Case: Doc 1 Filed: 06/12/18 Page: 1 of 116 PAGEID 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION Tamera Brown c/o Zachary Gottesman, Esq. Case No. 36 7th Street, Suite 1650 Cincinnati, OH 45202-4452, Judge and Magistrate on Ludgatis COMPLAINT c/o Zachary Gottesman, Esq. 36 7th Street, Suite 1650 Cincinnati, OH 45202-4452, Plaintiffs, vs. City of Cincinnati, Ohio 801 Plum Street Cincinnati, OH 45202-5705, and John Cranley (Individually and in his official capacity as Mayor of the City of Cincinnati) 801 Plum Street Cincinnati, OH 45202-5705, and Danita Pettis [Individually and in her official capacity as a Police Lieutenant for the City of Cincinnati) 801 Plum Street Cincinnati, OH 45202?5705, and Patrick Duhaney (Individually and in his official capacity as Acting City Manager for the City of Cincinnati) 1 Case: Doc 1 Filed: 06/12/18 Page: 2 of 116 PAGEID 2 801 Plum Street Cincinnati, OH 45202-5705, and Harry Black (Individually and in his official capacity as Former City Manager for the City of Cincinnati) 801 Plum Street Cincinnati, 45202-5705, and Elliot Isaac (Individually and in his official capacity as Chief of Police for the City of Cincinnati) 801 Plum Street Cincinnati, OH 45202-5705, and Sentinel Police AssOciation 1889 Central Parkway Cincinnati, OH 45214-2318, Defendants. Plaintiffs, Tamera Brown and Joy Ludgatis, by and through counsel, for their Complaint against Defendants state as follows: I. The Parties 1. Plaintiff, Tamera Brown (?Brown?), is a white female, a US. citizen, a resident of Hamilton County, Ohio, and is employed as a police officer by the City of Cincinnati with over 15 years of service. 2. Plaintiff, on Ludgatis is a white female, a US. citizen, a resident of Hamilton County, Ohio, and is employed as a police officer by the City of Cincinnati with over 27 years of service. Case: Doc 1 Filed: 06/12/18 Page: 3 of 116 PAGEID 3 3. Defendant, City of Cincinnati (?the City?), is a municipality organized under the laws of the State of Ohio. 4. Defendant, John Cranley ("Cranley"), is a US. citizen, a resident of Hamilton County, Ohio, and is the Mayor of the City of Cincinnati. Suit is brought against Mr. Cranley individually and in his official capacity. 5. Defendant, Danita Pettis ("Pettis"), is a US. citizen, a resident of Hamilton County, Ohio, and is employed as a police lieutenant by the City of Cincinnati. Suit is brought against Ms. Pettis individually and in her official capacity. 6. Defendant, Patrick Duhaney (?Duhaney?), is a US. citizen, a resident of Hamilton County, Ohio, and is the Acting City Manager for the City of Cincinnati. Suit is brought against Mr. Duhaney individually and in his official capacity. 7. Defendant, Harry Black is a US. citizen, a resident of Hamilton County, Ohio, and is the former City Manager of the City of Cincinnati. Suit is brought against Mr. Black individually and in his official capacity. 8. Defendant, Elliot Isaac (?Isaac?), is a US. citizen, a resident of Hamilton County, Ohio, and is the Chief of Police for the City of Cincinnati. Suit is brought against Mr. Isaac individually and in his official capacity. 9. Defendant, Sentinel Police Association, is a not for profit Ohio corporation that is a necessary party pursuant to F.R.C.P. 19. II. Plaintiffs? Standing and Nature of Claims 10. Plaintiffs bring this action based on Defendants? past, present, and continuing violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e, et seq.), and Ohio Revised Code Chapter 4112. Case: Doc 1 Filed: 06/12/18 Page: 4 of 116 PAGEID 4 Jurisdiction and Venue 11. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff 5 claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1343 (3), and (4). 12. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs? state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367 because the claims derive from the same operative facts and are so related to Plaintiffs? federal claims that they form a part of the same case or controversy. 13. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391 because Defendants are residents of this district and are residents of Ohio. Further, the acts or omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs? claims occurred in this district. IV. Facts 14. The City, Cranley, Duhaney, Black and Isaac have instituted and perpetuated unconstitutional race-based policies for hiring, promotion, discipline and conferring benefits of employment among and upon the ranks of the Cincinnati Police Department. 15. Specifically, the City, Cranley, Duhaney, Black and Isaac have implemented and continue to implement an unconstitutional race?based State Consent Decree1 and an unconstitutional race-based Federal Consent Decree2 that predicate promotions among qualified candidates based solely and exclusively on racial criteria. 16. Specifically, there is an unconstitutional race-based double standard for discipline among the Cincinnati Police Department that permissively condones misconduct for certain officers that would subject others to discipline. 17. Specifically, there is an unconstitutional race-based policy for detail 1 Attached as Exhibit 1. 2 Attached as Exhibit 2. Case: Doc 1 Filed: 06/12/18 Page: 5 of 116 PAGEID 5 assignment that confers benefits of employment through preferred detail assignments on some officers based solely on their race and excludes other equally qualified officers based solely on their race. 18. Specifically, there is an unconstitutional race?based policy for permitting insubordination and Violation of the rules for chain of command by black officers, including specifically Pettis, that would subject others to discipline. 19. Specifically, there is an unconstitutional race-based policy for permitting theft in office and fraudulent and excessive claims for overtime compensation by black officers, including specifically Pettis, that would subject others to discipline. 20. The specific policies outlined above have had an aggregate effect of creating an atmosphere of racial tension and in some cases open hostility between officers of different races. 21. The implementation of race-based policies for hiring, promotion, discipline and conferring benefits of employment has unnecessarily created increased racial tension and division among the ranks of the Cincinnati Police Department and there are certain officers, including specifically Pettis, that View everything through a racial prism. 22. The increased racial tension and division among the ranks of the Cincinnati Police Department has jeopardized officer safety. 23. Plaintiffs and Pettis were all previously assigned to District 4 of the Cincinnati Police Department and worked together until Plaintiffs were transferred in December 2017. 24. Pettis is a vindictive, openly racist police officer who is unfit and lacks the character and integrity to serve as a police officer. 25. Pettis has engaged in conduct as a police officer that, but for her race, would Case: Doc 1 Filed: 06/12/18 Page: 6 of 116 PAGEID 6 have resulted in discipline and /or criminal charges against her including, but not limited to, allegedly stealing money from a 5/3rd bank during a detail, falsely representing her credentials to gain access to the Hamilton County justice Center so that she could advise a rape suspect/ family member how to avoid prosecution, making false and excessive claims for overtime compensation3, using city property for personal use, committing theft in office, and abusing her role as a Sentinels Police Association Union Representative to obstruct justice and suborn false testimony by officers accused of misconduct. 26. Pettis" has avoided repercussions for her illegal conduct referenced in the preceding paragraph because of the race-based double standard for officer discipline. 27. Pettis?s de facto immunity from disciplinary action has manifested in her racist, abusive, and lawless demeanor that threatens the morale and safety of the officers assigned to work with her. 28. On 13 and 14 March 2018, Plaintiffs filed charges4 of discrimination with the Cincinnati Area Office of the EEOC and were given notice of their right to file suit. 29. Plaintiffs charged that they were subjected to discriminatory and retaliatory .treatment by the City generally and by Pettis specifically based on their sex and race. 30. Specifically, Plaintiffs charged that they have been repeatedly subjected to a hostile work environment by their immediate supervisor, Pettis. 31. Prior to filing her charge of discrimination with the EEOC, Brown filed an internal complaint5 via email against Pettis with Captain Martin Mack, on 26 November 2017. 32. Brown?s complaint references an incident on 16 November 2017 during which 3 Attached as Exhibit 3. 4 Attached as Exhibits 4 and 5. 5 Attached as Exhibit 6. Case: Doc 1 Filed: 06/12/18 Page: 7 of 116 PAGEID 7 Pettis held 3rd shift officers in roll call while white 2nd shift officers were calling for assistance because of shots fired at them. Pettis did not release officers from roll call to render assistance. 33. Brown also describes in her complaint 34. Pettis? behavior was so hostile, demeaning, and unprofessional that the entire 3rd Shift of District 4 sent a memo to Isaac requesting a conference regarding Pettis? practices of verbal abuse and emotional intimidation and their collective fear of unfair retaliation5. 35. On 26 November 2017, Police Sgt. Dan Hils visited District 4- during 3rd shift roll call and advised the officers present of their rights to file complaints against Pettis for her unprofessional, abusive, demeaning, and hostile conduct. 36. On 28 November 2017 (prior to filing her charge of discrimination with the EEOC), Ludgatis filed an internal complaint7 Via email with Captain Martin Mack stating that she was subjected to humiliating, demeaning, and unprofessional verbal abuse by Pettis. 37. On 28 November 2017, Pettis requested an internal investigation regarding the conduct of Sgt. Dan Hils during his visit to District 4 rollcall on 26 November 20188. 38. As a result of all the foregoing, command staff initiated an investigation which angered Pettis, who, in apparent reaction to the investigation, made the aforementioned hostile, negative, and discrediting comments about Plaintiffs Brown and Ludgatis during 3rd shift roll call on at least two occasions9. 