IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JADONNA SANDERS, )
827 HR Dr., SE )
Washington, DC 20032 )
)
SHALONDA SMITH, )
5812 Coolidge St. ) Case No.
Capitol Heights, MD 20743 )
)
TAKEVA THOMAS, )
5103 Jay Street NE )
Washington, DC 20019 ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
)
BOLATITO AJOSE )
6645 Georgia Ave. NW )
Washington, DC 20012 )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, )
)
Serve: Karl Racine )
Attorney General of the )
District of Columbia, )
400 6th St. NW )
Washington, DC 20001 )
)
Defendant. )
____________________________________)

COMPLAINT

Comes now Plaintiffs, Jadonna Sanders (hereinafter “Plaintiff Sanders”), Shalonda

Smith (hereinafter “Plaintiff Smith”), Takeva Thomas (hereinafter “Plaintiff Thomas”) and

Bolatito “Bebe” Ajose (hereinafter “Plaintiff Ajose”), by and through undersigned counsel,

bringing the instant Complaint for compensatory and injunctive relief against Defendant

1
Washington Metropolitan Department of Fire and Emergency Services (hereinafter “Defendant”

or “DC FEMS”), and state as follows:

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs are four African American women firefighters, currently and recently assigned

to the Fire Prevention Division of DC FEMS, who allege that they have been systematically and

continuously discriminated against on the basis of their race and gender in the terms and conditions

of employment, most especially with respect to disparate pay and promotional practices, and

further allege that DC FEMS is a hostile work environment for Black women firefighters,

maintaining a custom, pattern and practice of disfavoring Black women firefighters. They further

assert that the complaints they made to the DCFD EEO office about the way they were being

treated were not taken seriously, and were largely ignored.

As a direct and proximate cause of DC FEMS’ long-standing and historic pattern and

practice of race and gender discrimination, Plaintiffs have suffered severe mental and emotional

distress, and have suffered pecuniary losses for which they herein seek compensation. They

further ask the Court for injunctive relief to ensure that current and future Black women firefighters

are no longer subjected to disparate terms and conditions of employment. They seek compensatory

relief an amount not less than $10,000,000, and for an appropriate ORDER granting the injunctive

relief sought herein.

PARTIES

1. Jadonna Sanders is an African American woman firefighter who has been with the DC

FEMS since 2001. She currently serves as an arson investigator in the Fire Prevention Division.

She is a resident of the District of Columbia.

2
2. Shalonda Smith is an African American woman firefighter who has been with the DC

FEMS since April of 2006. She currently serves as a Technician Inspector in the Fire Prevention

Division, working with hospitals and health care centers. She is a resident of the state of Maryland.

3. Takeva Thomas is an African American woman firefighter who has been serving with the

DC FEMS since September of 2012. She is currently serving as a Fire Inspector in the Fire

Prevention Division. She is a resident of the District of Columbia.

4. Bolatito “Bebe” Ajose is an African American woman firefighter who has been employed

by the DCFD since 2001. She is currently employed as a Fire Inspector and is a resident of the

District of Columbia.

5. Defendant DC FEMS is a department of the government of the District of Columbia, under

the leadership of Mayor Muriel Bowser.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

6. This Court also enjoys federal question jurisdiction over the claims pursuant to Title VII

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., (‘Title VII”), the Lilly Ledbetter Fair

Pay Act, as incorporated into Title VII and the District of Columbia Human Rights Act, D.C. Code

§ 2-1401.01 et seq, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, by way and through 42

U.S.C. § 1983. This Court enjoys supplemental jurisdiction over all Plaintiffs’ state law claims.

Venue is proper in this Court because all acts and omissions in controversy took place in the

District of Columbia.

FACTS RELEVANT TO ALL PLAINTIFFS

3
7. In November of 1990, the DCFD entered into a consent decree and settlement of a class

action lawsuit alleging that it had engaged in systemic race discrimination against African

American firefighters. See Hammond v. Barry, 752 1087 (D.D.C. 1990) (hereinafter

“Hammond”).

8. Specifically, the plaintiffs in Hammond asserted that the DCFD had a pattern and practice

of both disparate treatment of African American firefighters, and maintained promotional practices

that had a disparate impact on African American firefighters.

9. In Does v. District of Columbia, 448 F. Supp. 2d 137, 139 (D.D.C. 2006), Defendant

entered into yet another settlement in which plaintiffs were determined to be the prevailing party.

In that case, a group of women DCFD firefighters and EMTs were forced to take pregnancy tests

and had to have a negative test in order to remain employed. Those who were pregnant were

forced to have abortions to keep their jobs. Shockingly, these poor women were only awarded

slightly more than $100,000 for what was done to them.

10. Plaintiffs herein are four people who are being victimized by the custom and culture of DC

FEMS, both as African Americans and women.

I. STRUCTURE OF DC FEMS

11. The DC FEMS is broken down into four divisions: Operations Division, Training Division,

Fire Prevention Division, and Administration.

12. The Operations Division is responsible for all of the field operations, including all of the

fire stations, trucks and equipment and vehicles.

13. The Training Division is responsible for the fire academy, and all of the myriad courses

and certificates that DC FEMS personnel are required to maintain.

4
14. The Fire Prevention Division is responsible for all of community facing and fire prevention

functions. It has three sub-divisions within it: a) Fire Inspection Division – that does code

enforcement and inspects buildings for safety after a fire occurs; b) Fire Investigations Division –

the investigates fires after they have occurred to ascertain their origins and any suspected arsons;

and c) Public Safety Education Division that does community training and engagement to teach

fire safety.

15. The administration division includes human resources, office of the fire chief, and labor

relations, amongst other functions.

II. UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION IN PAYMENT OF PARAMEDIC

16. In the past, DC FEMS hired persons who were allowed to be strictly firefighters, and others

who were strictly Emergency Medical Services (hereinafter “EMS”) personnel. Today, all

firefighters are required to hold at least some EMS certification, but many choose to obtain the

higher certification of paramedic.

A. The Difference Between EMT and Paramedic Certifications

17. There is a substantial difference between EMT and paramedic certifications. EMT

certification is for the provision of basic first aid in emergency situations, with a focus on stopping

bleeding, and keeping a patient breathing until they can be transported to a hospital.

18. They are often used for patient transfers and dealing with other non-life-threatening injuries

and situations. It takes approximately six weeks of training to obtain an EMT certification.

19. By contrast, paramedics have advanced medical training that allows for much more

sophisticated life sustaining treatment.

20. Paramedics are able to administer pain medications and other potent drugs. It takes three

semesters of intense study to become paramedic, which usually takes more than a year.

5
21. Paramedics are required to take several advanced and ongoing training classes to maintain

their certifications. They are deployed to more serious accidents and are used to transfer patients

in precarious condition.

22. Firefighters who hold paramedic certification receive a 15% increase in their pay.

B. DC FEMS Paramedic Premium Pay Practices

23. As a general rule, and in accordance with the Local 36 Collective Bargaining Agreement

(hereinafter “Local 36 CBA”), firefighters who have and maintain a paramedic certification, who

and who meet and maintain the continuing education and recertification requirements, are entitled

to a 15% premium to their base pay.

