Case 2:19-cv-02079-JS Document 6 Filed 06/26/19 Page 1 of 10 ZEFF LAW FIRM, LLC Gregg L. Zeff, Esquire, #52648 Eva C. Zelson, Esquire, #320699 100 Century Parkway, Suite 305 Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054 (856) 778-9700 Attorneys for Plainti? IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LISA SALVATO 729 Bergen Street Philadelphia, PA 1911 Plainti?f V. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA One Parkway Bldg, 14th Floor 15 15 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 AND POLICE COMMISSIONER RICHARD ROSS One Parkway Bldg., 14th Floor 15 15 Arch Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 Defendants. CIVIL ACTION NO 19-2079 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED AMENDED COMPLAINT Plaintiff Lisa Salvato, by and through her attorneys Zeff Law Firm, LLC, hereby brings this Amended Complaint against the Defendants, the City of Philadelphia and Police Commissioner Richard Ross. All changes from the original complaint are in bold. PARTIES Case Document 6 Filed 06/26/19 Page 2 of 10 . Plaintiff Lisa Salvato (?Plaintiff?) is an adult individual who resides at the above-listed address. . Defendant City of Philadelphia (?Defendant City?) is a municipality with of?ces located at the above-listed address. . Defendant City employed Plaintiff during all times relevant herein. . Defendant Police Commissioner Richard Ross (?Defendant Commissioner?) has been the Commissioner of the Philadelphia Police Department since 2016. As Commissioner and in his prior role(s) within the Police Department, Commissioner Ross is responsible for promulgating and enforcing all policies, customs and practices of the City Police Department. JURISDICTION AND VENUE . Jurisdiction is properly laid in this Court as all Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in the state of Plaintiff received a Right to Sue Letter from the EEOC (attached hereto as Exhibit and has timely ?led this complaint. All acts and omissions complained of herein occurred in Philadelphia County, STATEMENT OF FACTS . Plaintiff is a current Police Officer for Defendant City. Plaintiff has been employed in that capacity since at least 2012. . Plaintiff is quali?ed for her position, and performs well. 10. 11. 12. l3. 14. 15. l6. 17. 18. 19. Case Document 6 Filed 06/26/19 Page 3 of 10 In or around 2013, Plaintiff began being subjected to sexual harassment at work. Plaintiff complained about this harassment and was thereafter subjected to retaliation by Defendant City. Plaintiff ?led a lawsuit against Defendant City alleging sexual harassment and retaliation. In or around July of 2014, Plaintiff and Defendant City agreed to settle Plaintiff?s lawsuit. As a condition of settlement, Defendant City agreed to transfer Plaintiff to the Maj or Crime Unit. On July 9, 2014, Plaintiff reported to the Major Crime Unit. Plaintiff was immediately told by new coworkers that they had heard about her lawsuit. In or around mid-July of 2014, a new captain, Roland Lee began working at the Major Crime Unit. On his ?rst day of work, Lee approached Plaintiff and said know who you are and how you got here?. Following this, Lee continually harassed Plaintiff about various issues because Plaintiff had ?led a discrimination lawsuit. In or December 2014, Plaintiff approached Lee about a possible internal promotion. Lee responded long as I am captain, you aren?t going anywhere. If you don?t like it, transfer out?. Following this comment, Lee continued to harass Plaintiff, and frequently ordered Plaintiff to put the names of other employees on her work so that they got credit for the work. In or around February of 2017, Lee ordered Plaintiff to move her desk to an isolated location. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. Case Document 6 Filed 06/26/19 Page 4 of 10 On November 11, 2017, Plaintiff was walking into the building where she worked when a supervisor sped up behind her in his car, forcing Plaintiff to jump out of the way of the speeding car. This incident caused Plaintiff to fear for her life. Immediately following the incident, Plaintiff?s supervisor began laughing and bragging that he had ?scared? her. Plaintiff had a severe physical reaction to the stress caused by the incident, such that she had to leave work. On November 13, 2017, Plaintiff reported that her supervisor had purposefully almost run her over with his car. Both Lee and Plaintiff supervisor harassed and berated her for reporting the incident. Plaintiff supervisor called her an ?asshole?. In or around July of 2018, Plaintiff was loudly and publicly berated by a coworker. In