6 Attached as Exhibit 7. 7 Attached as Exhibit 8. 3 Attached as Exhibit 9 9 See 5 December 2017 email from Lt. Colonel Dave Bailey to Isaac attached hereto as Exhibit 10. Case: Doc 1 Filed: 06/12/18 Page: 8 of 116 PAGEID 8 39. On 1 December 2017, after making the hostile and demeaning comments about Brown and Ludgatis, Pettis formally requested that Brown and Ludgatis be transferred to another district?). 40. As a result of Pettis? actions, Brown and Ludgatis were both transferred to other districts and shifts later in December 2017. 41. Although this did not result in any loss of pay, it was a material change in the terms, conditions, and privileges of?Plaintiffs? employment. 42. . The report generated as a result of the aforementioned investigation.11 found Pettis engaged in various misconduct, but the City has failed to impose meaningful discipline or otherwise address the continuing racial tensions and hostile environment created by Pettis. 43. The City?s attempts to remediate the hostile work environment have been ineffective, and Pettis continues to direct aggressive, hostile, demeaning, and unprofessional comments toward Ludgatis.12 44. Pettis also continues to spread inaccurate information. and disparaging remarks about Ludgatis to fellow officers, creating a hostile and disruptive environment (see Exhibit 11). 45. The City's failure to remedy the hostile environment created by Pettis has caused Plaintiffs physical, mental, and emotional distress. 46. Specifically, Brown has developed physical manifestations of the stress, including stomach ulcers for which she is undergoing continuing medical treatment. 10 See Attached Exhibit 11. 11 Attached as Exhibit 12. 12 Attached as Exhibit 13. Case: Doc 1 Filed: 06/12/18 Page: 9 of 116 PAGEID 9 47. Specifically, Ludagits experiences stress and anxiety daily which affects her ability to perform her job responsibilities and disrupts her sleep schedule and domestic life. First Cause of Action-42 U.S.C. 48. Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding paragraphs as if fully restated here. 49. In Violation of 42 U.S.C. Plaintiffs have been subjected to illegal discrimination in the terms, conditions, and privileges of their employment because of their race and sex. 50. Specifically, Plaintiffs have been, subjected to a hostile work environment, abusive and demeaning verbal attacks and have been transferred or otherwise suffered adverse employment decisions because they are white females. 51. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' unlawful, discriminatory, and . retaliatory conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered injuries and damages and are entitled to judgment and relief. Second Cause of Action-42 U.S.C. 2000e-3 52. Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding paragraphs as if fully restated here. 53. 42 U.S.C. 2000e-3(a) provides in pertinent part that "It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any of his employees . . . because he has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this subchapter, or because he has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this subchapter.? 54. Defendants have discriminated and retaliated against Plaintiffs because Plaintiffs have opposed practices made unlawful, have filed complaints, and have participated in investigations and proceedings provided for under 42 U.S.C. and its Case: Doc #2 1 Filed: 06/12/18 Page: 10 of 116 PAGEID 10 subchapters. 55. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants? unlawful, discriminatory, and retaliatory conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered injuries and damages and are entitled to judgment and relief. Third Cause of Action-42 U.S.C. 56. Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding paragraphs as if fully restated here. 57. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. despite the existence of other motivating factors, Plaintiffs have been subjected to unlawful employment practices because their race and sex were primary considerations affecting decisions regarding the terms, conditions, and privileges of their employment. 58. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants? unlawful, discriminatory, and retaliatory conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered injuries and damages and are entitled to judgment and relief. Fourth Cause of Action-42 U.S.C. 2000e-5 59. Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding paragraphs as if fully restated here. 60. Under 42 U.S.C. and Plaintiffs are entitled to reasonable attorneys? fees and costs incurred in the prosecution of this action. Fifth Cause of Action-42 U.S.C. 1981a 61. Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding paragraphs as if fully restated here. 62. Under 42 U.S.C. 1981a(b), Plaintiffs are entitled to compensatory and punitive damages due to Defendants? reckless, malicious, and intentionally discriminatory practices in Violation of Plaintiffs? federally protected rights. 10 Case: DOC #2 1 Filed: 06/12/18 Page: 11 Of 116 PAGEID #2 11 Sixth Cause of Action-42 U.S.C. 1983-Free Speech 63. Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding paragraphs as if fully restated here. 64. Plaintiffs engaged in constitutionally protected free speech and conduct when they complained about the aggressive, hostile, demeaning, and unprofessional conduct of Pettis. 65. Defendants? transfer of Plaintiffs to another district and other adverse employment decisions affecting the terms, conditions, and privileges of Plaintiffs? employment was in direct retaliation for Plaintiffs? protected speech and conduct on matters of public concern as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. 66. Defendants? conduct was intentional, malicious, willful, and wanton. 67. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants? unlawful, discriminatory, and retaliatory conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered injuries and damages and are entitled to judgment and relief. Seventh Cause of Action-RC. 4112.01, et seq. 68. Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding paragraphs as if fully restated here. 69. In Violation of RC. Plaintiffs have suffered illegal discriminatory treatment affecting the terms, conditions, and privileges of their employment because of their sex and race. 70. Specifically, Plaintiffs have been subjected to a hostile work environment, abusive and demeaning verbal attacks and have been transferred or otherwise suffered adverse employment decisions because they are white females. 71. In violation of RC. 41 1202(1), Defendants have discriminated against Plaintiffs because Plaintiffs have opposed practices made unlawful and have participated in 11 Case: Doc #2 1 Filed: 06/12/18 Page: 12 of 116 PAGEID 12 investigations and proceedings provided for under RC. Chapter 4112 and its subchapters. 72. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants? unlawful, discriminatory, and retaliatory conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered injuries and damages and are entitled to judgment and relief. 73. Under R.C. 4112.99, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover damages and other appropriate relief through this civil action. Wherefore, Plaintiffs demand relief as follows: Equitable relief enjoining Defendants from continuing to engage in illegal discriminatory employment practices, including termination of the herein referenced consent decrees; compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be proven at trial; attorneys? fees and costs as determined by the Court; and such other relief as this Court deems just. Respectfully submi zachary Gottesm (O 8675) Gottesman Assoc1ates, LLC 36 East 7th St., Suite 1650 Cincinnati, OH 45202-4452 T: 513-651-2121 F: 513-651?2131 zg@zgottesmanlaw.com 12 Case: 1:18-cv-00412-SJD-KLL Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/12/18 Page: 13 of 116 PAGEID #: 13 EXHIBIT COURT 0~ COMMONPLW HAMILTON COUNTY 1 ,,. SENTINEL POLICE ASSOCIATIONz ) and . CIVIL ACTION NO. A8704567 : {Niehaus; J.) : ARTHUR HARMON BURNETT WIL~IAMS JERRY : KYLES GEORGE EDMONDS LONNIE MICHAEL COTTON FREDDIE ·p. STONESTREET RONALD TWITTY : ... .. and · LEYNORICE JOHNSON . .. " Plaintiffs vs. CITY CONSENT DECREE OF CINCINNATI_. : Defendant- . and : QUEEN CITY LODGE NO. 69, F.RATEENAL ORDER OF POLICE, HAMILTON C0UNTYr OHIO, : INC. . . Defendant-Intervenor Plaintiffs discrimination - Police insure : inclt.xiing In and in equal in blacks to promoti9nal this claims for SEP 141887 1 have alleged avoid continue parties by entering costs have within time the agreed to this .. costly to Cincinnati resolve consent fees. Cincinnati and efforts within and attorney the consuming ongoing into 1MAGE /51· ur1lawful and females opportunity the case to order order however,, Divisionr raised against Division. litigation action i.n this ENTERED i This all Police claims decree decree shall J Case: 1:18-cv-00412-SJD-KLL Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/12/18 Page: 14 of 116 PAGEID #: 14 'n.6±constitute nrerits of ar! the case, discrimination The ...· has following and oi }inding deny that on the unlawful. any occurred. £acts stipulated: are b. twenty-six promotions to the rank of lieutenant were made pursuant to the applicable provisions of R.c. 124.44., and in accordance with Section lO, Article XV1 of the Ohio Constitution. Twenty-six Al1 Six qualified not promoted time the list blacks to the expired. d. The current prcrnotion was to expire on July court and is to expire 14, 1987. . e. Nine captains captain~ in current list males. f. Al.l nine pu:r:suant . •... h. on the list of lieutenant but.were by the eligible list for police captain 11, 1987, but was extended by the at 12 0 1 clock noon· promotions to the to the applicable and ·in accordance Constitution. g. were rank or 64% of the total number of the Division have been promoted from and all of ·those promoted have been with Ohio -· de:fendants the 1 lieutenants or 671 of the total number of lieutenants in the-Division were appointed from the latest police lieutenant promotion eligible list. Twenty-five of those promoted were white mal.es and one a white female. That list expired June 25# 1987. } :· adjudication \ a. c. ,.