24. All firefighters who are assigned to the Operations Division receive this premium pay. The

Local 36 CBA makes no distinction for unit members who are assigned to Fire Prevention or

Training, in terms of paramedic premium pay (hereinafter “premium pay”).

25. However, when Plaintiffs Sanders and Ajose were transferred into the Fire Investigations

department, they were denied premium pay.

26. Both the fire investigation and fire inspection departments are considered elite assignment.

They are coveted positions. There are only five Black women in the Fire Prevention Division, and

only four with paramedic certification.

27. When Plaintiffs achieved those positions, DC FEMS decided that because the Full Time

Equivalent (hereinafter “FTE”) positions they were filling did not specify a role for persons with

paramedic certifications, they would not be entitled to the 15% premium pay.

28. This decision made no sense, because Plaintiffs were nevertheless required to do all of the

work to maintain their certifications so they could be used in the field for overtime assignments.

6
29. Overtime opportunities are substantial at DC FEMS, and can dramatically supplement a

firefighter’s base pay. In some instances, they can nearly double their salary. So while the

paramedic certification may not be used by inspectors and investigators in their regular work, it is

constantly used when they work overtime.

30. Moreover, Plaintiffs were required to keep up their certifications as a contingency of their

appointments to the division, so that they would be able to rely on those skills if they were to

transfer out of the Fire Prevention Division, as Plaintiff Sanders eventually did via promotion.

31. Thus, the decision to deny Plaintiffs premium pay for maintaining their paramedic

certifications was short-sighted, and punitive to them. Uniform officers assigned to the Training

and Administrative divisions continue to receive paramedic premium pay, even though they too

have assignments that do not routinely involve field work.

32. Importantly, the decision not to provide premium pay to firefighters in the Fire Prevention

Division affected a very small group people, the majority of whom were African American, four

of whom were African American women.

33. Despite repeated complaints about this pay practice by Plaintiffs Sanders and Ajose, Local

36 did not pursue a grievance on their behalf, ostensibly because it was such a small group of

employees who were affected by the pay practice.

34. The decision to not pay the paramedic premium to Plaintiffs affected every aspect of their

pay and benefits, resulting in a compounding reduction in their overtime pay rate and in the value

of their retirement annuity.

35. In 2019, Plaintiff Ajose filed an EEOC charge, raising a variety of issues including the

disparate pay issue. The case went to mediation in 2020, and was ostensibly resolved.

7
36. However, rather than providing the African American women affected by the disparate

practice with back pay and a make whole remedy, DC FEMS decided to pay the affected

employees premium pay in lump sum quarterly payments, rather than bumping up their hourly

rate.

37. This disparate practice had a negative impact on their overtime pay rate, and thus caused

them to be paid less than their counterparts for the same amount of overtime.

38. Furthermore, DC FEMS has not been consistent in paying the quarterly premium, and has

made no adjustments to Plaintiffs’ retirement annuities to reflect the amount of pay they should

have earned over the substantial number of years that they were underpaid.

39. DC FEMS has all but admitted that Plaintiffs were always entitled to the premium pay. It

has failed to take appropriate steps to ensure that Plaintiffs were made whole and were properly

paid moving forward, and thus violated and voided the terms of the mediation resolution.

40. Plaintiffs continue to be harmed by DC FEMS inequitable pay practices and seek both

compensatory and injunctive relief to ensure that they are made whole, including with respect to

interest, costs and attorney fees, and to ensure discriminatory pay practices at DC FEMS are

discontinued.

III. DISPARATE AND RETALIATORY DISCIPLINARY PRACTICES

41. Plaintiffs assert that DC FEMS holds African American women to harsher disciplinary

standards, and forces them to endure years of investigation and disciplinary actions for things that

other firefighters are simply not disciplined for.

8
42. While DC FEMS has written policies, firefighters learn the methods of conduct in the field

in their training and from working with more senior and seasoned firefighters. These common

norms become so widely practiced that they become the standard of operations.

43. However, DC FEMS, occasionally chooses to hold some firefighters to the letter of the rule

and to discipline them, while looking the other way with respect to all other firefighters.

44. With respect to Plaintiffs Ajose, Smith and Thomas, DC FEMS sent them to disciplinary

review boards for actions that were either not violations or were technical violations, while not

subjecting any other firefighters to the same standards.

45. Importantly, firefighters who are subjected to long-lasting investigations lose promotional

and development opportunities, and substantial pay because they lose their entitlement to holiday

pay and overtime while their case is pending.

46. Thus, subjecting firefighters to frivolous and baseless disciplinary actions drastically

affects their income and causes permanent injury to their pension annuities.

47. DC FEMS has a pattern and practice of using disciplinary actions to silence and retaliate

against African American women who complain about mistreatment, and did so to all Plaintiffs

herein.

IV. DISPARATE AND UNFAIR OVERTIME ASSIGNMENT PRACTICES

48. In the Fire Prevention Division, overtime is tracked and assigned through the KRONOS

system.

49. Within the KRONOS system, there is a calendar, and all persons who volunteer for

overtime are able to be seen in the system.

50. The Local 36 CBA requires that overtime be equalized as much as possible, amongst those

who seek it, because unfair overtime assigning results in substantially disparities income.

9
51. Theoretically, in order to equalize overtime opportunities, overtime is assigned in reverse

order of the overtime hours a person has already worked. So the person who has the worked the

least overtime, is given the highest priority for the next overtime assignment.

52. As can be expected, some people covet overtime work, while others may seek it

infrequently. And, as can be expected, there are occasions when there is a need for people to work

mandatory overtime.

53. In the Fire Prevention Division, overtime assignment decisions were made by Lieutenant

John Barnes (hereinafter “Lt. Barnes”). While there were overtime assignment policies in place,

Lt. Barnes had the authority and discretion to override polices, and hand out overtime opportunities

to his preferred employees.

54. For several years, Lt. Barnes manipulated the overtime assignment system to give himself

excessive overtime hours, and consistently denied overtime opportunities to Plaintiffs.

55. Despite multiple complaints, Lt. Barnes was allowed to continue unfairly manipulating the

overtime assignment system to disadvantage the few Black women inspectors and investigators in

the division, and to give repeated and excessive overtime hours to his preferred inspectors, all of

whom were men.

56. In 2021, an Inspector General investigation was launched into DC FEMS overtime

practices because of suspected fraud and abuse of the system, and upon information and belief,

that investigation is ongoing.

57. Plaintiffs assert that they are entitled to a make whole remedy to compensate them for lost

overtime opportunities, and the effect such lost wages had on their retirement annuities.

V. IGNORING AND MARGINALIZING COMPLAINTS FROM BLACK

10
58. DC FEMS has a pattern practice and culture of ignoring the complaints of African

American women firefighters.

59. Plaintiffs are all long-tenured firefighters, serving in an elite unit, and have proven their

worth to the organization for years.

