Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Complaint For Damages
Complaint For Damages
Plaintiff,
vs.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
BUTTE-SILVER BOW LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT; CITY
AND COUNTY OF BUTTE-SILVER BOW;
THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF
BUTTE-SILVER BOW; and BUTTE-
SILVER BOW COUNTY SHERIFF ED
LESTER, in his individual capacity; and
DOES 1-10,
Defendants.
Plaintiff, Rhonda Staton, by and through her attorneys, The Rabb Law Firm,
PLLC, for her Complaint for Damages against Defendants, Butte-Silver Bow Law
Page 1 of 28
Case 2:20-cv-00060-BMM Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 2 of 28
County Sheriff Ed Lester, in his individual capacity; and Does 1-10, alleges as
follows:
PARTIES
at all relevant times, an employee (and now former employee) of the Defendant,
(Commissioners) are responsible for various decisions and policies of the Butte-
6. At the time this Complaint was filed, Plaintiff was ignorant of the true
names and capacities of Does 1-10 and therefore sue these defendants by such
Page 2 of 28
Case 2:20-cv-00060-BMM Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 3 of 28
fictitious names. Plaintiff is informed and believes that each of the fictitiously
damages alleged. Plaintiffs will amend this Complaint to allege Doe 1-10’s true
7. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges that at all
times herein mentioned each of the Defendants, including the Defendants sued
herein as Does 1-10, were acting as the agent, servant, partner, joint venturer and/or
employee of their co-defendants, and were acting within the scope of that authority
with the full knowledge, permission, and express or implied consent of each of the
remaining Defendants.
the Commissioners and Does 1-10 were an “employer” within the meaning of the
Montana Human Rights Act, §49-2-101, MCA et. seq. and within the meaning of
the federal statutes alleged herein: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42
U.S.C. §2000e et seq., (Title VII); the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
(ADA), as amended, inter alia by the Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act
of 2008, 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq.; and the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993
public officer of LED, Butte-Silver Bow, the Commissioners, and Does 1-10 acting
Page 3 of 28
Case 2:20-cv-00060-BMM Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 4 of 28
10. This Court has original jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s federal claims
because it presents a federal question within 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and civil rights claims
within 28 U.S.C. § 1343. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state claims
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because Plaintiff’s state law claims are so related to
the federal claims that they form part of the same case or controversy.
11. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 and Local
Montana District Rule 3.2(b) because the Plaintiff resides within this Federal District
and the employment practices, civil rights violations and other conduct alleged to be
12. On July 31, 2020 and prior to her termination of employment, Plaintiff
Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and requested dual filing with the
based upon sex, age and disability, and retaliatory harassment and retaliation.
Plaintiff requested and was issued a Notice of Right to Sue from the EEOC dated
Page 4 of 28
Case 2:20-cv-00060-BMM Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 5 of 28
the MHRB and requested dual filing with the EEOC, Charge No. 0200462 (MHRB)
and Charge No. 32D-2020-00462 (EEOC). The September 22, 2020 Charge
included Plaintiff’s August 24, 2020, termination of employment and further alleged
harassment and discrimination based on sex, age and disability, and retaliatory
harassment and retaliation. At the time of this filing, a Notice of Right to Sue has
not been issued. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint and Jury Demand upon receipt
the MHRB and requested dual filing with the EEOC. The October 14, 2020 Charge
included a claim alleging retaliation under the ADA and further alleged harassment
and discrimination taken against Plaintiff post-termination based on sex, age and
disability, and retaliatory harassment and retaliation. At the time of this filing, a
Notice of Right to Sue has not been issued. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint and
filing this action including submitting a “Notice of Claim” pursuant to §2-9-301 (3),
MCA, dated October 20, 2020 and delivered on October 20, 2020 to the appropriate
Page 5 of 28
Case 2:20-cv-00060-BMM Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 6 of 28
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
17. Plaintiff began working for Defendant LED on December 10, 2001
until she was involuntarily and illegally terminated by Defendants on August 24,
2020.