~ h.mission.r .--· Tw'o qualified blacks promoted to the rank will expire • rank of captain provis-ions 0£ Section 10, Articl.e are on the of captain l.ist by the were ~.c. the white made 124.44, XV, of but unlikely date the the to be list or females have been promoted to the ranks or lieutenant colonel and no blacks and only have been promoted to the rank of lieutenant since August 13, 1981. There are currently no black or female 2ieQtenant colonels; no black or £etnale captains; and only one female and two black lieutenants within the Cincinnati Police Division. Blacks and females have been underrepresented and currently remain underrepresented in the promoted ranks of tbe Cincinnati Police Division covered by this decree. No blacks of captain one female 2 ENTERED SEP1~~7 IMAGE/:>o Case: 1:18-cv-00412-SJD-KLL Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/12/18 Page: 15 •.of 116 PAGEID #: 15 _.-:-.... ·1 i. The la11_ } number of new promotions· .... -6 the ranks of captain and lieutenant have reduced the possibility of openings in those ranks in the near future. Unless ., affirmative action is practiced with respect to promotions in those ranks, the mani£est imbalance exi$ting with respect to blacks and females in those ranks and at the rank of lieutenant colonei will continue to be present. There is a need for an af£ir.mative actio.n remedy. It is the purpose and intent of the decree to insure that biacks and £emales are not disadvantaged by promotion practices within the City of Cincinnati and that any disadvantage to blacks·and £emales whi.ch may have resulted from any past discrimination be remedied, in accordance with the specific tenns of this consent decree, so that equal promotional opportunity is.provided to all, j. k. The double-fill herein is intended to be limited only as set forth herein only when the normal promotional syste.~ does not result in su£:ficient promotions of blacks and £ernal.es to the . ranks affected; is statistically well-grounded; and has a minimal impact on the civil service and other rights of o:fficers not benefiting from the double-fill syste.?Ii. The the long availability qualified colonei) proportion the of all of City of is hereby of and the assistant qualified blacks to achieve, ranks of police Police and subject fe.inales to of a proportion sworn Cincinnati the police chief Division in the equal labor to force • ORDERED~ ADJUDGED AND DECREED, with agreement Al.J. positions to be filled in the·ranks above sergeant and below police chief i.n the Cincinnati Police Division shall be £illed by rank order pre.motion from the applicable eligibility list with the following exceptions: event that the pro~otional examination ) in captain, Cinc~nnati is applicants, femaies in decree parties: In -' this qualified and (lieutenant It ! . blacks police of goal of lieutenant, the ...·.: :if tenn system provided for in du.ration; utilized the results results 3 0£ the grading of any in the release of a ENTER SEP141~l 1l)IAGE /57 - Case: 1:18-cv-00412-SJD-KLL Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/12/18 Page: 16 of 116 PAGEID #: 16 ,. ) the release 0£ the·next promotion eligible . ranks of police lieutenant., poJ.ice captain and assistant police chief {lieutenant col.onel.) in accordance with the terms of this Decree, the required compliment for those ranks shaJ.l be a·ete:rmi,ned by the city defendant and a "Notice of CompJ.ement 11 shall. be prepared and posted on all bulletin boards in all police locations, no later than one hundr~d twenty (120) days prior to the expiration of the existing promotion eligible list. Said ;•Notice of Complementu shal.l set the authorized compl.ement of each rank effective the day after the expiration of the current eligible list. Subsequent J,.ists .. : for All. positions .:• .. - . :=- - blacks order, .-. •..... , ) to the in the ranks of specialist, lieutenant, captain and assistant chief of _police {lieutenant colonel) that are established and funded pursuant to the provisions of this decree in addition to those in the established complement for that rank shal.l ·be considered double-fill complement positions in existence at the time of the release of the "Notice of Complement .. by the City defendants; provided, however__, that after the expiration of any existing promotion eLigible list# a vacancy for pranotion purposes shall not exist in the complement until such time as the total number of persons holding the rank of specialist.,. lieutenant1 captain1 or assistant police {lieutenant colonel) fails below the complement established by the uNotice or Complement". Within the females to designated , : l \ promotion eJ.{.,-Jble 1.ist which fails to i lure promotions ot: qualified blacks and :females at a level -consistent with an interim goal of qpproximately 25% of the vacancies, then the City defendaht shall establish and fund such required additional p:;sitions and promote such additional blacks and females in rank order from the existing pro...-notion eligible list as are required to :f\11.£iJ.l the interim go_al. interim goal of promoting blacks and approximately 25% of the vacancies in ranks above police sergeant qualified 1 and females and second1 proportionate for those example, prcmotion 1st, 2d, ,3d, 4th, 5th# 6th, 7th, shall be promoted firet, in a manner that reflects chief · r the in rank their representation in the ranks eiigible positions in relation to each other. For if among black and female candidates for the rank orde~ is: white female A black A white femal.e B black B black C black D black E ENTERED SEP141987 IMAGE /6° 4 Case: 1:18-cv-00412-SJD-KLL Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/12/18 Page: 17 of 116 PAGEID #: 17 ,, - and the eligible promotions prop:· )tion £oi those 1st, i- 2dr 3d, shali of blacks positions be made wb,i te black f ema.le A black B 5th, J.;,lack C black D 6th, white female black E 4th., 7th, as j ) femalet:l ~'l the ranks 4:1, double fill follows: to is A B It is understood and agreed that this provision shall not be interpreted so as to alter the method the City has utilized in the past in promoting blacks and females to double-fill positions created by the exist~ng federal consent decree EUSA v. City·of Cincinnati., u.s ..D.C-1 s.n. oa&, No. c-1-80-- . 369] relating to the ranks of specialist and sergeant. By consenting to the use of this-method in £his decree, the Sentinels a..'"ld the individual plaintiffs are not consenting to the use of this method un4er the federal decree. The provisions of this position of chief of should seek to apply to promote qualified position in a manner service laws. to the City_ an effort to that civil This decree shall be implemented immediately, . including application of the decree to the current captain promotion eligible list. ?or the current captain list only the city shall promote in rank order two white lieutenants to double £ill positions as police captains at the same time it promotes the two black lieutenants to double fill .positions as p::::>lice captains. .. ---i . decree do not apply police. However1 the affirmative action in blacks ?nd/or females consistent with state . ..-- For the the next interim promotion .lieutenant be adjusted goal.shall list only; upward so as to eligible resul.t in double £ill promotions to the rank of lieutenant in rank order on a ratio of one b.lack or £emale {pursuant to the guidelines at the bottom of page four and top of _page five) for every white mal.e promoted. to a regular complement _position as police lieutenant. .. ·::- h l . __ .f.• During the life of the next lieutenant promotion eligible list only·., the city shall promote in rank order seven police officers to double fiil positions as police special.ists at the same time double :fil.l · positions are filled l..lnder this decree at the ranks of captain and lieutenant. No more than ~even double 5 , ~:-- I ·=!l~ ·~ zw 0- t;;,::, ~- _.. U) Case: 1:18-cv-00412-SJD-KLL Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/12/18 Page: 18 of 116 PAGEID #: 18 fill speciall~t !X)Bitiona shall be created under this _provision. Double fill specialist positions created under this provision shall be in addition to, but counted as regular complement positions for the purpose of determining double fill specialist promotions to be established during this period under the decree in USA v. City of Cincinnati, u.s.o.c., s.D.OH., No. C-1-80-369. .;.,. . ' vacancies caused by the promotion of the two black lieutenants and two white lieutenants on the current captain promotion eligible list, as well as all vacancies created as the result of the one year double-filling requirement in the rank of police lieutenant, and all other vacanciea in the sworn ranks of the police division created during the life of the next lieutenant promotion eligible list shall be filled promptiy by promotions to or from all applicable lower ranks in the Cincinnati Police Division. :... ·:. .._... .' The promotion eligible lists for ranks above sergeant in the Cincinnati Police Division shall be valid for one (1) year or until. the list is exhausted., whichever shal.1. occur first~ The compl.eroent of positions ior the ranks of police specialist, sergeant, and lieutenant shall remain fixed and not be reduced until the expiration of the next · 1ieutenant pron1otion eligible list following the entry of this decree. The approved and funded complement for each rank for the purpose of this provision is captain, 14, lieutenant, 39, sergeant, 120*, and specialistr 138. [*Subject to 0£ Cincinnati, p final et decision in, Smith et.al. vs. Cit;( al. 1 USDC, CASE NO. C-l-87-0381.J A£ter expiration of the next lieutenant promotion eligible list., complement strength in all ranks sha1l be determined by the app<:>inting authority or its designated representatives in a manner ~. consistent "Notice A with state 0£ Complementu civil service requirements 1 Ef-~TER SEP141S87 l11\tt\GEJl,), laws and the of this decree. In the event that the authorized complement for the rank of captain should be reduced prior to expiration of the next lieutenant .promotion>eligible list, resulting demotions and layoffs shall be made according to seniority consistent with Stotts v. Firefighters, 104 s. Ct. 2576 (2984). Plaintiffs ... enforcement shaii of the dismiss consent the decree _ _J 6 motion and the to intervene appeal they and have for initiated Case: 1:18-cv-00412-SJD-KLL Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/12/18 Page: 19 of 116 PAGEID #: 19 11 ' ih the - stL_ Js United western Division.,. Court.,. District in Case No. •iJistrict Southeii.. and C-1-80-369, in the of Ohio, United . States Court a11 parties recover Appeals Fraternal those two Order of proceedings Police.,. pending grievance between the Sentinels and court sha11 or the retain in City Case right fees Queen the in any or attorney dismiss This Circuit, waive expressiy hereto of Sixth 1 damages.,. costs either ...:; .. of No. Lodge concerning this instant the the and may have they through 87-3475, date to in action. No. 69., alleged The agrees to negotiations City. continuing jurisdiction cf this action. Judge .entered AGREED: ·"-..,... ·•i'"' .: .,i:. this ... ,Q Q A.lphonse Trial .:·:·::\~:_ ~... :=-- .