60. Despite that fact, when they raised complaints about the way they were being paid, and

despite the union assisting them in pursuing those claims, their complaints were ignored and

marginalized.

61. DC FEMS had the capacity to correct its unfair and unlawful pay practices years before it

eventually did so. It should not have taken more than five years to respond to Plaintiffs’

complaints.

62. Plaintiffs assert that they observed their non-Black colleagues raise concerns and be

responded to with haste and alacrity, or at a minimum be responded to in a timely fashion. This

contrasted sharply with the fact that Plaintiffs would send emails up the chain of command, and

receive no acknowledgement or response of any kind.

FACTS RELEVANT TO PLAINTIFF SANDERS

63. When Plaintiff Sanders was first hired by Defendant in 2001, she was assigned to the 3rd

Battalion, which was predominantly Black. For the most part, she was able to learn and work in

the 3rd Battalion.

64. In November of 2007, Plaintiff Sanders was singled out for discipline, and was subjected

to harsher discipline than her colleagues related to an incident in which she was not the culprit.

65. Plaintiff Sanders and several other firefighters were witnesses to an altercation that took

place between an African American firefighter and a white fire official. There were two fire crews

11
that witnessed the altercation, and all of the witnesses were asked to submit a written report about

what they had observed.

66. The black male firefighter had already reported harassment from the white officer to his

superiors, but nothing was done about his concerns. Plaintiff Sanders was part of a crew that had

been dispatched to a fire, and when they were preparing to go back in service, the official and the

Black firefighter exchanged words. The white official accused the firefighter of spitting on him

during the altercation.

67. DC MPD was called in to investigate, but no criminal charges were filed against the black

firefighter.

68. DC FEMS launched an investigation into the matter, and Plaintiff Sanders submitted a

written report of what she saw, as did the other members of her crew. The other crew that was

asked to submit statements was predominantly white.

69. For reasons that were never explained, DC FEMS disbelieved the reports of both Plaintiff

Sanders and of the other members of her crew, who denied that the Black firefighter had spit on

the white official.

70. Plaintiff Sanders was sent to a Deputy Chief disciplinary panel, which can carry up to 120

hours of suspension, but one of the male firefighter's on her crew, who saw the same thing and

made essentially the same written report as Plaintiff Sanders did, was sent to a Battalion Level

disciplinary panel, that could only give up to 72 hours of suspension. DC FEMS never explained

the disparity in discipline.

71. Plaintiff Sanders was found guilty and suspended for 12 hours, but her male colleagues’

charges were dismissed, even though their reports were virtually identical.

12
72. The predominantly white crew was believed, over the Black crew, but when the black

firefighter who was accused in the altercation went to a trial board, the trial board concluded that

one of the members from the predominantly white crew had submitted false information.

73. The Black firefighter was found not guilty of spitting, but was held accountable for a lesser

offense. Thus, Plaintiff Sanders account was eventually found to be accurate, however her

suspension was not reversed. The white crew member who submitted false information was also

sent to a trial board for lying, and found not guilty.

74. In 2009, Plaintiff Sanders was transferred to the Fire Prevention Division as an investigator.

From the time she got there, she was treated as an unwelcome interloper.

75. In August 2009, Plaintiff Sanders’ and fellow Black female firefighter Jackie Cole

(hereinafter “Firefighter Cole”) were confronted by an investigator, Scott Ford (hereinafter

“Investigator Ford”) (white male) who said to them “I’m not here to fuck you, and not here to fuck

over you,” or words to that effect.

76. The comment was so hostile, presumptuous and inappropriate that both Plaintiff Sanders

and firefighter Cole reported it to the EEO Department. Despite their complaints, no action was

taken against Investigator Ford, and no additional training or counseling was implemented in the

division to ensure such inappropriate comments did not happen again.

77. From the inception of her training in the Fire Investigations unit, Plaintiff Sanders was also

subjected to disparate and less advantageous training and development opportunities.

78. For example, in February 2010, Plaintiff Sanders was counseled by her supervisor, Sgt.

David Slye (hereinafter “Sgt. Slye”) because she had not completed her fire investigation hands-

on training.

13
79. The issue, however, was not of Plaintiff Sanders’ making. At the time, Plaintiff Sanders’

training officer, James Taylor (hereinafter “Investigator Taylor”) worked an 8 hour shift from 6:00

am to 2:00 pm, but Plaintiff Sanders was assigned to a different shift. Thus, whenever she was

working and a fire occurred, her training officer wasn’t at work.

80. From December 2009 to March 2010, Investigator Taylor was only present three times to

evaluate Plaintiff Sanders.

81. Plaintiff raised the issue of being on a different shift than her training supervisor several

times, and even asked to be trained by a field training officer who worked shifts similar to her own.

82. Instead of listening to Plaintiff Sanders’ concerns, Defendant ignored her for months, and

then ultimately counseled her, not Investigator Taylor, for there being insufficient training and

observed activities for her to learn the job, and be properly evaluated in doing it.

83. In May of 2011, Defendant took away Plaintiff Sanders’ department-issued phone,

ostensibly because she did not answer the phone on her day off.

84. At the time, firefighters were not required to answer department-issued phones on their

days off, and no other firefighters were disciplined for that alleged transgression.

85. Plaintiff Sanders was the only firefighter Defendant singled out for not answering her

phone on her day off. Unlike some other employees, Plaintiff Sanders was an hourly/scheduled

employee, not an on-call employee. So not only was there no expectation for her to respond to

calls during her days off, but she was not compensated for being in an on-call status.

86. Throughout her tenure, Plaintiff Sanders was subjected to disparate rules and procedures

than her colleagues. For example, in 2011, she was verbally scolded when she helped paramedics

resuscitate a 4 year-old child.

14
87. Plaintiff Sanders was dispatched as the investigator to a serious fire while she was working

overtime. She arrived on scene quickly, and the paramedics there were calling for help.

88. Plaintiff Sanders volunteered to help because she was a trained paramedic, and helped them

with the victims of an apartment fire. Her actions were brave and completely appropriate in the

circumstances.

89. Unlike two white male firefighters who were treated as heroes for helping paramedics drive

victims of an accident to the hospital just a few weeks prior, Plaintiff Sanders was told that it

wasn’t her “responsibility” to help save the life of a child.

90. Instead of being celebrated like her white colleagues, she was forced to write an incident

report, after having worked for 27 hours straight, as the only fire investigator on the shift.

91. Another example of this was in 2011, when Plaintiff Sanders was denied the right to work

overtime outside of the Fire Investigation Unit without prior written approval.

92. This prohibition had a very serious impact on Plaintiff Sanders’ earning capacity, because

most of the overtime opportunities were in the Operations Division and in the field, not in the

special and administrative divisions.

93. It bears repeating that at the time, there was no general policy that prohibited cross-division

overtime, and it was the common practice for those in the special divisions and administration to

regularly work overtime in Operations without having to seek permission.

94. Plaintiff Sanders was the only employee at the time who was required to ask permission to

work overtime.

