetings with William McManus, she was seeking to avoid being treated like Vasquez. 253. McManus' refusal to meet with Plaintiff was not justified by any neutral business related purpose. 254. On November 23, 2016, Plaintiff submitted an annual vacation request for 2017. 255. On January 3, 2017, Deputy Chief Gus Guzman sent Plaintiff a text message, "Scheduled leave is going to be capped at 60 days." 256. On January 4, 2017, Plaintiff filed a grievance with the SAPOA Grievance Committee about this 60-day cap, citing violations of the Collective Bargaining Agreement by deviating from its language regarding leave policies. 257. On January 17, 2017, Plaintiff received notice her annual vacation request had been denied because it exceeded the 60-day cap. Page 28 of 40 Case 5:17-cv-00550-FB Document 1 Filed 06/20/17 Page 29 of 40 258. At the time Plaintiffs vacation request was denied, Lt. Brian Head (a male officer) was currently burning leave and had been off over a year. 259. On January 17,2017, Plaintiff requested a meeting with William McManus, and such request was ignored. 260. On February 2, 2017, Deputy Chief Gus Guzman signed Plaintiffs annual Performance Evaluation. 261. On February 8,2017, the SAPOA Grievance Committee met, discussed, and upheld the grievance, agreeing the 60-day cap on annual leave usage violated the intent of the CBA. 262. On February 8, 2017, Assistant Chief Anthony Trevino signed Plaintiffs annual Performance Evaluation. 263. On February 16, 2017, Plaintiff received her annual Employee Performance Evaluation from her supervisor, Deputy Chief Guzman. 264. On February 17,2017, Plaintiff filed an appeal of her evaluation to her intermediate supervisor, Assistant Chief Anthony Trevino. 265. On February 24,2017, Plaintiff was notified by Assistant ChiefAnthony Trevino that her appeal of her evaluation by Guzman had been denied. 266. William McManus has continued to deny Plaintiff time off in excess of 60 days. 267. Plaintiff has repeatedly asked to utilize accrued, earned compensatory time and has been denied. Page 29 of 40 Case 5:17-cv-00550-FB Document 1 Filed 06/20/17 Page 30 of 40 268. Defendants' refusal to allow Plaintiff to use her leave time which she has properly, lawfully earned, is an attempt to force her to retire prematurely, and thus, is an attempt to constructively discharge Plaintiff. I. Defendants Lashing Out Against Two Females Who Defended John Lee 269. On September 16, 2016, Defendants issued Plaintiff a 20-day suspension alleging misconduct. 270. The allegations include procuring and releasing alleged confidential information, namely: the Contemplated Indefinite Suspension of John Lee. 271. Defendants alleged that on March 3, 2016, Plaintiff obtained the Contemplated Indefinite Suspension of John Lee by requesting a copy of it from Jeanne Bybel, a paralegal in the City Attorney's Office. 272. At this time, Plaintiff was the commander of the North Service Area and supervised John Lee, a patrol officer, at the time of the alleged misconduct and date of the Contemplated Indefinite Suspension. 273. In the normal course of business, Jeanne Bybel has previously provided Plaintiff copies of contemplated disciplinary matters for officers under her command. 274. In the disciplinary investigation, and in the discipline taken against Plaintiff, Defendants failed to mention William McManus invited Plaintiff to attend the rebuttal process. 275. The Chain of Command are invited to disciplinary rebuttals to provide input and recommendations. Page 30 of 40 Case 5:17-cv-00550-FB Document 1 Filed 06/20/17 Page 31 of 40 276. On March 1, 2016, at 2:32 p.m., Plaintiff accepted the email invitation from William McManus to attend John Lee's rebuttal meeting for John Lee's Contemplated Indefinite Suspension. 277. Defendants alleged that Plaintiff's request for the Contemplated Indefinite Suspension was improper because she used her positional authority to improperly obtain the paperwork. 278. Defendants have implemented policies and procedures for distributing contemplated suspensions through an officer's chain of command before discipline is issued. 279. When Defendants issue a Contemplated Suspension to an officer, Jeanne Bybel customarily types an Interdepartmental Correspondent Sheet stating that it is from the Legal Advisor's Office and it is addressed to the Captain who supervises the officer who is to be served with the Contemplated Suspension. 