~i!J~·=· =·.. ;f·::'. . ~: £or ~l\ Plaintiffs •· Attorney £or Plaintiffs J lflo__~ Kathieen Robbins Trial - A. Gerhardstein Attorney J~rlew M- , .' ; DATE: ... .,-;:: ~=... ~i _,._ Attorney £or ity Defendant ;...y , \ £or Defendant-intervenor - ge No. ~:- A.·-..c~.cr 69, of Police of Cincinnati \-,\;329 ...__.. ..........-... ENTERED SEP141987 )-.· 7 IMAGE}~3 Case: 1:18-cv-00412-SJD-KLL Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/12/18 Page: 20 of 116 PAGEID #: 20 .a .• • .... ,;.4'1c !N THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR TEE . SOUTHERNDISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) CIVIL ACTIQN NO. } ) v. . . - }j .. . . . CITY CINC:Gi!NATI I OHIO; THE - .. CINCINNATk~;r>OLICE DIVISION: Ari¥EUR F •. EULL,.JR.,. Chairman WILLIA.~ P ~·- SBEEID1N 7.: and RICHARD E. GUGGENHEIM, . in. their OF as Members.of Capacities Cincinnati Commission, Civi1 ln®x~ ___ ) Jonrr~ ___ _ Motioo __ .,..__ ) _ Dawt9l __ ) J the Service ) )· _ }$!:'~ ____ ---C=ti _ .) ) ________________ Def.enannts. -) ) } CONSENT DECREE The Complaint Cincinnati, of Rights sea. race llct the r and of Section 3789d 31 u.s.c. ana over the . and hereby of goal law. 'in violation as amended, vrr· u.s.c. S~ction nondiscrimination respective of a in the Act Civil 2000e et Omnil>us Crime 42 u.s.c. provisions of 1972, as of ~mended, 1242. being desirous agree to parties waive ·the entry insi.n:ing. Assistance the of as_ amended, the decree, 1968, of (c) {3} and Section City engaged of Title 42 its in _.employment on the provisions Fiscal the are of Local · filed alia,. Act Th~ City of' inter Streets The pnrties., appropria~e America tbe-- def:endants nondiscrimination and _Safe State sex, of ai;criininatioh- of 1964;, Control the that practice States ag_ainst, action l;lllegi~g or basis this in patte.rn Uni tea Plaintiff settl'arlg the_ jurisaictio~ a11a subject of findings of Cinc.innati egu~1l of anll its employment matter of fact this action this of this of by Court action . and conclusions officials, sharing the opportunity w:itbin the -;? -) .. Case: 1:18-cv-00412-SJD-KLL Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/12/18 Page: 21 of 116 PAGEID #: 21 ., •' . ... . (.. . tfe' "1L-. Cinc-innati · and Police Division unnecessary -binding the herein, relief i;:he . =-:- litigation, among • resol~ed cons.ent -defendants, or adjudication and· the._ defendants_ hereto deny $hall finding that on the as fina.l the to entered ·being constitute . merits any unlawful and issues who consent not . protracted as . to Decree, This avoid Decree as on .all. persons provided. the to this signatory as well of desiring accept parties hereinafter missio!1r ana wlth an of the ad- case., the discrimination has occurred. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS: l~ The defendants, their officials.,, an~ all persons in active and successorsE pation with covered by the enjoined them in fro¥! engaging purpose or· effect of employee femaln o ,::'...,. potential appl.icant Division [he~eina·fter cause- of def-endants hiring, shall· discipline such individual Further, against I defendants shal~ opposed discriminatory person's· tion~ · i.n\lestigation,. policies participatioi1 gr.am·s Decree - under or permitted this or Decree or or to effectuute shall. not CPD] bethe in part because person that ,ma constitute has because or required of. or in nny against with in compensa- the admh1istration and practices or in"diviaual practices ·cooperation or :Police training, because or litigati_on n·ecree •. R~me'tlial actions any retaliate any person af.fect tha! not black -Specifically, against in whole the _applicant to -as the upgrad~ng, or sex. any has Cincinnati or -sex. discriminate s race adversely referred s race or discharge 1 the with permanently which female or employment assignme.nt, respect of ·this blac_k ·sometimes. not promotion, tionr discriminating any functions are or practice. individual such action in any act or for, of · police in this filea employees or partici- concert performance the Complaint agents, ini tia- of by the carry of out this terms p.ro- unlawful. · Case: 1:18-cv-00412-SJD-KLL Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/12/18 Page: 22 of 116 PAGEID #: 22 ·- ..... ~· ··- ·····-----·---~-------· - c. t discrimination ---·-----_-·--.-·--·-·---· ,)- (__ the m~aning of il2 u.:.s.c. Secl::.ion 2000e- within 2 {a) • 2. that is the purpose It bJ..acks assignment practiies may have so that remediea The defendants all.. compliance is parision labor the undertake portion goal term In· meeting this goals A. within ip It out the sworn ranks that recognized efforts in women sworn which are reflected nnd 1980 Police such Recruit r€cruitment sure, the officers in poS€S of determining who counted as maybe counted the fail having CPD. tl1e in 2 the filling made the to'. complete of as an interim 1 which List this probation female are -the:y •. · For interim shall and -a black position.s the mea-. anq bl.a.ck and female. p_romotional . black to continue agree with appointea, officer, composition Recruit compliance of blacks (34) percent percentages· Police . sub-. . qualified a!:: both blnck sworn pro- _aaopt of ,polii::e Defendants hiring been to the r_anks of . rank and to adopt 1980 to that recently female percent least on the persons For at agreed ·subject 1 basis thirty-four List. of and women ,in the representation entry efforts goal repi:esentecl n. . {23) of· com- the defendants the CJ?D has in the twenty-three sworn to o.E the CJ?D:. to increase _the is whether and:have on an annual below, ?tnd b1acks approximating the goal, to standard Decree applicants.,. women in all and -, blacks of this long_. term set stantial ana ana policies in determining Cincinnati of hiring_, the· be provided opportunity that. to insure discrimination an appropriate City the past of qualified of qualified vacancies from have .agreed qf of blacks interim disad'ilantagE: employment as the. long avail~bility any .that proportion force :.by employment been achieved, has Decree other resulted. egual of this disadvantagea not ·and the cPDand· oi women which tbe women __ are and promotion, and intent of police purgoalr not be female Case: 1:18-cv-00412-SJD-KLL Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/12/18 Page: 23 of 116 PAGEID #: 23 t.P \\.. specialist fiJ.l and sergea.-:itr vacancies in an the of this Decree, percentage of these positions percentage of blacks.and for ~}:o hav~ bee~ met positions, filled ·tive goal •rhis hold exceeding or to the of candidates shall be deemed to fill propoiti.~n the pool a the these · (.2~} pe~_cent of -~he po$itions in representation at and women will equal a~~~JJ~n blacks that so in any certification if be. to shall women in the pool twenty-fi_ve with blacks positions. such goal .manner a.Efirmative termination ·eligible interim are. rela- to th~ir eligible for such _posi- l tions. Three years parties ·shall meet term goals long C. shall be in applicant-pool the -defendants or promote selection {Pd.day, Se~ection August In order 3. entry level examination as basis; ?.5, for the the as purpose over fher_einaf-ter a list a physical establishing as requiring 43 Ped. may administer a list who is e.i~ployment Guidelines R~g. 3$290 Guidelines}. of gualifie-d test transfer a person Uniform Uniform agility and representation validated {1978), goal position. of the defendants cf the black or to hire, qualified mea~ing to establish well of interim he interpreted personnel, Proceaures positions, their 9f properly basis 1978} of the particular shall within aaju_stment qualified to the who is less on the devices on Employee for unnecessary a person more qualified with. in proportioh nothing·herein to hire the achievement positions" vac~cies applicants for Decree1 this Decree. promotional fill of whether neGessary of.this female However, for to entry determine is other For_ all to goal thi_s_ iz_1terim the from on~ applicants c1 written pass-fail of quaJ.ifier:l Case: 1:18-cv-00412-SJD-KLL Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/12/18 Page: 24 of 116 PAGEID #: 24 ~·-~~.-~........ . cand"idates ster for written written. de:i:ens~ for examinations and in no event selectiol;l__procedures . for positions shall in wit~in inconsistent with the the purpose opportunitie~ of 4. (30) days of entry £actors for factors which are considered in are abi_li ty sights, to these factors validity pla.intiff disgualifying cular shall the as · may a.list of be circum- shall review as to .the or acquiescence. .are not of auto'!latically be approval. of the with respect_ to any parti-. be ·deemed· to !!Jay be utilizea and over- changing J;:osition Approvai which or suitamended Plaintiff factors which correct by its those but necessary-to CPD of thirty character required the of and lists "injustice. not fr1.ctor No existing additional purposes with the interim Before of police shall entry. goaJ_s positions iJecn~e, est.ablishcd police be manner made covered in eligibility specialist unless will this the allow from . by be doemea to h~ve expi~ca use of the list entablishing-iiny officer, for of this continnea. show-that the lists lists and said shall appointments eligibility Decree ,·Jitb to .time within individual. 