95. Plaintiff sent repeated correspondence to her chain of command asking why she was the

only firefighters required to obtain prior approval to work overtime. Despite her repeated

15
inquiries, she never received a response, explanation or justification for the disparate treatment she

was subjected to.

96. In another example of disparate treatment, Plaintiff Sanders had requested to attend the

police academy to obtain the training to be granted police powers to investigate arsons. Attending

the police academy was a requirement of the fire investigation unit. It is a coveted certification

and allows fire investigators to broaden their investigatory jurisdiction.

97. Plaintiff Sanders met all the requirements to go to the Police Academy, but for unspecified

reasons, was denied the right to attend.

98. According to DC FEMS policy and MPD policies, a person denied access to training at the

police academy is supposed to be notified of the reasons for such denial in writing. Plaintiff

Sanders was never given any reason, let alone in writing.

99. Plaintiff Sanders made several written complaints about denial of access to the police

academy, and DC FEMS’ absolute refusal to give her a written explanation for the denial.

100. As Plaintiff’s demands for an explanation escalated, she was told that there was something

in background check that justified the denial, but was never given the written explanation that was

given to others.

101. DC FEMS’ refusal to give Plaintiff Sanders a written explanation as to what was blocking

her access to the police academy not only cut her off from an important job development

opportunity, it made it impossible for her to appeal the decision, or fix whatever the issue was.

102. As Plaintiff Sanders’ concerns about the way she was being singled out and mistreated

increased, in May of 2014, she requested her personnel records through a FOIA request.

103. Defendant never sent Plaintiff Sanders’ records to her, and tendered no explanation as to

why it was denying her FOIA request. It simply pretended as if her request was of no consequence,

16
and refused to address it. Again, Plaintiff Sanders repeatedly raised questions and concerns to her

superiors, but she was ignored.

104. In 2016, Plaintiff Sanders posted a comment on her social media page lamenting the

election of Donald Trump. Specifically, she bemoaned that John Hinkley was not around when

he was needed, or words to that effect.

105. Importantly, she did not even intimate that she would take actions like John Hinkley, or

that anyone else should.

106. Plaintiff Sanders had a First Amendment right to make such a comment on social media,

and while some may have been offended, it was a far cry from any sort of direct threat to Mr.

Trump.

107. However, because of the animus and bias of Defendant’s leaders, Plaintiff was referred to

the Secret Service and involuntarily transferred from the Fire Investigations Division.

108. In theory, Plaintiff Sanders was transferred because Defendant did not want her to enter

any federal buildings. In reality, there was a far greater chance of Plaintiff entering a federal

building while in operations, which responds to fires all over the city, than in fire investigations

that does not have jurisdiction to investigate fires in federal buildings.

109. In essence, Plaintiff Sanders was transferred in retaliation for posting her political opinions,

but was not disciplined for violation of any departmental policy or rule.

110. She grieved the involuntary transfer, and after a two-year ordeal, prevailed, being reinstated

to her position.

111. Although she was exonerated of any wrongdoing, and was not found to have violated any

policy, Plaintiff Sanders was placed in a desk job, denied field opportunities, and barred from

17
federal buildings as a punishment for expressing an opinion her superiors did not like. She was

also not made whole for the lost pay and overtime opportunities.

112. Interestingly, Plaintiff Sanders has been part of both Vice Presidential and Presidential

details while in the Fire Prevention Division, and has cleared all the necessary background checks

to fulfill her duties.

113. Plaintiff Sanders was treated disparately again, when she was referred to EEO counseling

because she was overheard stating to a colleague that, in her opinion, the military is racist.

114. Again, Plaintiff had a First Amendment right to express her opinion about the military.

Moreover, for generations, scholars and experts on racism in the military have corroborated

Plaintiff’s opinion.

115. Defendant sent Plaintiff to EEO for stating an opinion, for the express purpose of

intimidating and silencing her, and sending a message to others that raising issue of systemic

racism will be cause for retaliation from management.

116. In 2019, Plaintiff Sanders was again denied a career development opportunity when, for

months, she asked to be trained to work on the barge that is used during large fireworks displays.

117. Lt. Barnes allowed a white male firefighter to be trained on the barge who had substantially

less seniority than Plaintiff Sanders, in both technical work and in years of service, which was

against policy and against the terms of the CBA.

118. When Plaintiff Sanders confronted Lt. Barnes about the unfair way she was treated, Lt.

Barnes relented, but required that in order for Plaintiff Sanders to be trained on the barge, she

would have to come in on her days off, and not be paid during that time.

18
119. Again, this requirement was reserved for Plaintiff Sanders. The white male who was

trained on the barge, and the other firefighters who were so trained, were not required to be unpaid

and to lose leave time to do so.

120. In 2020, Lt. Barnes dropped Plaintiff Sanders’ performance rating, asserting that she

needed to improve her attendance. However, during that year, Plaintiff Sanders was approved for

several hours of paid, statutorily protected family leave.

121. Moreover, there were other employees in the division who took family leave, and who had

more days off than Plaintiff Sanders did, who were not knocked for doing so. In this, Plaintiff

Sanders was again treated disparately than her colleagues.

122. In March of 2020, as most of DC was dealing with the COVID pandemic, Plaintiff Sanders

requested new uniforms because her pants were too small for her, and very uncomfortable.

123. Plaintiff Sanders had already received a uniform voucher prior to the pandemic quarantine,

but the voucher had expired. Rather than just reissuing the voucher, Plaintiff Sanders was forced

to wear pants that were very ill-fitting and uncomfortable, which was completely humiliating to

her.

124. There was absolutely no reason to blame or punish Plaintiff Sanders for the voucher

expiring when all non-essential operations were being shut down, and most employees were not

going to work. The delay in being able to turn in the voucher for new uniforms was not of Plaintiff

Sanders’ making.

125. In September of 2020, Plaintiff received an email from Battalion Fire Chief (hereinafter

“BFC”) Hamm to go to logistics and retrieve her firefighting gear.

19
126. When Plaintiff Sanders and another female firefighter got to the location, they informed

that firefighter Dominic Nicholson (hereinafter “firefighter Nicholson”) that they were there to

pick up gear.

127. Firefighter Nicholson told BFC Jon Grover (hereinafter “BFC Grover”) that the two

women were there to pick up gear. BFC Grover immediately started yelling in a very loud and

frightening tone, demanding that the two women “get out and don’t come back there,” or words to

that effect.

128. The two women left, shaken by the confrontation. When they were in the car, BFC Hamm

called and told them to go back into the building to pick up the gear. BFC Hamm had to send an

email to BFC Grover explaining what the women were doing there, but no disciplinary action or

counseling was taken to address BFC Grover’s hostile, aggressive and loud yelling at the women.

129. When Plaintiff Sanders got back to the office, she wrote a special report about BFC

Grover’s obnoxious and disrespectful behavior, and when she spoke to BFC Hamm about the

special report, BFC Hamm said “that is how he is,” or words to that effect. Again, Plaintiff

Sanders’ complaints were marginalized and ignored.