280. The above described Correspondence Sheet includes a copy of the Contemplated Suspension. 281. The paperwork includes instructions for the Captain to serve the officer and have him sign receipt of the Contemplated Suspension. 282. Plaintiff was Officer Lee's Captain who would have been required and authorized to receive and serve the Contemplated Indefinite Suspension to John Lee. 283. Defendants have sent Interoffice Correspondence Sheets many times to Plaintiff concerning Contemplated Suspensions. 284. Thus, Plaintiff normally would have received the Contemplated Indefinite Suspension during Defendants' normal course of business. Page3l of 40 Case 5:17-cv-00550-FB Document 1 Filed 06/20/17 Page 32 of 40 285. Defendants alleged Plaintiff disclosed the contents to Cris Andersen, a person not authorized to receive information about the Contemplated Indefinite Suspension. 286. Defendants' claim, however, does not withstand logical scrutiny because a day beforehand, William McManus had previously fully briefed Cris Andersen about the Contemplated Indefinite Suspension. 287. Thus, William McManus previously, voluntarily disclosed the contents of the Contemplated Indefinite Suspension of John Lee, thereby making it Public Information by virtue of Texas Local Government Code 288. § 5 52.007. Once John Lee's Contemplated Indefinite Suspension became public information and once William McManus fully disclosed its contents, it was no longer confidential. 289. Specifically, William McManus, disclosed the contents of John Lee's Contemplated Indefinite Suspension to numerous persons and entities before Plaintiff obtained a copy from Jeanne Bybel. 290. On March 1, 2016, William McManus released a written email statement to the media concerning the John Lee matter and discussed in detail the contents of the Contemplated Indefinite Suspension of John Lee. 291. When the media reported that William McManus was going to fire John Lee before Lee had a chance to rebut the allegations, McManus release of information constituted one or both of the following: a. He waived the confidentiality of the Contemplated Indefinite Suspension prior to the allegations made against Plaintiff b. He violated the rules he accused Plaintiff of violating. Page 32 of 40 Case 5:17-cv-00550-FB Document 1 Filed 06/20/17 Page 33 of 40 292. Defendant, the City of San Antonio, took no disciplinary action against William McManus for violating any confidentiality rules of the SAPD or by Tex. Local Gov't. Code Chapter 552, after he released the contents of John Lee's Indefinite Suspension. 293. Additionally, on March 2, 2016, William McManus met with Cris Andersen in his office on the sixth floor. 294. Other Officers present in the Chief's Office included Bryan Cowan, Pete Ovalle, Arthur Struxness, Ray Todd, and Victor Trevino. 295. William McManus then began to justify the reason he was terminating John Lee. 296. William McManus then showed his cell phone to those present, displaying photographs of the crime scene he took at the shooting scene of John Lee. 297. At the time William McManus displayed the photographs, he had failed to turn in the photographs, as required by SAPD policies which would have required him to turn in his cell phone to the Crime Scene Unit twenty-six days earlier on February 4, 2016. 298. William McManus stated John Lee used improper tactics. 299. William McManus invited patrol officers to opine on what they would have done had they been in John Lee's situation. 300. Ironically, when Plaintiff was accused of leaking information to assist John Lee, her opinion on what was proper was something to be punished. 301. The officers present on March 2, 2016, were not members of: a. Internal Affairs, b. Homicide, Page 33 of 40 Case 5:17-cv-00550-FB Document 1 Filed 06/20/17 Page 34 of 40 c. 302. A criminal unit authorized to investigate the John Lee shooting. The officers present in the Chief's Office on March 2, 2016, did not have a need to know why he was issuing a Contemplated Suspension to John Lee. 303. Prior to the meeting in the Chief's Office on March 2, 2016, none of the officers present signed a confidentiality pledge not to disclose the subject matter of what was discussed. 