5. can use 2 employment the aisqualifying, considerations. the are of_all·aisqualifying an applicant's notify these in a list These time and of in which evaluating prevent to candidates in paragraph to plaintiff automatically make adjustments or stances,. or CPD which the as a po:J_ice officer not from standards of of limiti.ng De~ree employment. supplemented any of tbe goals proviae this of employment for 2, or women. shall Defendants of a ?' August 10th while I was out on vacation. I also explained to him that sometimes public records request are not always sent directly to the PIO office. Sometimes they are submitted directly to the Records Management Section, the Law Department, or directly to the City Manager's Office. I also explained to Lt. Gladden that l was quite surprised at the amount of overtime Lt Pettis had received from June 2nd through July 1ih, the current pay period. During that time Lt. Pettis had accrued almost 200 hours of OT and that she had worked 21/30 work days in June. Lt. Gladden and I continued our conversation and left with a better understanding of what l trying to accomplish by pulling Lt. Pettis' OT records which was only to bring the matter to the Chiefs attention to protect the Department and the Chief. Later that afternoon at approximately 1330 hours, I met with Chief Blackwell and Lt. Gladden. explained to the Chief that when I first started working for him ! always said that I would have his back and ten him the truth. l also shared that these two things were the impetus of why f pulled Lt. Pettis' time. He quickly said that i had no right to puli her time and that he didn't believe me. He then accused me of orchestrating the public records request for overtime for Lt. Pettis and his entire office. He then stated that he didn't trust me and that he didn't know if he would ever trust me or even work with me. He then began to berate me in front of lt. Gladden discussing every personnel matter, project, or things Hardy 12 Case: 1:18-cv-00412-SJD-KLL Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/12/18 Page: 30 of 116 PAGEID #: 30 he was upset about. His body language was very expressive and he raised his voice. I was quite blown away with his actions and I felt completely deflated. That day I left for a couple of hours because I was concerned for my own mental health and anxiety I felt in the office. AdditionalIncidents Fast forward to August 22, 2015 Chief Blackwell sent photos for me to post. I was having technical difficulties with my phone and laptop, so I explained that I would post on Sunday. On Sunday, after spending my off-day with family, I posted the pictures around 11pm. On Monday, August 24 th there was an early event for which PIO Sgt. Donna Hurst attended. She attended from 0745 hours until about 0830 hours. At 0836 hours, Chief Blackwell sent a text asking me to come over to the event. I explained that Donna had been there and that she should stm be there, The day was progressing along until I was called into the Chiefs Office at about 0930 hours. Upon entering his office I wanted to discuss the week at hand and what we needed to focus on for the day. He immediately started asking why PIO wasn't at the event. l explained to him that Sgt. Hurst had been at the event, taken photos; and had already posted photos to Facebook. He said that has saw that, but we weren't there while he was there. He then began to talk about the weekend pictures and why they weren't posted in a timely manner, f explained the technical difficulties I had on Saturday, but that I had posted on Sunday. He then proceeded to ask "why I should have a take home car, if when he needed me to come in on a Saturday afternoon at 3pm then that's what he needed. He further stated, "And if that meant bringing your ass in a Sunday, it meant bringing your ass in on a Sunday!" I was quite appalled by his use of fanguage. Again, I felt berated and had to leave the office again for the hostile work environment that I felt. This time I continued with one of my sessions with Dr. Daum to discuss how I was feeling. Dr. Daum documented how I was feeling and gave me coping strategies to better deal with the stress. summary In summary confidentiality, loyalty, and trust are important to me as these qualities have been the hallmark of every single position I have held going back to working as a college intern with the U.S. EPA Office of Civil Rights. It is wlth a heavy heart that I have submitted this testimony and presented facts as I know them. Chief Blackwell has had a great community engagement platform and innovative policing strategies and for that I am thankful in how he has been able to engage the community as well as the department. I can say without a shadow of a doubt that the hostility that is felt in the office currently has not always been present. l feel that something in the course of the last six or so months has happened. The last several months have been difficult for me and I have seen the morale of others slip, Several staff have tried to guide Chief Blackwell by presenting our thoughts, suggestions, and ideas to make situations better. The situation may have occurred from the political pressure, lack of support he felt, or even a need for validation, but I felt it necessary to share that the interactions, tone, unrealistic expectations and his level of exhibited frustration has had an adverse impact on the office. Respectfully Submitted, Tiffaney Hardy, Director of Communications Cincinnati Police Department 1.J ', ..•U, -., , ,. <..~ V I3 Case: 1:18-cv-00412-SJD-KLL Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/12/18 Page: 31 of 116 PAGEID #: 31 ,,. ~EOC Form 5 (11/09) • CHARGE OF DISCRIMINATION Charge Presented To: This form is affected by the Privacy Act of 1974. See enclosed Privacy Act Statement and other information before completing this form. Ag 1 EXHIBIT 4 FEPA 473-2018-00623 EEOC Ohio Civil Rights Commission and EEOC State or local Agency, if any Name (indicate Mr., Ms., Mrs.) Home Phone (Incl. Area Code) . Tamera Brown Street Address Date of Birth City, State and ZIP Code 11932 Belgreen Ln., Cincinnati, OH 45240 Named is the Employer, Labor Organization, Employment Agency, Apprenticeship Committee, or State or Local Government Agency That I Believe Discriminated Against Me or Others. (If more than two, list under PARTICULARS below.) Name No. Employees, Members Phone No. (Include Area Code) Unknown (513) 352-3505 No. Employees, Members Phone No. (Include Area Code) CINCINNATI POLICE DEPARTMENT Street Address City, State and ZIP Code 801 Plum St., Cincinnati, OH 45202 Name Street Address City, State and ZIP Code DISCRIMINATION BASED ON (Check appropriate box(es).) • • • [I] RACE COLOR [I] RETALIATION OTHER (Specify) [I] AGE SEX • • • RELIGION DISABILITY • DATE(S) DISCRIMINATIONTOOK PLACE Earliest Latest 12-16-2017 NATIONAL ORIGIN GENETIC INFORMATION • CONTINUINGACTION THE PARTICULARS ARE (If additional paper is needed, attach extra sheet(s)): I. I am Caucasian. I have been subjected to a hostile work environment by my supervisor, Lieutenant Danita Pettis, African American. On November 26, 2017, I filed a formal complaint. On November 28, 2017, LT Pettis filed a complaint against me. On December 16, 2017, I was transferred. II. Management was aware of Lieutenant Pettis behavior toward Caucasian female Officers. Management transferred me only after Lieutenant Pettis filed an erroneous complaint against me. Ill. I believe I have been discriminated and retaliated against, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. I want this charge filed with both the EEOC and the State or local Agency, if any. I will advise the agencies if I change my address or phone number and I will cooperate fully with them in the processing of my charge in accordance with their procedures. I declare under penalty of perjury that the above is true and correct. Mar 13, 2018 Date )a '/~ ' NOTARY - When necessary for State and Local Agency Requirements I swear or affirm that I have rec&nir. e!MY~tWm~~dotial;..it is true to the best of my knowledge, information an I . Flt;E SIGNATURE OF COMPLAINANT MAR1 3 2018 ~2u,n Charging Party Signature SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE~~ (month, day, year) • Case: 1:18-cv-00412-SJD-KLL Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/12/18 Page: 32 of 116 PAGEID #: 32 U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENTOPPORTUNITYCOMMISSION EEOC Form 161 (11/16) DISMISSAL To: AND NOTICE Ms. Tamera Brown 11932 Belgreen Ln. Cincinnati, OH 45240 D OF RIGHTS From: Cincinnati Area Office John W. Peck Fed. Bldg. 550 Main St., Room 10-019 Cincinnati, OH 45202 On behalf of person(s) aggrieved whose identity is CONFIDENTIAL (29 CFR §1601.l(a)) EEOC Charge No. EEOC Representative Telephone No. 473-2018-00623 Derwin E. Jamison, Investigator (513) 684-2844 THE EEOC IS CLOSING ITS FILE ON THIS CHARGE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON: D D D The facts alleged in the charge fail to state a claim under any of the statutes enforced by the EEOC. Your allegations did not involve a disability as defined by the Americans With Disabilities Act. The Respondent employs less than the required number of employees or is not otherwise covered by the statutes. D Your charge was not timely filed with EEOC; in other words, you waited too long after the date(s) of the alleged discrimination to file your charge [KJ D D The EEOC issues the following determination: Based upon its investigation, the EEOC is unable to conclude that the information obtained establishes violations of the statutes. This does not certify that the respondent is in compliance with the statutes. No finding is made as to any other issues that might be construed as having been raised by this charge. The EEOC has adopted the findings of the state or local fair employment practices agency that investigated this charge. Other (briefly state) - NOTICE OF SUIT RIGHTS (See the additional information attached to this form.) Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, or the Age Discrimination in Employment Act: This will be the only notice of dismissal and of your right to sue that we will send you. You may file a lawsuit against the respondent(s) under federal law based on this charge in federal or state court. Your lawsuit must be filed WITHIN 90 DAYS of your receipt of this notice; or your right to sue based on this charge will be lost. (The time limit for filing suit based on a claim under state law may be different.) Equal Pay Act (EPA): EPA suits must be filed in federal or state court within 2 years (3 years for willful violations) of the alleged EPA underpayment. This means that backpay due for any violations that occurred more than 2 years (3 years) before you file suit may not be collectible. On behalf of the Commission Enclosures(s) cc: Mr. William Hicks Senior City Solicitor CITY OF CINCINATI 801 Plum Street City Hall, Rm 214 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Melanie L. Breen, Area Office Director MAR1 4 2018 (Date Mailed) Case: 1:18-cv-00412-SJD-KLL Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/12/18 Page: 33 of 116 PAGEID #: 33 EEOC, CINCINNATI AREA OFFICE EXHIBIT In MAR1 4 2018 EEOC Form 5 (11/09) RECHVEO CHARGE OF DISCRIMINATION :! j •[Kl Charge This form is affected by the PrivacyAct of 1974. See enclosed Privacy Act Statement and other informationbefore completing this form. Presented To: Age 6 FEPA 473-2018-00622 EEOC Ohio Civil Rights Commission and EEOC State or focal Agency, if any Name (indicate Mr., Ms., Mrs.) Home Phone (Incl. Area Code) Date of Birth 1962 Joy Ludgatis City, State and ZIP Code Street Address 11166 Macar Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45241 Named is the Employer, Labor Organization, Employment Agency, Apprenticeship Committee, or State or Local Government Agency That I Believe Discriminated Against Me or Others. (If more than two, list under PARTICULARS below.) Name No. Employees, Members Phone No. (Include Area Code) 500 or More (513) 352-3505 CINCINNATI POLICE DEPARTMENT Street Address City, State and ZIP Code 801 Plum St., Cincinnati, OH 45202 DISCRIMINATIONBASED ON (Check appropriate box(es).) 0 • • • RACE 0 COLOR RETALIATION 0 AGE • • SEX • RELIGION DISABILITY • DATE(S) DISCRIMINATIONTOOK PLACE Earliest Latest 12-10-2017 NATIONALORIGIN GENETICINFORMATION OTHER (Specify) • CONTINUINGACTION THE PARTICULARSARE (If additional paper is needed, attach extra sheet(s)): I. On November 22, 2017, and November 24, 2017, I was verbally attacked and subjected to discriminatory treatment by Lt. Danita Pettis (Female) (African American), in the presence of coworkers because of my sex (Female) and race (Caucasian). During my employment, Lt. Danita Pettis has accused me of making derogatory remarks that were found to be untrue by a peer review. I was transferred to another District because of Lt. Pettis's unfounded accusation. On November 28, 2017, I filed a complaint against Lt. Pettis regarding the hostile work environment that was endorsed by coworkers. On December 1, 2017, Lt. Pettis submitted a transfer request in an attempt to have Officer Tamera Brown (Female) (Caucasian) and I reassigned. I am aware that Lt. Pettis filed a complaint regarding insubordinates creating a hostile work environment. On December 10, 2017, Officer Brown and I were transferred to another District. II. Management has failed to take corrective action and the discriminatory treatment continues. Ill. I believe that I and a class of employees have been discriminated against due to our sex (Female) and race (Caucasian) and retaliated against for our complaints in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. I want this charge filed with both the EEOC and the State or local Agency, if any. I will advise the agencies if I change my address or phone number and I will cooperate fully with them in the processing of my charge in accordance with their 1--pr_o_ce_d_ur_e_s._____________________ I declare under penalty of perjury that the above is true and correct. NOTARY- When necessary for State and Local Agency Requirements I swear or affirm that I have read the above charge and that it is true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. SIGNATUREOF COMPLAINANT SUBSCRIBEDAND SWORN TO BEFORE ME THIS DATE (month, day, year) Case: 1:18-cv-00412-SJD-KLL Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/12/18 Page: 34 of 116 PAGEID #: 34 U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION EEOC Form 1'31 (11116) DISMISSAL AND NOTICE To: Joy Ludgatis 11166 Macar Drive Cincinnati, OH 45241 D OF From: RIGHTS Cincinnati Area Office John W. Peck Fed. Bldg 550 Main St Room 10-019 Cincinnati, OH 45202 On behalf of person(s) aggrieved whose identity is CONFIDENTIAL (29 CFR §1601.l(a)) EEOC Charge No. EEOC Representative Telephone No. 473-2018-00622 Daniel F. Williams, Investigator (513) 357-5599 THE EEOC IS CLOSING ITS FILE ON THIS CHARGE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON: D D D The facts alleged in the charge fail to state a claim under any of the statutes enforced by the EEOC. Your allegations did not involve a disability as defined by the Americans With Disabilities Act. The Respondent employs less than the required number of employees or is not otherwise covered by the statutes. D W D D Your charge was not timely filed with EEOC; in other words, you waited too long after the date(s) of the alleged discrimination to file your charge The EEOC issues the following determination: Based upon its investigation, the EEOC is unable to conclude that the information obtained establishes violations of the statutes. This does not certify that the respondent is in compliance with the statutes. No finding is made as to any other issues that might be construed as having been raised by this charge. The EEOC has adopted the findings of the state or local fair employment practices agency that investigated this charge. Other (briefly state) - NOTICE OF SUIT RIGHTS (Seethe acdil10nal ,nformation attached to this form.) Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, or the Age Discrimination in Employment Act: This will be the only notice of dismissal and of your right to sue that we will send you. You may file a lawsuit against the respondent(s) under federal law based on this charge in federal or state court. Your lawsuit must be filed WITHIN 90 DAYS of your receipt of this notice; or your right to sue based on this charge will be lost. (The time limit for filing suit based on a claim under state law may be different) Equal Pay Act {EPA): EPA suits must be filed in federal or state court within 2 years (3 years for willful violations) of the alleged EPA underpayment. This means that backpay due for any violations that occurred more than 2 years (3 years) before you file suit may not be collectible. On behalf of the Commission Enciosures(s) cc: William Hicks Senior City Solicitor CITY OF CINCINNATI 801 Plum Street City Hall Room 214 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Melanie L. Breen, Area Office Director (Date Mailed) Case: 1:18-cv-00412-SJD-KLL Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/12/18 Page: 35 of 116 PAGEID #: 35 EXHIBIT Ci CINCINN lntenfepartmental Conospondence Sheet Date: 11 /26/17 To: Colonel From: Police Copies Subject: /!/1' Eliot K. Isaac, Officer Tamera Police Chief Brown P314, District \\~ " . I J-1 u 4 to: Captain Martin Mack, District 4 Commander Hostile work environment On 11/24/17, I experienced a disturbing display of unprofessionalism and abuse of rank. While addressing a roll can of third shift officers, one third shift Sergeant and a civilian rider from the Leadership Council of Cincinnati, Lt. Danita Pettis ended a typical roll call with a speech that began with this statement I don't care about your opinion and t don't care What you have to say. She commented specifically about how Specialist Joy Ludgatis believes that her 28 years on the job gives her the right to question the Lt's command decisions. She stated she didn't care if we had 28 years, 28 days, or 128 years. Lt. Pettis stated thatshe is the relief commander and until you, (The officers), take a test and receive some rank you have, "No skin in the game." We will not question her authority and we will follow commands when given. She completed what I can only describe as a tirade by saying, "Everyone in this room knows those officers were not shot at. That to this day the suspect has not been charged with Felonious Assault on an Officer because even the officers involved know they were not being shot at. Now ... Does anyone have anything to say?" Needless to say after being told my contribution of nearly 15 years to Cincinnati Police Department as a Patrol Officer is meaningless until I choose a path she deems as worthy, I refrained from commenting. In this Correspondence I would like to correct her erroneous assumption about Joy Ludgatis questioning her authority. I was personally disturbed by her lack of action on 11/16/17. Her comments that night to the third shift officers being held in roll call that night stating she didn't believe the officers were shot at. Her complete disdain for the events evident by her demeanor and how she ended the roll call 27 minutes after the incident occurred. Releasing us from roll call with the statement, "I guess we better go handle the district since the entire second shift is on this incident." I was so deeply affected by her conduct that I confided in Lt. Christopher Ruehmer. Lt. Ruehmer in tum constructed an email outlining the incident and sent it to the command staff. That email sparked a chain of events leading to an investigation, which caused Lt. Pettis to address 2 separate roll calfs in an egregiously unprofessional and belligerently aggressive manner. I would also like to say I have spoken with the officers involved in the original incident. Those officers absolutely believed they were being fired upon. I personally relieved second shift officers and took custody of the suspect while the incident was being investigated by district 4 investigators. The investigators conducted a GSR kit and took the suspect's discarded clothing sending both to the lab to be analyzed. Charges are pending on the suspect awaiting the results of the lab. I am personally in fear, professionally, of Lt. Pettis' retaliatory actions. I have no doubt they will ensue once it is discovered that I am responsible for setting into motion this current set of events. I understand I have no responsibility for Lt. Pettis' behavior, which was her choice alone. I do not regret taking the actions however I do regret my fellow officers' verbal and emotional abuse at her hands Case: 1:18-cv-00412-SJD-KLL Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/12/18 Page: 36 of 116 PAGEID #: 36 due to the actions I took. Lt. Pettis is a highly intelligent and driven individual with plans for future advancement. She also has a long memory and an impressive tenacity to hold onto a grudge. This is evident in her personal attack of PS. Ludgatis. I have no wish to be the future focus of her ire. This is why I feel compelled to have these incidents formally documented. I'm respectfully requesting to be removed from under Lt. Pettis' supervision, It is evident to me from her actions and statements that she will not be a fair, impartial, and effective supervisor at the conclusion of this investigation. I am willing to speak to others pertaining to these events. I would also respectfully request a private meeting with Captain Mack. TRB/trb ____ ..