130. On or about November 6, 2020, Plaintiff Sanders sent BFC Hamm an email requesting to

meet with him. When she met with him, Plaintiff Sanders told him that each and every woman that

Lt. Barnes commanded, had a problem with him, and further complained that BFC Grover was

also treating women firefighters unfairly and disparately.

131. During the conversation, BFC Hamm agreed that there were real problems with Lt. Barnes’

management of the women firefighters in the Fire Prevention Division, but BFC Hamm refused to

take any corrective action.

20
132. Rather than taking the concerns raised by Plaintiff Sanders seriously, Defendant counseled

Plaintiff Sanders for being “sarcastic” because some of the words in her complaining email were

in all caps.

133. Feeling frustrated by the total lack of concern and action by BFC Hamm, on or about

November 6, 2020, Plaintiff Sanders sent Amy Mauro (hereinafter “Ms. Mauro”) who was the

acting EEO officer at the time, an email about the hostile work environment for women that was

being created by Lt. Barnes.

134. On or about November 13, 2020, Ms. Mauro responded to Plaintiff Sanders, stating that

she would discuss the problems Plaintiff Sanders was having with Lt. Barnes with the new

incoming EEO officer.

135. Plaintiff Sanders later emailed EEO Counselor Kenneth Hunter (hereinafter “Mr. Hunter”),

and again, her complaints were ignored. Mr. Hunter never interviewed Plaintiff Sanders, asked

for any of her corroborating evidence or launched any formal investigation.

136. Plaintiff Sanders expected that, at least, the Division would do more gender equity training.

Even that did not occur.

137. However, at no point did the incoming EEO officer reach out to Plaintiff Sanders. For

months, no one in EEO actually processed Plaintiff Sanders gender discrimination complaint, or

investigated it in any way.

138. In late 2020, Plaintiff also began to complain about the fact that she was not being paid the

15% premium for holding a paramedic certification. Like her Black female colleagues, she was

told that there was no FTE in the investigations unit specifically for a firefighter with paramedic

qualification. The explanation made no sense, as it was entirely a matter of DC FEMS’ choice to

create the FTE if they so desired.

21
139. For years, Plaintiff was not properly compensated for doing the work necessary to maintain

her paramedic certification and being available to DC FEMS for overtime assignments.

140. In 2021, DC FEMS realized that Plaintiffs Sanders and Ajose were correct in their assertion

that they should have been paid the premium, and began to pay them the premium. But unlike

other employees who obtain the premium in their regular bi-weekly pay checks, Plaintiffs Sanders

and Ajose were paid in a quarterly lump sum payment that negatively impacted their hourly rate.

141. Plaintiff Sanders asserts that she is still being paid in a way that is disparate and negatively

impacts her retirement and hourly wage rate.

142. Plaintiff Sanders also raised a complaint against Lt. Barnes for unequal distribution of

overtime. Because Plaintiff Sanders was in an administrative role in the Fire Investigations

department, she was able to see who was being assigned the most overtime.

143. Based on her observation, Lt. Barnes was assigning himself the most overtime, and

disproportionately assigning overtime to male firefighters he preferred. More specifically, Lt.

Barnes was not abiding by the union contract in assigning overtime in a way to equalize it amongst

those who sought it.

144. Plaintiff Sanders’ complaint brought direct scrutiny upon Lt. Barnes, which in turn, caused

him to retaliate against Plaintiff Sanders.

145. Lt. Barnes retaliated against Plaintiff Sanders by making her do fire inspections on food

trucks and other buildings, something that is not part of the investigative function, and something

no other fire investigator was required to do.

146. To date, there has been conclusion to the investigation into misappropriation of overtime,

and violation of overtime equalization rules.

22
147. Plaintiff Sanders has not been compensated or made whole for the overtime opportunities

she lost while in the fire investigations unit.

148. Plaintiff Sanders was promoted to Sergeant in 2021 and has since transferred to the

operations division.

149. Despite transferring division, Plaintiff Sanders is still being treated disparately and

unfairly. For example, new sergeants are supposed to go to an intensive training to help them with

their new duties.

150. Although Plaintiff Sanders had more seniority and was higher on the promotion list than

another white male had been promoted more recently, the white male was placed in the training

class.

151. To the point that it was Plaintiff Sanders on the promotion list, DC FEMS placed promotes

in the training course in order of their name on the list. When they got to Plaintiff Sanders, they

skipped over and put someone substantially lower on the list than her in the training. No

explanation was ever offered for this patently unfair decision.

152. Plaintiff Sanders asserts that Lt. Barnes was motivated by gender animus in treating her

and the other women in the Fire Investigations unit disparately than their male counterparts.

153. Plaintiff Sanders asserts that her complaints about Lt. Barnes and others were ignored by

upper management because they do not listen to, or value Black women firefighters.

154. Throughout her career, Plaintiff has been subjected to disparate treatment, disparate pay,

disparate training opportunities, unfair and disciplinary action and retaliation.

23
 FACTS RELEVANT TO PLAINTIFF AJOSE

155. Plaintiff Ajose joined DC FEMS in 2001, and was subjected to a horrific act of gender

discrimination by DC FEMS.

156. Plaintiff Ajose, and all of the women in her firefighters class were required to take a

pregnancy test, and those who were positive were given the choice to terminate their pregnancies

or lose their employment.

157. Plaintiff Ajose was one of four women who terminated their pregnancies in order to keep

her employment. She is the only one who is still employed by DC FEMS.

158. Although she and the other four entered into a settlement agreement with DC FEMS in

2012 pertaining to the extraordinarily discriminatory and unconscionable actions of DC FEMS, to

this day, Plaintiff Ajose is still suffering from extreme emotional distress from what she was forced

to do against her will.

159. As a result of the “me too” movement, and the current political environment in which there

have been substantial discussions about a woman’s right to make her own reproductive choices,

Plaintiff Ajose is being forced to reexperience the trauma of having her reproductive choice taken

away from her by DC FEMS.

160. Plaintiff Ajose’s trauma is currently compounding the severe mental stress and emotional

anguish she is currently enduring as a result of the ongoing and continuous gender and race

discrimination she is experiencing at DC FEMS.

161. In 2007 Plaintiff Ajose was detailed to the Training Division as a lead EMT instructor,

because DC FEMS has been sued due to an in improper response to a New York Times journalist

who had been beaten in DC.

24
162. As a result of the settlement, DC FEMS was required to train substantially more emergency

personnel and needed help with EMT training and the new certification that was required as part

of the settlement.

163. Plaintiff Ajose remained in the training division until 2015. To her credit, she had a higher

EMT exam pass rate for her students than any other instructor.

164. In 2015, Plaintiff Ajose went to the Fire Prevention Division as a fire inspector, which was

a promotion. She also became a certified paramedic in the District of Columbia in the same year.

165. In 2017, Plaintiff Ajose was detailed back to the training division because DC FEMS was

in need of strong instructors, due to the number of Black women recruits who were failing EMT

training.

166. In 2017, despite her strong track record in training recruits, and the significant

improvement in Black women getting through the EMT training because of her help, Plaintiff

Ajose was subjected to grossly unfair and inappropriate discipline.