or around July of 2018, Plaintiff was subjected to fabricated disciplinary charges. On July 16, 2018, Plaintiff ?led a Charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging race and sex discrimination and retaliation. On July 31, 2018, Plaintiff was taken off a case she had been working on for almost two (2) years. The fabricated discipline against Plaintiff is currently pending and could lead to her termination. Defendant City, at the time Plaintiff was sexually harassed and retaliated against and for many years prior, has and had a well settled practice of sexual harassment and retaliation pervading the police department. See, Vandegrift v. City of Philadelphia, No, 16-2999 (Opinion of the Honorable Mark A. Kearney, 1/ 1 1/ 17.) 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. Case Document 6 Filed 06/26/19 Page 5 of 10 Among other things, Defendant City?s Police Department maintains a grossly sexist culture in which male employees who engage or engaged in inappropriate sexual conduct are protected. Male employees of all ranks in the Philadelphia police department on a weekly basis barrage female of?cers with demeaning sexist comments and conduct. Among other things, Defendant City?s Police Department?s culture, policies and practices protect sexual harassers and cover up sexual abuse by of?cers. Among other things, Defendant City Police Department retaliates against female officers that make complaints related to sex. The Defendant City?s well settled practice of sexual harassment and retaliation pervading the police department encouraged, empowered and permitted Defendant City?s employees to retaliate against Plaintiff because of her complaints. Defendant City?s policymakers were deliberately indifferent to the well-settled practice of sexual harassment and retaliation pervading the police department. Defendant City?s policymakers were deliberately indifferent to the need for proper training and discipline of police of?cers regrading sexual harassment and retaliation. Defendant City?s well settled practice of sexually harassing and retaliating against female officers was and is a substantial reason for the discipline and harassment she is currently enduring. Since the filing of the complaint in this matter, as of May 21, 2019 Plaintiff was transferred, as harassment and in retaliation for her complaints, to Southwest Detectives. 40. 41. 42. 43 44. 45. 46. Case 2:19-cv-02079-JS Document 6 Filed 06/26/19 Page 6 of 10 This transfer is punitive and retaliation. Defendant City know at the time of the punitive transfer that Plaintiff is a single parent of a child with serious disabilities that require weekly treatment and that she must be picked up and dropped off by Plaintiff from school as a result of her issues. Southwest Detectives is the exact location that the Plaintiff in Vandergrift was transferred to and further harassed in retaliation for her complaints. The Defendant City knew at that the time of the transfer and ongoing, that the transfer creates an unstable, unsafe environment for Plaintiff?s daughter at a crucial time in her therapy. . The Defendant City knew at the time of the transfer and ongoing, that Plaintiff?s former positon in Gun Permits allowed her the time and schedule to care for her daughter. The Defendant City knew at the time of the transfer and ongoing ng that Plaintiff?s supervisor?s in Gun Permits were at least satisfied with her performance and did not want her transferred. The Defendant City knew at the time of the transfer and ongoing that Plaintiff?s commute to Gun Permits was about 20 minutes and permitted her to make her daughter?s medical and other appointments. The Defendant City knew at the time of the punitive transfer that Southwest Detectives is over an hour commute for Plaintiff and that she would not be able to 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. Case Document 6 Filed 06/26/19 Page 7 of 10 make her daughter?s appointments with the Southwest Detective schedule and location. Despite this knowledge and requests by Plaintiff for an accommodation or transfer back to Gun Permits, Defendant City. Defendant City?s refusal to accommodate of transfer Plaintiff to an assignment that allows her to care for her child is retaliation for the filing of this lawsuit, because of her past complaints and because she is a woman. Plaintiff v. All Defendants Violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 (Monell) Unconstitutional Policy, Practice or Custom Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if same were set forth herein at length. 