18. When Plaintiff initially began employment with LED on December 10,
20. In 2009, Plaintiff was assigned to work as a Detective in the Sex Crimes
Division.
in pay based upon her years of service and performance as well as internal and
23. Beginning on or about May of 2017 to the present, Plaintiff was the
24. Upon information and belief, the one other female Detective (other than
Plaintiff) who worked for LED resigned from her position in May of 2017 because
Page 6 of 28
Case 2:20-cv-00060-BMM Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 7 of 28
she believed she was treated differently and held to different standards than her
25. Throughout her employment, Plaintiff was treated less favorably than
her similarly situated male counterparts and discriminated against in the terms,
conditions and privileges of her employment based upon her protected status(es).
and pervasive workplace harassment and/or a hostile work environment based upon
environment directed at Plaintiff by agents of Defendants include, but are not limited
to:
penis;
the photo in the office stating she was in the “Special Olympics”;
Page 7 of 28
Case 2:20-cv-00060-BMM Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 8 of 28
manner;
first tried to resolve and correct this through the chain of command but the
following dates: May 23, 2018, October 1, 2019, October 22, 2019, December 23,
Page 8 of 28
Case 2:20-cv-00060-BMM Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 9 of 28
31. After presenting the May 23, 2018 Complaint and discussing its
32. Upon information and belief, Human Resources, even though it had
knowledge of and a copy of the May 23, 2018 Complaint, did not take any action in
hostile work environment and violent behavior in the workplace from one of the
Sergeants.
work environment and violent behavior in the workplace against her due to her
protected status(s).
35. Plaintiff, had a reasonable and good faith belief that these actions
protected status(es) and even stated in her October 22, 2019 complaint that she was
“in fear of retaliation, possibly losing my position as senior detective in the division
Page 9 of 28
Case 2:20-cv-00060-BMM Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 10 of 28
36. Plaintiff’s supervisors, her captain, most of her co-workers and Sheriff
Ed Lester became aware that Plaintiff submitted the October 22, 2019 complaint.
37. After Plaintiff submitted the October 22, 2019 complaint, the
became worse and turned into retaliatory harassment that included, but was not
limited to:
assignments;
d. threatening Plaintiff, and no one else, with a demotion unless she made
Page 10 of 28
Case 2:20-cv-00060-BMM Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 11 of 28
workplace;
she directly addressed her supervisors and captain in front of the public
product such as her cases, case files, case submissions and reports;
situated male counterparts when turning in her electronic case files for
October 22, 2019 Complaint including but not limited to singing “Let
it Go” and then saying, “Isn’t that right Rhonda?” and mocking Plaintiff
for filing complaints by stating, “I am going to take this all the way to
harassment she had recently experienced since filing the October 22, 2019
complaint.
Page 11 of 28
Case 2:20-cv-00060-BMM Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 12 of 28
redlines, corrections and criticism from her supervisor on her case files.
40. Plaintiff reported the unjustified corrections and redlines she had
received to Sheriff Lester and expressed her concern that she was being retaliated
written complaint to the LED investigator who was investigating her October 22,
2019 complaint.
discrimination and provided examples of retaliation since she submitted the October
43. Upon information and belief, no action was taken by LED in response
to Plaintiff’s December 23, 2019 complaint and the retaliation and discrimination
continued.
44. Plaintiff’s taser was then removed by someone other than Plaintiff from
her locked office, and she became aware that it was missing prior to mandatory taser
training in January.
45. On January 15, 2020, Plaintiff reported the missing taser promptly after
46. Plaintiff also noticed other personal items missing from her locked
office such as her calendar and thumb drives and her 2018 case file boxes.
Page 12 of 28
Case 2:20-cv-00060-BMM Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 13 of 28
47. On or about January 16, 2020, Plaintiff met with Human Resources and
48. Plaintiff was informed that LED would not take action to protect her
where she protested the findings of LED and complained that her work environment
purported investigation.”
