Magdziarz v. St. Charles
Magdziarz v. St. Charles
2011-CC00694
HOLLY MAGDZIARZ, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No.
)
ST. CHARLES COUNTY, MISSOURI, )
)
Serve: Steve Ehlmann, County Executive )
100 N. Third Street )
St. Charles, MO 63301 )
)
Defendant. ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
COMES NOW Plaintiff Holly Magdziarz, by and through counsel, and for her Petition for
Damages against Defendant St. Charles County, Missouri, states and alleges as follows:
2. Defendant St. Charles County, Missouri, is a body corporate and politic operating
under a charter form of government as authorized by Article VI, Section 18a of the Missouri
Constitution. Article I, Section 1.501 of the St. Charles County Charter states that Defendant “shall
have all powers possible for a County to have under applicable law,” which includes the power to
be sued as a county.
3. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant has been an “employer” within the
meaning of the Missouri Human Rights Act (“MHRA”), Mo. Rev. Stat. § 213.010(8), in that it is
4. Venue in this Court is proper pursuant to Mo. Rev. Stat. § 213.111, in that the
Electronically Filed - St Charles Circuit Div - July 29, 2020 - 09:50 AM
unlawful discriminatory practices alleged in this action were committed in St. Charles County,
Missouri.
6. Throughout her employment with Defendant, Plaintiff has held the position of
7. At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff performed the duties and
Counselor.
January 1, 2019.
11. Defendant’s Charter states that the County Counselor shall hold office at the
12. Steve Ehlmann (“Ehlmann”) currently serves as Defendant’s County Executive and
13. Defendant’s Charter also provides for a Director of Administration, who shall be
14. The Director of Administration serves as the principal managerial aide to the
County Executive and performs duties that include supervising all departments, offices, and
agencies of the executive branch and advising the County Executive on all administrative matters.
2
Electronically Filed - St Charles Circuit Div - July 29, 2020 - 09:50 AM
Administration and has held that position throughout Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant.
17. During the time that Leykam held the position of County Counselor, she was the
primary attorney assigned to handle legal matters for the St. Charles County Sheriff’s Department.
18. In 2014, Plaintiff began performing legal work for the St. Charles County Sheriff’s
Department. At that time, David Todd (“Todd”) held the position of Captain with the Sheriff’s
Department and had worked for the Sheriff’s Department for approximately 37 years.
19. Because Leykam had previously performed legal work for the St. Charles County
Sheriff’s Department when she served as Defendant’s County Counselor, she had a longstanding
20. Upon information and belief, Leykam, Todd, and their families have engaged in
created St. Charles County Police Department assumed primary responsibility for law enforcement
in unincorporated areas of St. Charles County. Todd was appointed to become the first Chief of
22. Beginning in 2014 and continuing until 2019, Plaintiff was subjected to unwelcome
and offensive sexual harassment by Todd. The harassment by Todd included, but was not limited
Regional SWAT Team when she was eight and a half months pregnant and
stating, “Boys, this is Holly. Get a good look at her and make sure it’s not
3
Electronically Filed - St Charles Circuit Div - July 29, 2020 - 09:50 AM
yours”;
c. ordering a Police Department polo shirt for Plaintiff and telling her that he
wanted to get the size right so that it would fit over her “ladies”;
d. stating in a text message to Plaintiff that the Police Department was “lucky
to have such a smart lawyer, but smoking hot doesn’t hurt either”;
g. placing his arm around Plaintiff, scratching her back, and rubbing her
i. helping Plaintiff take off her coat and brushing his hand against the side of
j. making comments about the size of a police officer’s penis and nicknaming
him “tripod”;
m. making comments about Leykam calling him and interrupting him while he
n. placing his arm around other female employees of Defendant and kissing
4
Electronically Filed - St Charles Circuit Div - July 29, 2020 - 09:50 AM
o. calling female employees of Defendant a “bitch” or a “cunt”; and
employees of Defendant.