-l..............- 11~8-n~le,~- 1?tqv~s-r 7HoaooGi-l Jr-l~D~, lJ'J JJS. ~rl '1!.t.>, &.J o-i:= Case: 1:18-cv-00412-SJD-KLL Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/12/18 Page: 37 of 116 PAGEID #: 37 ,, EXHIBIT cl CINCINN Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet Date: 11 /26/17 To: Colonel From: District Eliot K. Isaac, four Third Police Chief Shift Copies to: Captain Mack, Lt. Colonel Neudigate, F.O.P. President Daniel Hils Subject: Hostile Work Environment We have witnessed and have been treated in a manor which we perceive as extremely hostife, demeaning, and unprofessional by Lt. Danita Pettis. Lt. Pettis through practices of verbal abuse and emotional intimidation has created an environment of unproductivity on our relief. We fear unfair retaliation from Lt. Pettis. We wish to respectfully request a conference regarding these matters with Captain Martin Mack. Case: 1:18-cv-00412-SJD-KLL Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/12/18 Page: 38 of 116 PAGEID #: 38 EXHIBIT Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet Date: 11/28/17 To: Colonel Eliot K. Isaac, Police Chief From: Police Specialist Joy ludgatis, District Four Copies to: Captain Martin Mack, Lt. Colonel Neudigate, F.O.P. President Daniel Hils Subject: Hostile Work Environment On 11/22/17 I was the subject of humiliating, demeaning, and unprofessional verbal abuse by Lt. Danita Pettis. This attack occurred during a third shift rollcall with 14 PO/PS's and 2 Sgt's present. This hostile verbal assault occurred after she asked me personally, by name, if I had any comments about why she didn't send 3rd shift officers out of rollcall when 2 nd shift officers came on the air saying they were shot at on 11/16/17. She wrongly assumed I had sent an emaH to the command staff regarding this, when actually Tamara Brown had. Tamara had been so upset about not being sent out into the field to help feHow officers the night of 11/16/17 that she initiated a complaint . Lt. Danita Pettis, assuming it was me, began a persona) tirade against me. She escalated this verbal diatribe to include comments which disrespected Chief Isaac and Lt. Colonel Neudigate in front of the entire relief. She made the comment that she didn't care If I Went running to "The Chief' or "my good buddy Neudigate" because she didn't give a crap what anyone thought She was in charge and nobody was going to question her authority. She made statements belittling my contributions to the relief, saying that because I amthe desk officer I am making these comments from the safety of the district. insinuating I wouldn't risk my personal safety for myfellow officers. She finished this hostile display with a direct threat of retaliation, stating if I didn't watch myself I could find myself transferred "AGAIN". This rant was taped and is added as an attachment to this form 17. Two days later on 11/24/17, in a third shift roncall (which I was not present for), Lt Danita Pettis went through the same authoritarian rant as 2 days prior and named me specifically. She spoke about me in a demeaning and unprofessional manner again to.the rest of the third shift PO/PS and Sergeants on duty that night. Lt Danita Pettis created a hostile work environment on both dates and then sent all the officers out on the streets for a 10 hour tour of duty. Case: 1:18-cv-00412-SJD-KLL Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/12/18 Page: 39 of 116 PAGEID #: 39 EXHIBIT ci CINCINN Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet Date: 11/28/17 To: Colonel From: Lieutenant Danita W. Pettis, District Four Copies Subject: Eliot K. Isaac, Police Chief to: Request for Internal Investigation: Police Sergeant Dan Hil~ On November 27, 2017, I received 7 cell phone calls from Sergeant Dan O'Malley. I returned Sgt. O'Maffey's phone call at approximately 0209 hours. During this phone call Sgt. O'Malley 1.J~L advised me that Sgt. Hils had come to the District Four roll call on 11/26/17, on Lt. Danita µ G6 nrJ G > Pettis' off day to address her roll call and instruct the entire roll call for all the officers who would be interested, in how to go about typing up a hostile work environment complaint t:--00- A~'-\~ against Lt. Pettis, and who to send it to and who to blind cc on the complaint. Sgt. Kelvin 'Nffo Lynn was also present this roll call. \t\JAN,i:;o 'vi ~~\J c-cas Sgt O'Malley then advised Lt. Pettis that Sgt. Hils began to advise aJ.lof the officers in the roll ~~lf,\lD call that he had previously arrested Lt. Pettis, "kicked her ass", and maced her when i--o51H- t:t responding to her home for a call for service. Sgt. Hils then proceeded to go in to the details wof~·c/:>rc:\ :fdl 4th F 2.14 C D G 1 O?h {thrAI'> vA::,rc:\ 1sl!?nd D F E 2.15 G 1.02b (three vears) theft F 2.16 G 1.02c (three vears) felonv F G 2.17 1.02c felony-violation of G 2.26a 1.02d felonv traffic/criminal H 2.26b 1.03 B' D F C Section Three - Attendance 1.04 A/B B A C 3.01a 1.05 (nealiaent A B D 3.01b C 1.05 (intentional D F 3.01c G 1.06a 8 A A 3.01d C 1.06b A B D 3.01e C 1.06c B D 3.02 C F 1.06d D E F 3.03 1.07 3.04 (one vear) 8 F G 1.08 F 8 D G Section Four 1.09 4.01 (non-serious) / A B D C 1.10a 4.01 (serious) A D B C / 1.10b B 4.02 D F / C 1.10c D F 4.03 B G 1.10d B D F 4.04 G 1.11 A B D 4.05 C 1.12 A D B C 4.06 1.13 8 F C D Section Five - Dishonesty 1.13a F 5.01 G 1.14 8 D F 5.02 C 1.15a A D B C Section Six -Substance 1.15b B D C F 6.01 1.16a F B D 6.02a G 1.16b 6.02b B D F C 1.16c F B C D 6.03 1.16d B D 6.04 A C 1.17a D F C G Section Seven • Care of 1.17b D F 7.01 B C 1.18 A B D 7.02 (cateaorv 1 accidents) C 1.19 E F 7.02 (cateaorv 2 accidents) G 1.20a A A B 7.03 C 1.20b A A B 7.04 C 1.21 F 7.05 B C D 1.22a (verbal abuse) A B C D 7.06 1.22b (ohvsical abuse) F C D 7.07 G 1.23a E F G Section Eiaht • Uniforms 1.23b E F 8.01 G 1.23c D E 8.02a G 1.24 F C D 8.02b G 1.25a B D F 8.03 C 1.25b A B D C 8.04a 1.25c A B C D 8.04b B A/8 C C C F D G F B C A C D B C D 1 st ,;,nd ~rd .i,th A A/B B B B D B A B D D D F D D A B C B B B B C C C C C E C C C D C C C C D D C C C C A A C B A/8 A/8 A/B A/B B B A/8 A/B NB A/8 F F B B B B G G D F D D D D F F D D D D G 1 st ?nd -~rd .dth A A!B B A NB A/B A/B A/B B C C C C C A A A B A/B A ' B B D C F D F A A C B D A A 1.26 SECTION FIFTEEN· DISCIPLINARY TABLE Lieutenant Danita Pettis, District Three A Any Corrective Measure Outline in Rule 9.26, Section A B A A/8 A F C B A B B B D C F B D C -~nd ~,'d ,1.lh /8 C F C D B B A D G G D D B C -:t'd Lllh G F G 1 st ::znd F 8 G C D F 1 st ?"'j ~rd 4th C D G F G D F B G F G B C C D F 1 st 7nd ~rd 4th F A/B B C oer curren !auicleli per curren auideli A/B B A D C A B A NB B 8 C C D E D E 1 st ?nd ~rd 4th A A A/B A/B A/8 B B NB 8 C C C C A/B A/B 8 B C C A A A A C B B D C Case: 1:18-cv-00412-SJD-KLL Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/12/18 Page: 110 of 116 PAGEID #: 110 SECTION FIFTEEN - DISCIPLINARY TABLE Sergeant Dan Hils, Chiefs Office 1.26 1.27 A Any Corrective Measure Outline in Rule 9.26, Section A 1.28 B Written Reprimand 1.29 C Hearing (1-5 days suspension) 1.3 D Hearing (5-7 days suspension) 1.31 E Hearing (7-11 days suspension) 1.32 F Hearing (11 days suspension or more, demotion, or dis m 1.33 G Hearing (dismissal) Section Two - Nealect of H Hearing (suspension without pay) 2.01 AUtime lengths for repeated conduct are based 2.02 on a 36-month period unless otherwise stated. 2.03a 2.03b 2.04 ?nd 14 th ~rd Failure of Good Behavior 1 st 2.05 1.01a 2.06 A A B C 1.01b B A D 2.07 C 1.01c B C D E 2.08 1.01d F 2.09 D E C 1.01e 2.10 D E F G 1.01f F E 2.11 G 1.01Q F 2.12 G 1.02a <>"9ar!'l, ~rd/4th D F 2.14 C G 5tl nd 2.15 D E F G ! 1 O?h fthrAA """''"'\ 1 ? 