50. Plaintiff’s January 23, 2020 complaint also stated: “[t]he lack of
correction only furthers retaliation against me, and I feel even less comfortable
coming to work than I did pre-investigation. My health has been affected to the
51. On January 24, 2020, Sheriff Ed Lester sent Plaintiff an email asking
for her to provide written documentation relating to the “loss of [her] Taser.”
Sheriff Lester detailing the incident surrounding her missing taser. She further
reported the additional missing items in that email to Sheriff Lester such as her
calendar, thumb drive, and her 2018 case file boxes. Plaintiff specifically stated in
that January 27, 2020 email that she suspected that someone who had access to her
Page 13 of 28
Case 2:20-cv-00060-BMM Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 14 of 28
53. Upon information and belief, Defendants did not conduct any
investigation in response to Plaintiff’s assertion that the taser and other items were
54. Upon information and belief, Human Resources and Defendants did not
55. Plaintiff received a letter from Human Resources, dated January 27,
2020, relating to her eligibility for FMLA and attaching a Request for Leave of
56. Plaintiff started preparing the paperwork and gathering the appropriate
57. Then, on or about February 19, 2020, Plaintiff was required to attend a
meeting with Sheriff Lester where the following was discussed: (a) Plaintiff’s
Plaintiff; and (c) ordering Ms. Staton to go on punitive leave and undergo a
Plaintiff had stated in her January 23, 2020 complaint that, “My health has been
Page 14 of 28
Case 2:20-cv-00060-BMM Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 15 of 28
leave instead of protected FMLA leave, and did not engage in any sort of interactive
process with Plaintiff based upon her health concerns that she raised in her January
59. The examination by LED’s hired psychologist was not appropriate, was
invasive and was not job-related nor consistent with business necessity.
60. On or about July 16, 2020, Sheriff Ed Lester contacted Plaintiff and
informed her that Plaintiff needed to resign or the Sheriff would terminate her
(POST) certification.
never engaged in the interactive process with Plaintiff or considered any sort of
62. Upon information and belief, the LED has previously offered
response to their perceived or actual mental health and/or medical issues and/or at
63. On July 27, 2020, Sheriff Ed Lester provided a letter to Plaintiff stating
Page 15 of 28
Case 2:20-cv-00060-BMM Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 16 of 28
64. The alleged reasons for the contemplated termination were pretextual.
letter where she protested the proposed termination. She also protested the Sheriff’s
failure to provide her with reasonable accommodation and/or additional leave based
66. Defendants still did not engage in the interactive process with Plaintiff
or appear to consider any sort of reasonable accommodation for Plaintiff or get back
67. On July 31, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination with the
August 4, 2020.
70. Similarly situated employees who displayed poor performance that was
similar types of egregious behavior in the workplace were not terminated or often
Page 16 of 28
Case 2:20-cv-00060-BMM Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 17 of 28
71. After Plaintiff was terminated the retaliation continued. For example,
73. Plaintiff was the only female detective employed by Defendants at all
74. Defendants are employers within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §2000e and
75. Plaintiff was qualified and successfully performed her job and
gender/sex with respect to the terms, conditions and privileges of her employment
Page 17 of 28
Case 2:20-cv-00060-BMM Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 18 of 28
Plaintiff;
leave;
unacceptable, egregious and even violent or illegal conduct in the workplace were
not discharged, not placed on punitive leave, not required to undergo a psychological
Page 18 of 28
Case 2:20-cv-00060-BMM Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 19 of 28
examination and were not otherwise subject to same type of negative treatment,
gender/sex lead to her discharge and such actions are unlawful employment practices
80. Defendants’ conduct was intentional and willful and done with malice
and/or reckless indifference to Plaintiff’s rights and the injuries she suffered as a
result.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as more fully set forth below.
and physical conduct that was directed at her, and was not directed at similarly
situated male employees and which was of a sexual nature and/or based upon
Page 19 of 28
Case 2:20-cv-00060-BMM Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 20 of 28
Plaintiff’s sex/gender.
interfered with Plaintiff’s work performance, and it was so severe or pervasive that
sex/gender and failing to take measures reasonably calculated to end the harassment
87. Defendants’ conduct was intentional and willful and done with malice
and/or reckless indifference to Plaintiff’s rights and the injuries she suffered as a
result.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as more fully set forth below.