304. Before the March 2,2016 meeting in the Chief's Office, no one was issued an order, written or verbal, by the Chief of Police that the discussion was confidential. 305. Thus, no one present in the March 2, 2016 meeting had any reason to believe that the Contemplated Suspension was confidential by law or per Departmental Policy because the Chief's disclosure of the information waived any confidentiality. 306. The Chief's subsequent conduct also illustrates that he waived confidentiality. 307. On March 3, 2016, Captain Robert Blanton, assigned to the Chief's Office, sent all SAPD substation commanders a directive requiring the commanders to send a patrol officer from each shift to the Chief's Office, starting on March 3, 2016. 308. On that same day, March 3, 2016, in response to Robert Blanton's email, Plaintiff sent an officer, Crystal Aguero from the Daylight Shift of North Patrol to meet with the Chief to discuss John Lee's Contemplated Indefinite Suspension. 309. In the March 3, 2016 meeting attended by eight or more officers, William McManus again disclosed the contents of the Contemplated Indefinite Suspension of John Lee by telling the officers present that John Lee used bad tactics. Page 34 of 40 Case 5:17-cv-00550-FB Document 1 Filed 06/20/17 Page 35 of 40 310. William McManus told the officers present he wanted the officers to tell other officers back at their substations, the reason he was taking action against John Lee. 311. William McManus specifically wanted the officers present to make other officers embrace McManus' belief and proselytize the troops. 312. 313. The officers present on March 3, 2016, were not members of: a. Internal Affairs, b. Homicide, or c. A criminal unit authorized to investigate the John Lee shooting. The officers present in the Chief's Office on March 3, 2016, did not have a need to know why he was issuing a Contemplated Suspension to John Lee. 314. Prior to the meeting in the Chief's Office on March 3, 2016, none of the officers present signed a confidentiality pledge not to disclose the subject matter of what was discussed. 315. Before the March 3,2016 meeting in the Chief's Office, no one was issued an order, wriften or verbal, by the Chief of Police that the discussion was confidential. 316. After William McManus' disclosure of John Lee's Contemplated Indefinite Suspension to officers present on March 2nd and 3", 2016, none of the officers present were disciplined for receiving the contents of McManus' disclosures. 317. Consequently, William McManus' repeated disclosures constituted a waiver of any putative confidentiality that may or may not have existed in the Contemplated Indefinite Suspension Page 35 of 40 Case 5:17-cv-00550-FB Document 1 Filed 06/20/17 Page 36 of 40 318. The Chief discussed the Contemplated Suspension with members of City Council before John Lee was served with the Contemplated Indefinite Suspension 319. Nothing in Chapter 143 of the Local Government Code, the City Charter for the City of San Antonio, the San Antonio Fire and Police Officers Civil Service Commission Rules, and the Collective Bargaining Agreement by and between the San Antonio Police Department and the City of San Antonio grants the Chief statutory authority to disclose the contents of John Lee's Contemplated Suspension before he was served and a decision to suspend was made. 320. When the time came to serve John Lee, fortuitously, Plaintiff was out on bereavement leave. 321. Consequently, the task of serving John Lee was undertaken by Plaintiffs immediate supervisor, Deputy Chief Janaé Florance. 322. William McManus learned of Deputy Chief Florance's interaction with John Lee. 323. As a result of Deputy Chief Florance's actions, William McManus yelled at her, telling her that she should not have served Officer Lee the Contemplated Indefinite Suspension because she gave the appearance of opposing the contemplated discipline or appearing sympathetic to John Lee's plight. 324. William McManus was so upset with Deputy Chief Florance, he stated he was going to demote her. 325. William McManus also told Deputy Chief Florance that to avoid a gender discrimination lawsuit, he would simultaneously demote a male Deputy Chief. Page 36 of 40 Case 5:17-cv-00550-FB Document 1 Filed 06/20/17 Page 37 of 40 326. Deputy Chief Florance, seeing the injustice of another Deputy Chief being randomly fired as a pretext, then told McManus that she would retire instead. 