167. One of the students who repeatedly failed the EMT training filed a complaint against

Plaintiff Ajose, alleging that Plaintiff Ajose was receiving gifts from other students for giving them

help.

168. Specifically, the failing student asserted that Plaintiff Ajose received “food” from students

in the class in order to get the attention and support they needed. Importantly, the accuser did not

accuse any of her classmates of improper behavior, nor did she provide any names or examples of

such alleged quid pro quo.

169. The student repeatedly failed the EMT training, and was ultimately fired from DC FEMS

after having been fired once before, being given a second chance to succeed, and failing again.

25
170. Rather than treating the complaint as it treated other complaints, DC FEMS sent Plaintiff

Ajose to a trial board, one of the most serious and impactful disciplinary steps, to defend herself

and her actions.

171. Although Plaintiff Ajose successfully defended herself, and was fully exonerated, the

episode was deeply disturbing, and very disruptive to her because she could not be given any

overtime assignments while under suspicion.

172. Upon information and belief, no other DC FEMS firefighter has ever been sent to a trial

board because a student they were instructing failed training.

173. As point of reference, Plaintiff Sanders was assigned to a trainer who was on a completely

different shift, and no person took any responsibility for ensuring she would be given the help to

succeed. Not only was no one sent to a trial board, no DC FEMS personnel were even counseled

for that dereliction.

174. Plaintiff Ajose asserts that she was sent to trial board because of her race, African American

and because of DC FEMS’s longstanding pattern, practice and custom of subjecting Black female

firefighters to far harsher discipline than their white counterparts

175. In 2017, Plaintiff Ajose was one of six firefighters who made the cut for promotion to arson

investigation, and six people were successful with the written exam. Plaintiff Ajose was the only

female who scored well enough to advance.

176. DC FEMS chose to select four males for promotion, and refused to promote Plaintiff Ajose.

177. Importantly, DC FEMS normally publishes a promotion list, or “registrar” that shows who

made the cut for promotion and places them in order.

178. In 2017, however, DC FEMS did not create a test result registrar, as it has done for every

other testing cycle.

26
179. DC FEMS failed to post the list that showed a Black woman as one of the highest test

takers. DC FEMS promoted 4 men, and then closed down promotions altogether, despite there

being two openings due to retirements, rather than promoting Plaintiff Ajose.

180. In 2021, when Plaintiff Ajose took the test again, she was at the bottom of the list, and DC

FEMS posted that registrar.

181. Throughout her career, Plaintiff Ajose was disparately than her colleagues. For example,

in 2018, Plaintiff Ajose paid out-of-pocket for an arson investigation course that was directly

relevant to her fire investigation duties.

182. When she asked DC FEMS to reimburse the expense, Defendant denied her request, even

though it paid for the class for four different men, and reimbursed them even though, unlike herself,

they not need the class for their duties.

183. Despite multiple complaints, Plaintiff Ajose was given no explanation as to why she was

treated differently than the men who were reimbursed for the course.

184. Plaintiff Ajose has also been affected by Lt. Barnes’ improper and unfair distribution of

overtime. Along with Plaintiff Sanders, Plaintiff Ajose raised the issue, demanding that DC FEMS

implement the overtime equalization requirements of the CBA.

185. Plaintiff Ajose further complained about the disparate pay practices of DC FEMS that only

affected African American employees in the Fire Prevention Division. To this day, Plaintiff Ajose

has not been made whole as to the disparate pay practices of DC FEMS.

186. Specifically, Plaintiff Ajose, like her colleagues was entitled to 15% premium pay for

holding a paramedic certification.

187. Plaintiff Ajose entered into a mediated settlement about her claim for premium pay, but

DC FEMS has violated the terms of the settlement by not paying Plaintiff Ajose in accordance

27
with its terms, and not making Plaintiff Ajose whole for losses to her retirement, and the effect on

her overtime pay.

188. Plaintiff is also still being retaliated against for engaging in protected activity in opposing

and protesting DC FEMS’s disparate treatment of Black women firefighters.

FACTS RELEVANT TO PLAINTIFF SMITH

189. Plaintiff Smith joined DC FEMS in April of 2006. In November of that year, she was

assigned to Engine 24.

190. In 2006, Plaintiff Smith was subjected to inappropriate touching and hostile and

intimidating behavior from white male firefighters who repeatedly and intentionally bumped her

with their shoulders in order to push and bully her.

191. Shortly thereafter, the same firefighters who were bullying Plaintiff Smith, sabotaged

equipment that she needed and would use in fighting a fire.

192. When Plaintiff Smith complained about what was being done to her, and the fact that it

was placing her life at risk, DC FEMS moved her to another assignment, but took no action against

the white male firefighters who bullied and intimidated her.

193. Plaintiff Smith filed an EEOC charge related to the race and gender based bullying,

harassment and intimidation, but DC FEMS refused to participate in the investigation. Although

Plaintiff Smith intended to pursue her rights in court, she unfortunately lacked the financial

resources at the time to do so.

194. In 2008, she was transferred to Engine 32, and remained on that team until 2012. In 2012

she was transferred to the Truck 8, and remained there until 2016.

28
195. In March 2010, Plaintiff Smith and firefighter Donald Steele (hereinafter “Firefighter

Steele”)(African American male) were sent to a trial board for termination, because they were

accused of violating policy in not being available for an emergency call. Essentially, Plaintiff

Smith and Firefighter Steele had failed to put themselves as available for service when they were

in the general vicinity of an emergency call.

196. While Plaintiff Smith and Firefighter Steele acted in a manner that was completely

consistent with the common practices at DC FEMS, management decided to make an example of

them, and targeted them for termination. This was the first disciplinary action against Plaintiff

Smith in her career.

197. In a way that was demonstrative of animus, DC FEMS charged Plaintiff Smith and

Firefighter Steele with multiple violations and pushed assertively for them to be discharged.

198. At the trial board, Plaintiff Smith was found guilty of only two charges, which were the

most minor charges against her. However, she was sentenced to 168 hours of suspension, an

extraordinary amount for the transgression at issue.

199. Plaintiff Smith was forced to appeal the decision pro se to the Office of Employee Appeals

(hereinafter “OEA”), and an Administrative Law Judge (hereinafter “ALJ”) found that whether or

not Plaintiff Smith was guilty, the fact that DC FEMS’ disciplinary action was so disparate as

compared to the discipline other firefighters for similar transgressions, that the discipline could

not be sustained.

200. In finding for Plaintiff Smith, and against DC FEMS, the ALJ concluded:

“The inconsistent findings by the Fire Trial Board, as it relates to charge two against
[Plaintiff Smith] and Firefighter Steele, exemplify the disparate treatment [Plaintiff
Smith] received by Agency. Agency does not offer any reason for imposing
different penalties for [Plaintiff Smith] than Firefighter Steele, despite providing
the same information regarding the status and location of A-32 on the evening of

29
 March 30, 2010. As such, the penalty imposed against [Plaintiff Smith] for charge
two, providing false and misleading information to Agency, must be reversed.”

EXHIBIT 1.