56. As a result of Defendants? Constitutionally in?rm policies, customs and practices described above, Plaintiff has been deprived of her pursuit of Life, Liberty and Happiness, Due Process and other Constitutional Rights in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants in an amount in excess of $100,000.00 plus interest, costs, attorney's fees. Plaintiff v. Defendant City Violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: Retaliation Plaintiff incorporates by reference each allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if the same were set forth more fully at length herein. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. Case 2:19-cv-02079-JS Document 6 Filed 06/26/19 Page 8 of 10 Plaintiff engaged in activity protected by Title VII. Plaintiff ?led a lawsuit alleging discrimination Thereafter, Defendant took adverse employment actions against Plaintiff, including, but not limited to, causing her to think she was being violently run over and fabricating discipline against her. There exists a causal connection between Plaintiff?s participation of the protected activity and the adverse employment actions. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants in an amount in excess of $100,000.00 plus interest, costs, attorney's fees. Plaintiff v. Defendant City The Human Relations Act: Retaliation Plaintiff incorporates by reference each allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if the same were set forth more fully at length herein. Plaintiff engaged in activity protected by the Human Relations Act. Plaintiff ?led a lawsuit alleging discrimination. Thereafter, Defendant took adverse employment actions against Plaintiff, including, but not limited to, causing her to think she was being violently run over and fabricating discipline against her. There exists a causal connection between Plaintiff? participation of the protected activity and the adverse employment actions. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants in an amount in excess of $100,000.00 plus interest, costs, attorney's fees. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. Case 2:19-cv-02079-JS Document 6 Filed 06/26/19 Page 9 of 10 Plaintiff v. Defendant City First Amendment Plaintiff incorporates by reference each allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs as if the same were set forth more fully at length herein. Plaintiff ?led a complaint alleging violations of Title VII. In response to the complaint, Defendant City transferred Plaintiff and refused to move Plaintiff to an assignment that would accommodate her disabled child as described above. The actions of Defendant City violate the First Amendment through 42 U.S.C. 1983 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants in an amount in excess of $100,000.00 plus interest, costs, attorney's fees. ZEFF LAW FIRM, LLC /s/Gregg L. Ze?f Esq. Gregg L. Zeff, Esq. Attorney for Plainti?fs Case 2:19-cv-02079-JS Document 6 Filed 06/26/19 Page 10 of 10 eeoc Form 161 (11:13) U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION DISMISSAL AND NOTICE OF RIGHTS T0: Lisa Salvato From Philadelphia District Office 729 Bergen Street 801 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19111 Suite 1300 Philadelphial PA 19107 I: On behalf of person{s) aggrieved whose identity is CONFIDENTIAL (29 CFR EEOC Charge No. EEOC Representative Telephone No. Legal Unit, 530-2018-04822 Legal Technician (215) 440-2828 THE EEOC IS CLOSING ITS FILE ON THIS CHARGE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON: 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 de?ned by the Americans With Disabilities Act. The Respondent employs less than the required number of employees or is not otherwise covered by the statutes. Your charge was not timely ?led with in other words. you waited too long after the datets) of the alleged discrimination to ?le'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 ?nding 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 01' local fair employment practices agency that Investigated this charge. DD Other (brie?y state) - NOTICE OF SUIT RIGHTS - (See the additional infonnatton 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 willbe lost. (The time limit for ?ling suit based on a claim under state law may be different.) Equal Pay Act (EPA): EPAsuits must be ?led 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 before you file suit may not be collectible. On behalf of the Commission Jamie R. Williamson, (DateMaiIed) District Director Enclosurests) cc: Linda Busiilo Sr. Legal Assistant Supervisor PHILADELPHIA LAW DEPARTMENT 1515 Arch Street 16th Floor Philadelphia, PA 1 9102