1.02b (three vears) theft F 2.16 G 1.02c (three vears) felonv 2.17 F G 1.02c felonv-violation of 2.26a G 1.02d felony traffic/criminal H 2.26b 1.03 F B C D Section Three - Attendance 1.04 A/B B 3.01a A C 1.05 (negligent 3:01b D A B C 1.05 (intentional F D 3.01c G 1.06a 3.01d A A C B 1.06b 3.01e A B D C 1.06c F 3.02 B C D 1.06d E 3.03 D F 1.07 3.04 lone vearl F B G 1.08 D F B G Section Four 1.09 4.01 (non-serious) B D A C 1.10a 4.01 (serious) D A B C 1.10b B F C D 4.02 1.10c 4.03 D B F G 1.10d 4.04 B D F G 1.11 4.05 B D A C 1.12 4.06 B D A C 1.13 B C D F Section Five - Dishonestv 1.13a 5.01 G F 1.14 5.02 B D F C 1.15a D Section Six -Substance A B C 1.15b 6.01 F B C D 6.02a 1.16a G B D F 6.02b 1.16b 8 F C D 1.16c F 6.03 B D C 6.04 1.16d D 8 A C 1.17a Section Seven • Care of D F G C 1.17b F 7.01 B C D 1.18 7.02 (cateoorv 1 accidents) 8 D A C 1.19 7.02 (cateaorv 2 accidents) F E G 1.20a 7.03 A A B C 1.20b 7.04 A A B C 1.21 F 7.05 C D B 1.22a (verbal abuse) 7.06 B D A C 1.22b lohvsical abuse) 7.07 D F G C 1.23a F Section Eiaht - Uniforms E G 8.01 1.23b F E G 1.23c 8.02a E D G 8.02b 1.24 D F G C 1.25a F 8.03 B C D 1.25b D 8.04a A B C 1.25c 8.04b 8 D A C A A B A B A C C B D C B D C F D C A D B C D 1 st 7nd :;ird 4 th B C D C C D D C 8 B D A B B A/B A A A A/8 A B A/B A/B A/8 A/B B 8 A/B A/B A/B B B C 8 B B B C C A/B B 8 B B F F G 1 st A A A A A B A/B A 1 st A/B F E C C C D C C C C D D C C F D G F G F D D D F D D D D F F C C C C D D '\trd ,11.lh D D G 2nd A/B A/B A/B A/B A/B C B A -,nd B C B C C B B 8 B C C F D C ,;ird 4th D C D C A A/B B D B B C F C C A A B D D C F F G -:ird 4th 1"' F B 1 st G G -,nd G C D F ?nd ~rd 4 th C F D B B D G F C F G G F G C D F 1 st -,nd -:ird 4th B C A/B per oer A A A/B B A A/8 B C C 8 1 st A A A A A A D curren ·auideli curren auideli -,nil A/B A/8 A/B A/B A/8 A/8 B C C B D C D E 3rd 4th B C C C C C C B B B B B D E Case: 1:18-cv-00412-SJD-KLL Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/12/18 Page: 111 of 116 PAGEID #: 111 SECTION FIFTEEN~ DISCIPLINARY TABLE 1.26 Sergeant Dan O'Malley, District Four A Any Corrective Measure Outline in Rule 9.26, Section A 1.27 A C C F D B C D A/B B C 8 C D C F C D F D F C G ~rd 4th B B C C D B D C D E C C F D 1.28 Written Reprimand 1.29 1.3 Hearing (1-5 days suspension) 1.31 Hearing (5-7 days suspension) Hearing (7-11 days suspension) 1.32 Hearing (11 days suspension or more, demotion, or dism 1.33 Hearing (dismissal) Section Two • Nealect of H Hearing(suspension without pay) 2.01 All time lengths for repealed conduct are based 2.02 on a 36-month period unless othen.'Vise stated. 2.03a 2.03b 2.04 .,oo ,:ird '1SI 4th Failure of Good Behavior 2.05 1.Q1a A 2.06 A B C 1.01b A 2.07 B D C 1.01c B D E 2.08 C 1.01d 2.09 C D E F 1.01e D F E G 2.10 1.01f E 2.11 F G 1.01g F 2.12 G 1.02a (three vearsl AJB 2.13 B D C 2.14 ,1 ()?h 1+1-,,,..,., ""''"""\ ~rd!J_l'"> C D F G '1 ()?h (thr<:>c \IA~rs:) 1 sll::,nd D E F 2.15 G 1.02b {three vears) theft F 2.16 G 1.02c (three vears l felonv F 2.17 G 1 .02c felonv-violation of 2.26a G 1 .02d felonv traffic/criminal H 2.26b 1.03 B F D Section Three • Attendance C 1.04 A A/B B C 3.01a 1.05 (neolioent A D B 3.01b C 1.05 {intentional 3.01c D F G 1.06a A 3.01d A B C 1.06b A 3.01e B C D 1.06c B D F 3.02 C 1.06d D 3.03 E F 1.07 3.04 (one vear} B F G 1.08 B F D G Section Four 1.09 4.01 {non-serious\ A B D C 1.10a A 4.01 (serious) D B C 1.10b B F 4.02 D C 1.10c B D F G 4.03 1.10d B 4.04 D F G 1.11 A D B C 4.05 1.12 A D 4.06 B C 1.13 F B D Section Five - Dishonestv C 1.13a F 5.01 G 1.14 B F 5.02 D C 1.15a A B D C Section Six -Substance 1.15b B D F 6.01 C 1.16a B D F 6.02a G 1.16b 6.02b B C D F 1.16c B D F 6.03 C 1.16d A B D 6.04 C 1.17a C D F G Section Seven • Care of 1.17b B F D 7.01 C 1.18 A B D 7.02 (cateaorv 1 accidents) C 1.19 E F 7.02 (cateaorv 2 accidents) G 1.20a A A B C 7.03 1.20b A A B C 7.04 1.21 B D F C 7.05 1.22a (verbal abuse) A D B C 7.06 1.22b fohvsical abuse) C D F G 7.07 1.23a E F Section Eiaht - Uniforms G 1.23b E F G 8.01 1.23c D E G 8.02a 1.24 C D F G 8.02b 1.25a B F D C 8.03 1.251.J A B D 8.04a C 1.25c A B D 8.04b C B C D E F G B 8 A A A A B 1 st ?"" A A A C B B B A/B A A B NB C A/8 A/B AJB B B AJB AJB AJB B B B B C C B 8 B G D D D D C D C C C C D D C C C D C D F D D D D F F D D A/8 F F B G 1 st A A ?nd •4<>.,.,,,.,<:\ ._,di4th 2.14 C D F G 11 fl?h (throo vA::irc::\ 1st1,nd D E 2.15 F G 1.02b (three vears) theft F G 2.16 1.02c (three vears) felony F 2.17 G 1.02c felonv-violation of 2.26a G 1.02d felonv traffic/criminal H 2.26b 1.03 F B C D Section Three - Attendance 1.04 A/B 8 A 3.01a C 1.05 (neQliQent A 3.01b B C D 1.05 (intentional D 3.0ic F G 1.06a 3.01d A A B C 1.06b A B 3.01e C D 1.06c B 3.02 D F C 1.06d D E F 3.03 1.07 F 3.04 {one vear} B G 1.08 B D F G Section Four 1.09 A B 4.01 (non-serious) C D 1.10a A 4.01 (serious) B D C 1.10b B 4.02 D F C 1.10c B D 4.03 F G 4.04 1.10d B F D G 1.11 8 A D 4.05 C 1.12 A B 4.06 D C 1.13 8 D C F Section Five • Dishonestv 1.13a F 5.01 G 1.14 B D 5.02 C F 1.15a A B C D Section Six -Substance 1.15b 8 D F 6.01 C 1.16a B D 6.02a F G 6.02b 1.16b B C D F 1.16c B 6.03 D F C 1.16d A B D 6.04 C 1.17a C D F Section Seven • Care of G 1.17b 8 D F 7.01 C 1.18 A B D 7.02 (cateaorv 1 accidents) C 1.19 F E 7.02 (cateaorv 2 accidents) G 1.20a A A B 7.03 C 1.20b A A B 7.04 C 1.21 B D F 7.05 C 1.22a (verbal abuse) A B D 7.06 C 1.22b (phvsical abuse) C D F 7.07 G 1.23a F E G Section Eiaht - Uniforms 1.23b E F 8.01 G 1.23c D E G 8.02a 1.24 D F C 8.02b G 1.25a B D F 8.03 C 1.25b A B D 8.04a C 1.25c A B C D 8.04b A A A A B B B A/B C B D C C B D C F D C A D F 8 C F G D 1 st 7nd '.'-\rd 4th A A A B B B C C D D C D C D B B B C E C C C D C A/B A A B A/B B B A/8 B A/8 B C C A/8 B B C C C D D C C C C F D G F D D D F D D D D B 8 8 B G G C C F F D D D D 1 st 7nd ~rd .tlh A B B iB C A A/8 A/B A/B A A/8 C A B A/8 13 B A/8 B D G F D A/B A/8 A/B A/B F F A C C C C A A B C 1sl ?nd '-lrd 4th A/8 8 D B G D F G C G El D D C -:iri::\ 1st1? nd 1.02b (three vears) theft 1.02c (three years) felonv 1.02c felony-violation of 1.02d felony traffic/criminal 1.03 1.04 1.05 (neqligent 1.05 {intentional 1.06a 1.06b 1.06c 1.06d 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.10a 1.10b 1.10c 1.10d 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.13a 1.14 1.15a 1.15b 1.16a 1.16b 1.16c 1.16d 1.17a 1.17b 1.18 1.19 1.20a 1.20b 1.21 1.22a (verbal abuse) 1.22b (phvsical abuse) 1.23a 1.23b 1.23c 1.24 1.25a 1.25b 1.25c 11st 12nd jrd 4 1h A A A 8 C D 8 C D C D E F E F G F G B D E G C F B C D E F A/B C D F F E F G D G G G D 4.05 D F 4.06 Section Five - Dishonestv 5.01 5.02 Section Six -Substance H B C D F A B C C D A/8 B F A A A B D B B B C A A B B B B A A B F B A B B B B A C E F D B C D D B B C G B C D F G F C C D F F C C D G D D F G D F C D C D C D C B D C F G F F D D F C A B D C E F G A A A A B B C B D C C E E D C D F G G G B C B B A A C D F B 8 A D G C F F F E D B 2.15 2.16 2.17 2.26a 2.26b Section Three • Attendance 3.01a 3.01b 3.01c 3.01d 3:01e 3.02 3.03 3.04 (one year) Section Four• 4.01 (non-serious) 4.01 (serious) 4.02 4.03 4.04 G G A Section Two - Nealect of 2.01 2.02 2.03a 2.03b 2.04 2.05 2.06 2.07 2.08 2.09 2.10 2.11 2.12 2.13 2.14 D G F D C C F D G B C C 8 D B C C F D A A B A/8 A A C D C D B F D F C F G D 1 st :;ind :trd 4th A B B B D C C B C A A A C C A/8 B E C A A B A/8 A/8 A/8 A/8 B C B C D C C C C D C B B 8 B G D D D F D D D F D D D D F F C C B D C D B D A/B A/B C B C B C D D F F G 1 st ?nd '1.rd ,1.lh A A A A/8 A/B C A A A/8 B B B B B AtB A/8 G A/8 C B C C B C D C A A/8 C B A 8 F D C 1 st ?nd -.ird ,1.lh A/B B C A D C F C C B G D D '.!rd ,1th B AJB A/B B B A F F G G ,isl 7nd F A D C B G C 1 st 2nd 6.01 C 6.02a 6.02b 6.03 6.04 Section Seven - Care of 7.01 7.02 (cateoorv 1 accidents) 7.02 {cateaorv 2 accidents) 7.03 7.04 7.05 7.06 7.07 Section Eiaht • Uniforms F D G F C C F D G F 2nd 3rd ,1.th B C D 8.Q1 8.02a F G 8.02b D C C F D D 8.03 8.04a 8.04b D B B 1"' A/B per oer A A A B F 41h F G G curren lauideli curren Iauideli A/8 B A/B C B C 1 st ?nd A A A A A A D jrd 8 C C B D D C E E D jrd ,1th A/B A/B B C C A/8 B A/B AJB AJB B B B B C C C C Case: DOC #1 1 Filed: 06/12/18 Page: 115 Of 116 PAGEID 115 Case: 1:18-cv-00412-SJD-KLL Doc #: 1 Filed: 06/12/18 Page: 116 of 116 PAGEID #: 116 EXHIBIT I I 1! Interdepartmental Correspondence Sheet Date: 5/24/18 To: Colonel Eliot K. Isaac, Police Chief From: Police Specialist Joy Ludgatis, District Two Copies Subject: to: Captain Aaron Jones, Lt. Colonel Neudigate, F.O.P. President Daniel Hils Continued Discriminatory, Unprofessional and Disrespectful Behavior by Lt. Danita Pettis On April 23, 2018 during a FOP meeting, which I was not present for, in the presence of 128 members, Lt. Danita Pettis lied about me yet again. She stated that I was transferred in 2015 from CBS to District 4 because I was reprimanded and found guilty of being a racist. P.S. Kathy Harrell (who represented me for my peer review for this reprimand) told the 128 members the truth that the reprimand was reversed and the reason for my transfer was because I stated I did not want to work for Lt. Pettis because I did not trust her. Lt. Pettis then stated the Peer Review panel was selectively picked to be all male whites for my benefit. P.S. Harrell explained how a Peer Review Panel is randomly selected. On April 24, 2018, while P.S. Harrell was on duty working, Lt. Pettis (while off-duty) showed up to confront Kathy about standing up to her at the FOP meeting the previous night. Lt. Pettis stated again that I was a racist and accused P.S. Harrell of only siding with me because we were friends. She again stated the Peer Review Panel was made up of all male white racists. The argument was disruptive and loud enough for other officers on duty in the district to hear. P.S. Harrell had to demand Lt. Pettis to leave the district so she could do her work. This pattern of behavior by Lt. Pettis is very disturbing and I question her mental stability. I worry what she is going to say about me next or what she might do. This behavior is bizarre in light of the fact that I have never had a conversation with Lt. Pettis in my entire career, even when I worked for her. Is she really capable of being in a leadership role? Her obsession with me and her continued disparaging remarks about me are poisoning relationships with coworkers and creating a sense of isolation and tension for me. I perceive her hostility toward me only to be because I am female white. She singles out female whites to verbally attack and demean such as P.O. Tamara Brown and P.S. Kathy Harrell who are also female whites. She doesn't treat any of the black or male officers this way. She uses her aggressive and hostile demeanor to intimidate subordinates into silence which allows her to violate department rules and laws of Ohio without fear of repercussions. The City of Cincinnati Administrative Regulation #55 - Workplace Behavior Policy, clearly states that unprofessional or disrespectful behavior and bullying will not be tolerated. It further states failure to adhere to this policy may result in corrective action up to and including termination. So I ask you, how many more years of discrimination and harassment do I have to endure at the hands of Lt. Danita Pettis just because I am a female white?? JAL/jal