201. The ALJ’s decision noted in several places the way in which Plaintiff Smith was treated

disparately than her male colleague, and further noted that DC FEMS had no explanation or excuse

for its behavior. See id.

202. The ALJ also noted that both Plaintiff Smith and Firefighter Steele were severely

disciplined for actions that were common at DC FEMS, and found that the Agency’s lack of

explanation for why it singled them out required reversal of the discipline. See id.

203. DC FEMS appealed the ALJ decision to the full board and lost the appeal. It was therefore

required to pay Plaintiff Smith her entire back pay and make her whole.

204. Instead, DC FEMS told Plaintiff Smith that they were going to appeal the OEA final

decision to the D.C. Court of Appeals. It did not do so, however, and it is far too late for DC

FEMS to do so now.

205. It took more than two years for Plaintiff Smith’s disciplinary case to be resolved. To date,

DC FEMS has failed to pay Plaintiff Smith the backpay and make whole award she is entitled to,

and still owes her that sum.

206. Plaintiff Smith asserts that she was treated disparately than her colleagues because of her

race and her gender.

207. In 2011, while Plaintiff Smith was dealing with her disciplinary matter, she became

pregnant. Over her objection, DC FEMS forced her to go to the Police and Fire Clinic (hereinafter

“PFC”), to inform them of her pregnancy.

30
208. When she went there, PFC forced her to take a light duty assignment against her will. They

then informed Plaintiff Smith that after her 30th day on light duty, they were going to force her to

take her own leave to remain in a paid status.

209. Plaintiff Smith had no choice but to comply, but because she had not been on the force

long enough to accrue substantial leave, she would have exhausted all of her leave and still not

have enough to cover her pregnancy.

210. Therefore, her fellow firefighters began to donate leave to her. However, approximately a

month before Plaintiff Smith delivered her son, DC FEMS told her that she had maxed out on the

amount of donated leave she could have, and that she would be in an unpaid status during the

remainder of pregnancy and maternity leave.

211. Plaintiff Smith was forced to reach out directly to the Fire Chief to address the problem

because of its detrimental impact on her income, but in violation of departmental policy that

requires response to the Expedited Special Report that Plaintiff Smith submitted to the Chief, she

received no response.

212. Despite Plaintiff Smith’s repeated, and concerted efforts to change DC FEMS’ sexist and

unlawful policy, management refused to budge until Local 39 went to the media to shame DC

FEMS management into changing its stance.

213. However, no remedy was provided to Plaintiff Smith for the anxiety, stress and potential

harm to her unborn child that she was forced to endure for no cognizable, rational reason.

214. Eventually DC FEMS saw the err of its ways, and paid Plaintiff Smith her lost leave, but

to this day, it has failed to make her whole.

31
215. In 2016, Plaintiff Smith was promoted to the position of Geographical Inspector in the Fire

Prevention Division, and in 2018, she was promoted again to Technician Inspector for the

Healthcare team.

216. As a Technical Inspector, Plaintiff Smith works with hospitals and medical centers to

ensure they comply with fire safety and prevention regulations. She currently remains in that role.

217. Like her fellow firefighters, Plaintiff Smith sought overtime opportunities in order to

supplement her income.

218. However, like the other Black women in the Fire Prevention Division, Plaintiff Smith was

consistently and habitually denied overtime opportunities by Lt. Barnes, who was giving himself

excessive overtime, and preferentially assigning overtime to male firefighters in the division.

219. Like the other Plaintiffs herein, Plaintiff Smith repeatedly complained to her superiors that

Lt. Barnes was discriminating against the women in the Fire Prevention division, and like the other

Plaintiffs, her complaints were ignored by DC FEMS management.

220. Plaintiff Smith asserts that she has been subjected to retaliation by Lt. Barnes for her

complaints against him, and that DC FEMS has failed to take appropriate corrective action to

ensure that all personnel in Fire Prevention Division are treated equitably.

221. Plaintiff Smith has lost wages, career development opportunities, and her pension annuity

has been negatively affected by Lt. Barnes’ actions, and by DC FEMS refusal to intercede or make

her whole.

32
 FACTS RELEVANT TO PLAINTIFF THOMAS

222. Plaintiff Thomas began her DC FEMS career in October of 2012. She was first assigned

to the Engine 26 and was promoted to be Fire Investigator in the Fire Prevention Division in

September of 2020.

223. She is also a certified EMT, and has held her EMT certification since 2012.

224. Like many firefighters in the Fire Prevention Division, she often volunteered for overtime

assignments in the field to supplement her income. When she worked overtime, she often had to

rely on her EMT knowledge and skills.

225. As part of their duties in the field, firefighters often provide transportation for people who

are injured to area hospitals.

226. As part of the transfer of the custody of the injured or ill person, DC FEMS personnel hand

over documentation of the medical treatment that was provided by EMTs over to hospital

personnel, and a hospital employee, usually a receiving or charge nurse, signs that they have

received the injured person.

227. For decades, it has been a common practice by DC FEMS personnel to sign for a receiving

nurse or staffer when there is high operational tempo in an emergency room.

228. Plaintiff Thomas learned about this practice when she first started doing field calls in 2012,

and has observed many DC FEMS personnel sign in such a manner during her tenure.

229. Plaintiff Thomas herself has signed over persons she had transferred by emergency vehicle

dozens of times in her career, without comment, incident or reprimand.

230. On or about April 27, 2021, Plaintiff Thomas was working an overtime assignment when

she signed a transport over to the hospital, as she had done many times before, and as her

colleagues have done frequently.

33
231. However, this time Captain Nicole Liriano (hereinafter “Cpt. Liriano) (white female) who

was assigned to the day shift at the time because she was under investigation, noticed what Plaintiff

Thomas had done, and accused Plaintiff Thomas of forging a nurse’s signature.

232. When Plaintiff Thomas was asked about the incident, she admitted that she had signed the

document, but also pointed out that this is a common practice amongst DC FEMS personnel, and

if the department wanted to crack down on the practice, it should do so for everyone, not just her.

233. Despite her explanation, and Defendant’s knowledge that disciplining Plaintiff Thomas for

doing something that is a common practice would be disparate and inconsistent with its treatment

of others, DC FEMS referred Plaintiff Thomas to a trial board for consideration of termination.

234. For more than a year, while the disciplinary process was underway, Plaintiff Thomas was

denied the ability to work overtime, was limited in her duties and endured the stress of potentially

losing her employment.

235. At the time that Plaintiff Thomas was being disciplined, her colleague Plaintiff Ajose, and

fellow Fire Prevention employee Plaintiff Sanders, had been consistently complaining about race

and gender discrimination in the Fire Prevention Department, and complaining about the treatment

of Black women in the division.

236. Although Plaintiff Thomas was not a complainant herself, she was one of only five Black

women in the division, and often perceived to be friendly with the other two complainants.

237. Plaintiff Thomas asserts that she was targeted for excessive, unwarranted and unjustified

disciplinary action because of her race and gender, and because of the retaliatory animus of DC

FEMS personnel against Black women in the Fire Prevention Division who were complaining

about the way they were being treated.