327. Thus, Defendants retaliate against women who opposed the John Lee Contemplated Indefinite Suspension. 328. Ultimately, on March 14, 2016, John Lee met with William McManus for a rebuttal hearing on the Contemplated Indefinite Suspension. 329. In the rebuttal meeting, which Plaintiff attended, William McManus stated, after reviewing the investigation, "I am going to unfound the previous allegation and rule the matter justified." 330. Thus, two female Commanders opposed William McManus and suffered adverse, discriminatory employment action. 331. William McManus has been aware of other unauthorized releases of confidential information on contemplated suspensions and has taken no action to investigate such conduct or discipline those responsible. VI. SEX DISCRIMINATION 332. Defendants engaged in unlawful employment practices involving Plaintiff because she is a female. 333. Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff in connection with the compensation, terms, conditions and privileges of employment in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-(2)(a). The effect of these practices has been to deprive Plaintiff of equal Page 37 of 40 Case 5:17-cv-00550-FB Document 1 Filed 06/20/17 Page 38 of 40 employment opportunities and otherwise adversely affect her status as an employee because of her sex. 334. City of San Antonio, Texas has been making the working conditions so intolerable to compel Plaintiff to resign her position. A reasonable person in the same position would have also felt compelled to resign. VII. RETALIATION BY CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 335. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants instituted a campaign of retaliation which included the acts alleged above. This retaliation was and is due to Plaintiff exercising her rights by opposing a discriminatory practice, making a charge and testifying, assisting, or participating in an investigation or proceeding regarding an unlawful discriminatory practice. Plaintiff suffered damages for which Plaintiff herein sues. VIII. DAMAGES 336. Plaintiff sustained the following damages as a result of the actions and/or omissions of Defendants described hereinabove: a. Loss of income and benefits based upon the denial of promotional opportunities and suspension; b. All reasonable and necessary Attorney's fees incurred by or on behalf of Plaintiff; c. Back pay from the date that Plaintiff was denied equal pay for equal work and interest on the back pay in an amount to compensate Plaintiff as the Court deems equitable and just; Page 38 of 40 Case 5:17-cv-00550-FB Document 1 Filed 06/20/17 Page 39 of 40 d. All reasonable and necessary costs incurred in pursuit of this suit; e. Emotional pain; f. Expert fees as the Court deems appropriate; g. Front pay in an amount the Court deems equitable and just to make Plaintiff whole; h. Interest; I. Mental anguish in the past; j. Mental anguish in the future; and k. Loss of earning capacity which will, in all probability, be incurred in the future. Ix. SPECIFIC RELIEF 337. Plaintiff seeks the following specific relief which arises out of the actions and/or omissions of Defendants described hereinabove: a. Promote Plaintiffto the position and pay grade to which Plaintiff should have been promoted but for the unlawful employment actions of Defendants; b. Reinstate Plaintiff to the position and pay grade which Plaintiff held but for the unlawful employment actions of Defendants, namely: the unwarranted 20day suspension. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff, Laura M. Andersen, respectfully prays that the Defendants be cited to appear and answer herein, and that upon a final hearing of the Page 39 of 40 Case 5:17-cv-00550-FB Document 1 Filed 06/20/17 Page 40 of 40 cause, judgment be entered for the Plaintiff against Defendants for damages in an amount within the jurisdictional limits of the Court; together with interest as allowed by law; costs of court; and such other and further relief to which the Plaintiff may be entitled at law or in equity. Respectfully submitted, Ben M. Sifuens, Jr. Texas Bar No1J8346200 E-Mail: sifiienteslawgmail.com 417 San Pedro Avenue San Antonio, TX 78212 Tel. (210) 281-0434 Fax. (210) 225-4469 Attorney for Plaintiff Laura M. Andersen PLAINTIFF HEREBY DEMANDS TRIAL BY JURY Page 40 of 40