Page 20 of 28
Case 2:20-cv-00060-BMM Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 21 of 28
89. Defendants are employers within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §2000e and
90. Plaintiff engaged in activity protected by Title VII and the Montana
91. Shortly after Plaintiff filed the July 31, 2020 charge of discrimination
with the EEOC Defendants unlawfully retaliated against her by, among other things,
Page 21 of 28
Case 2:20-cv-00060-BMM Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 22 of 28
unlawfully retaliated with respect to the terms, conditions and privileges of her
other things:
leave;
93. Defendants knew about Plaintiff’s protected activities at the time that
employment actions.
Page 22 of 28
Case 2:20-cv-00060-BMM Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 23 of 28
95. Defendants’ conduct was intentional and willful and done with malice
and/or reckless indifference to Plaintiff’s rights and the injuries she suffered as a
result.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as more fully set forth below.
was due to the retaliatory and discriminatory work environment that Plaintiff was
99. Plaintiff was qualified to perform the essential functions of her job and
Page 23 of 28
Case 2:20-cv-00060-BMM Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 24 of 28
related feedback, and there was no formal discipline in her personnel file prior to her
101. On January 23, 2020, Plaintiff gave Defendants written notice via
email of her impairment and health issues which were caused by the hostile and
sufficiently remediate.
circumstances; rather, they were offered modified duty or other types of reasonable
accommodation(s).
104. Defendants did not engage in the interactive process with Plaintiff,
request that Defendants engage in the interactive process, even after her termination,
106. Defendants’ conduct was intentional and willful and done with malice
Page 24 of 28
Case 2:20-cv-00060-BMM Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 25 of 28
and/or reckless indifference to Plaintiff’s rights and the injuries she suffered as a
result.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as more fully set forth below.
CAUSE OF ACTION V -
VIOLATION OF THE FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE ACT
28 U.S.C. §2601
(Against Defendants LED, Butte-Silver Bow, the Commissioners and Does 1-10
and Sheriff Ed Lester)
worked at least 1,250 hours in the 12 months preceding her request for leave under
the FMLA.
110. Plaintiff provided proper notice of her intent and need to take leave
111. In response to and because of her request for leave under the FMLA,
Page 25 of 28
Case 2:20-cv-00060-BMM Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 26 of 28
113. Plaintiff was prohibited from taking job protected leaved under the
FMLA.
114. Defendant Sheriff Ed Lester admitted that Plaintiff was denied leave
115. Sheriff Ed Lester and the other Defendants failed in their responsibility
of her job-protected leave under the FMLA and permanently deprived her of her
employment.
117. Defendants’ conduct was intentional and willful and done with malice
and/or reckless indifference to Plaintiff’s rights and the injuries she suffered as a
result.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as more fully set forth below.
Page 26 of 28
Case 2:20-cv-00060-BMM Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 27 of 28
was so outrageous and extreme that it exceeded the bounds of decency to the extent
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as more fully set forth below.
JURY DEMANDED
PRAYER
1. Special damages, including but not limited to, past, present and future
wage and benefits loss, lost earning capacity, past and future job search
Page 27 of 28
Case 2:20-cv-00060-BMM Document 1 Filed 11/18/20 Page 28 of 28
costs, past and future medical expenses, and other special damages in a
2. For general damages including, but not limited to, pain and suffering,
law;
Page 28 of 28