23. Plaintiff was also subjected to unwelcome and offensive harassment by Hazelwood
that was demeaning and degrading toward women. The harassment by Hazelwood included, but
c. giving female employees dish towels as Christmas gifts (without giving dish
24. Plaintiff’s gender was a contributing and/or motivating factor in the harassment to
25. The harassment to which Plaintiff was subjected by Todd and Hazelwood was
employment, and the harassment created a hostile work environment for Plaintiff.
26. In 2017 and 2018, Plaintiff complained verbally to Leykam about the harassment
27. Leykam also had knowledge of some of the offensive comments and conduct by
Todd and Hazelwood because she personally witnessed them or become aware of them from other
sources.
28. Upon information and belief, one or more other female employees of Defendant
were also subjected to unwelcome harassment by Todd and/or Hazelwood and complained about
5
Electronically Filed - St Charles Circuit Div - July 29, 2020 - 09:50 AM
the harassment to Defendant.
29. Despite Defendant’s knowledge of the offensive comments and conduct by Todd
and Hazelwood, Defendant failed to take appropriate action to stop the harassment from occurring
30. The unwelcome harassment to which Plaintiff was subjected by Todd and
Hazelwood, and Defendant’s failure to take prompt and effective remedial action to end the
harassment despite having knowledge of it, constitutes unlawful discrimination because of sex in
31. In December 2018, Defendant excluded Plaintiff from attending a training session
that she was entitled to attend and that was relevant to her job.
responsibilities for the St. Charles County Police Department and assigned other duties to her.
33. Upon information and belief, Leykam had a significant amount of input into the
decision to exclude Plaintiff from the training session and to have her reassigned from the St.
34. Plaintiff’s complaints about the unwelcome harassment by Todd and Hazelwood
were contributing and/or motivating factors in Defendant’s exclusion of Plaintiff from the training
session and the removal of Plaintiff’s responsibilities for the St. Charles County Police
Department, and such actions constitute unlawful retaliation in violation of Mo. Rev. Stat.
§ 213.070(2).
35. Despite the removal of Plaintiff’s responsibilities for the St. Charles County Police
36. On June 12, 2019, Plaintiff complained in writing to Ehlmann and Watson that she
6
Electronically Filed - St Charles Circuit Div - July 29, 2020 - 09:50 AM
had been subjected to unwelcome sexual harassment by Todd and retaliated against by Leykam
37. Upon information and belief, Defendant investigated Plaintiff’s written complaint
to Ehlmann and Watson, but Defendant did not take any action to remedy the harassment or
38. After Plaintiff complained about the unwelcome harassment and retaliation to
Ehlmann and Watson, Defendant removed some of Plaintiff’s case files from her computer system
and prevented her from accessing them. Defendant also blocked Plaintiff from viewing shared
office files that other employees in her office were able to access.
39. Plaintiff’s complaint to Ehlmann and Watson was a contributing and/or motivating
factor in Defendant’s removal of Plaintiff’s case files and blocking of Plaintiff’s access to shared
office files, and such actions constitute unlawful retaliation in violation of Mo. Rev. Stat.
§ 213.070(2).
40. On November 8, 2019, Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination with the Missouri
41. On May 12, 2020, the MCHR issued a Notice of Right to Sue to Plaintiff for charge
42. Plaintiff has filed this action against Defendant within 90 days of the issuance of
the Notice of Right to Sue and within two years of the discriminatory and retaliatory actions alleged
herein.
43. As a result of Defendant’s actions as alleged herein, Plaintiff has suffered emotional
distress, humiliation, embarrassment, mental anguish and suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life.
7
Electronically Filed - St Charles Circuit Div - July 29, 2020 - 09:50 AM
44. As a further result of Defendant’s actions as alleged herein, Plaintiff has incurred
45. Defendant’s actions as alleged herein were outrageous because of Defendant’s evil
motive or reckless indifference to the rights of others, and, therefore, an award of punitive damages
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that the Court, after trial by jury, enter judgment in her favor
and against Defendant, in amounts to be determined at trial, for compensatory damages, including
damages for emotional distress; for punitive damages; for injunctive relief to prohibit Defendant
from engaging in further discriminatory and retaliatory employment practices; for attorneys’ fees
and costs of litigation; and for such further relief as the Court deems just and proper.