34
238. Despite Plaintiff Thomas’ repeated complaints to management that she was being singled

out and treated disparately than her colleagues, on or about January 27, 2022, she was sent to a

trial board for termination.

239. Plaintiff Thomas was represented by Local 39 at the trial Board, and after the entire

presentation, was only given a reprimand for the transgression. This was the first reprimand that

Plaintiff Thomas has ever received.

240. Plaintiff Thomas asserts herein that she was targeted for harsh disciplinary action because

of Defendant’s animus towards Black women firefighters, and in retaliation for the Black women

firefighters in the Fire Prevention Division raising concerns about DC FEMS’ pattern and practice

of disparate treatment against them.

CLAIMS

COUNT I

(On behalf of all Plaintiffs)

(Violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 enforced via Section 1983

241. Plaintiffs reference and incorporate all of the allegations in the previous paragraphs as if

fully restated herein.

242. Plaintiffs assert that DC FEMS’s longstanding pattern, practice and custom of race

discrimination, and its open hostility to Black employees encumbered their ability to make and

enforce an employment contract, and that they were subjected to disparate terms and conditions of

employment because of their race, African American.

35
243. Plaintiffs assert that DC FEMS has subjected them to disparate and harsher discipline, has

ignored their complaints about unfair treatment, has incumbered and stymied their ability to obtain

training, limited their career opportunities and withheld promotional opportunities.

244. Plaintiffs assert that DC FEMS’ has a longstanding pattern, practice and custom of making

pay decisions that disadvantage Black firefighters, and did so when it decided not to give the

firefighters in the Fire Prevention Division EMT premium pay, a decision that only affected Black

firefighters.

245. Plaintiffs assert that DC FEMS has not made them whole, is paying the premium

inconsistently, and is still paying them disparately than their white colleagues because they are

being paid their premium quarterly, rather than hourly like the other firefighters, which is having

an effect on their pension annuity, and on their overtime rate.

246. Plaintiffs seek to enforce their rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, by asserting the instant claim

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, based on the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution as it relates to the

District of Columbia.

247. Plaintiffs ask this Court to award them compensatory and equitable damages, front pay,

back pay, interest, cost and fees, and attorney’s fees of not less than $500,000.00 each.

248. They also asks this Court for declaratory judgment mandating that they be paid in the same

manner and fashion as their colleagues, with their paramedic premium paid on an hourly basis.

COUNT II

(On behalf of all Plaintiffs Sanders, Thomas and Smith)

(Violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1967

36
249. Plaintiffs reference and incorporate all allegations in the previous paragraphs as if fully

restated herein.

250. Plaintiffs asserts that DC FEMS management maintains a pattern and practice of race

discrimination against African American employees, and preferential treatment of white

firefighters and employees.

251. Plaintiffs asserts that they was subjected to disparate terms and conditions of employment

than white employees, and were subjected to a hostile work environment because of their race.

252. Plaintiffs asserts that Defendant created a racially hostile work environment at DC FEMS,

and that Defendant intentionally and repeatedly ignored the complaints of African American

firefighters about disparate and unfair treatment.

253. Plaintiffs assert that they were subjected to less favorable assignments, were denied

training opportunities, and were denied career advancement and promotions because of their race,

African American.

254. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant’s disparate treatment of Plaintiffs, they

suffered severe emotional pain, anxiety, stress and mental anguish.

255. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and equitable damages, front pay, back pay, interest, cost and

fees, and attorney’s fees of not less than not less than $300,000.00 each.

COUNT III

(On behalf of Plaintiffs Sanders)

(Violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1967

256. Plaintiffs reference and incorporate all allegations in the previous paragraphs as if fully

restated herein.

37
257. Plaintiffs asserts that DC FEMS management maintains facially neutral policies that have

a disparate impact on African American employees.

258. Plaintiffs asserts that they was subjected to facially neutral pay and overtime practices that

only affected Black women firefighters in the Fire Prevention Division.

259. When Plaintiffs complained about the fact that a facially neutral policy was having a

disparate impact on them, they were ignored.

260. When Plaintiffs complained about the fact that a facially neutral overtime policy was

having a disparate impact on them, they were ignored.

261. As a direct and proximate cause of the disparate impact of Defendant’s practices and

policies, Plaintiffs suffered severe emotional pain, anxiety, stress and mental anguish.

262. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and equitable damages, front pay, back pay, interest, cost and

fees, and attorney’s fees of not less than not less than $300,000.00 each.

263. Plaintiffs further seek declaratory judgment requiring that Defendant modifies its facially

neutral policies to ensure that they do not have a negative impact on Plaintiffs and other Black

women firefighters at DC FEMS.

COUNT IV

(On behalf of all Plaintiffs Sanders, Thomas and Smith)

(Violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1967

264. Plaintiffs reference and incorporate all allegations in the previous paragraphs as if fully

restated herein.

38
265. Plaintiffs asserts that DC FEMS management maintains a pattern and practice of gender

discrimination against women employees, and preferential treatment of male firefighters and

employees.

266. Plaintiffs asserts that they was subjected to disparate terms and conditions of employment

than male employees, and were subjected to a hostile work environment because of their gender.

267. Plaintiffs asserts that Defendant created a racially hostile work environment at DC FEMS,

and that Defendant intentionally and repeatedly ignored the complaints of African American

women firefighters about disparate and unfair treatment.

268. Plaintiffs assert that they were subjected to less favorable assignments, were denied

training opportunities, and were denied career advancement and promotions because of their

gender.

269. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant’s disparate treatment of Plaintiffs, they have

suffered severe emotional pain, anxiety, stress and mental anguish.

270. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and equitable damages, front pay, back pay, interest, cost and

fees, and attorney’s fees of not less than not less than $300,000.00 each.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

271. Plaintiffs herein seek compensatory damages not less than $2,500,000 each.

272. Plaintiffs further seek relief in the form of an injunction, ordering Defendant to cease and

desist in its unfair and inequitable pay practices that disparately and disproportionately affect Black

women firefighters.

39
273. Plaintiffs ask this Court for the declaratory and injunctive relief it deems appropriate to

remedy DC FEMS pattern and practice of ignoring complaints from African American firefighters,

and particularly from Black women firefighters.

274. Plaintiffs ask for an order granting them all back pay and lost wages they are entitled to, as

well as adjustment to their retirement annuities to reflect what they should have been earning.

275. Plaintiffs ask for an order mandating that DC FEMS cease and desist denying Black women

firefighters equitable overtime opportunities.

276. Plaintiffs ask this Court for any and all other remedies, of whatever nature, it deems

appropriate.

JURY DEMAND

277. Plaintiffs demand a jury trial on all claims so triable.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/Pamela M. Keith
Pamela M. Keith [Bar No. 448421]
CENTER FOR EMPLOYMENT JUSTICE
650 Massachusetts Ave. NW
Suite 600
Washington, DC 20001
Tel: (202) 800-0292
Fax: (202) 807-5725
[email protected]
Counsel for Plaintiffs

40