MARIANNE MOORE, Plaintiff
vs.
WILLIAM HUNT, in his individual and official capacities
JAMES W. RILEY, in his individual and official capacities
and the CITY OF BLOOMINGTON, defendants

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, by her attorney, alleges as follows:

INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT

1. This is an action for monetary damages on behalf of plaintiff, formerly a secretary employed by the defendants. While so employed, the defendants acting under color of state law sexually harassed the plaintiff, refused to provide her with a forum in which to complain about the sexual harassment, and then fired her when she complained privately and publicly about these events. By these actions, defendants deprived her of the Equal Protection of the Laws, Due Process of Law, and her First Amendment right of Free Speech. Since she was fired, defendants have consistently given her unwarranted negative references, which has prevented her from finding new employment, depriving her of a liberty interest without Due Process of Law. Plaintiff seeks back pay, front pay, damages for emotional distress, and punitive damages against defendants.

JURISDICTION

2. Plaintiff brings this action to address violations by defendants of plaintiff's rights under the Constitution and laws of the United States and Indiana.
3. This is an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 to address the deprivation under color of law of plaintiff's constitutional rights to Equal Protection, Due Process, and Freedom of Speech.
4. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1343(3), which confer original jurisdiction on federal district courts to address the deprivation of constitutional rights.

PARTIES

5. At all times relevant to this complaint, Plaintiff was a citizen of the United States and of the County of Monroe and City of Bloomington, State of Indiana, and resided and was domiciled there.
6. Plaintiff was a secretary employed by the City of Bloomington in the Department of Human Resources until she was fired by defendants.
7. Upon information and belief, the defendant William Hunt at all times relevant was the Director of Human Resources for the City of Bloomington, and was in charge of the Department of Human Resources.
8. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant, defendant James W. Riley was the Deputy Mayor of the City of Bloomington, and was the supervisor for and in charge of personnel issues for the City of Bloomington.
9. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant, defendant Sara Teasdale was Mayor of the City of Bloomington.
10. The City of Bloomington is an incorporated first-class city in the County of Monroe, with a population of approximately 60,000.

COUNT I: SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN VIOLATION OF EQUAL PROTECTION

11. Plaintiff began working for the City of Bloomington in the Department of Human Resources on January 9, 1999..
12. During the period January 11 through March 23, 1999, William Hunt, acting individually, but under color of state law as Director of the Department of Human Resources and plaintiff's supervisor, and acting during normal working hours in the Department of Human Resources, subjected plaintiff to repeated, persistent, and unwanted sexual advances and requests for sexual favors.
13. On March 2, 1999, William Hunt advised plaintiff to attend a weekend training session on personnel issues that would require an overnight hotel stay. Hunt informed plaintiff that attendance at this session was necessary if she were to qualify to apply for the position of Assistant Director of Human Resources.
14. Plaintiff registered for the personnel training session as Hunt suggested. On Friday, March 17, 1999, while in attendance at the training session, Hunt subjected plaintiff to unwelcome physical contact of a sexual nature, including touching her, grabbing her arms, kissing her, and putting his arms around her.
15. On March 17, 1999, at the training session, William Hunt requested sexual favors from the plaintiff, asserting directly and indirectly that this was necessary if she were to obtain the promotion to Assistant Director of Human Resources.
16. Plaintiff refused defendant's requests for sexual favors.
17. Shortly thereafter, William Hunt gave plaintiff a negative personnel evaluation in her role as secretary.
18. On Friday, April 28, defendant Hunt fired plaintiff from her job as secretary.
19. By his conduct, defendant Hunt discriminated against plaintiff in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution; depriving plaintiff of her rights because of her sex.
20. William Hunt, as Director of Human Resources, was a policymaking city employee, so his pattern of harassment was city policy.
21. Defendant City of Bloomington failed to properly train William Hunt on sexual harassment issues, demonstrating deliberate indifference to plaintiff in light of Hunt's prior history in which he had sexually harassed other female employees.

COUNT II: REFUSAL TO ACT ON COMPLAINT AS VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS

22. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-21.
23. On March 29, 1999, plaintiff attempted to file a sexual harassment complaint against William Hunt with defendant James W. Riley.
24. Defendant Riley was the person to whom plaintiff had been instructed to bring any personnel or job complaints.
25. Defendant Riley refused to act on her complaint.
26. No alternative forum for hearing the complaint was provided at any time by the City of Bloomington.
27. The refusal to provide the plaintiff a form to process a complaint of sexual harassment constitutes gender discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
28. The refusal to provide a forum for the processing of a complaint denied the plaintiff Due Process of Law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
29. The City of Bloomington had a policy and custom of inaction on harassment issues.

COUNT III: RETALIATORY DISCHARGE IN VIOLATION OF FREE SPEECH

30. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-29 of the Complaint.
31. On or about April 23, 1999 plaintiff described the sexual harassment and the inaction of the City to a reporter for the newspaper The Bloomington Choice.
32. The issues of sexual harassment, city policy and city inaction are matters of public concern on which plaintiff had a First Amendment right to speak.
33. A story appeared in the newspaper The Bloomington Choice on or about April 26th, which extensively quoted the plaintiff. On or about Friday, April 28th, plaintiff was fired from her job by her supervisor, William Hunt.
34. On information and belief, William Hunt was acting under instructions from defendant James W. Riley.
35. On information and belief, defendants Hunt and Riley were acting under instructions from defendant Sara Teasdale.
36. The City of Bloomington had a policy and custom of firing employees who spoke publicly against the City, even on matters of public concern.
37. Defendant Teasdale is a policymaking employee of the City of Bloomington, so her approval of and instructions to fire the plaintiff were city policy.
38. Plaintiff was thereby deprived of her right of free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, when defendants acting under color of state law, fired her for the exercise thereof.

COUNT IV: DEPRIVATION OF RIGHT TO EMPLOYMENT IN VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS

39. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1-38 of this Complaint.
40. On information and belief, from May 1, 1999, and continuing to the present time, defendant William Hunt, acting individually but under color of state law, has given plaintiff unwarranted bad recommendations when she has applied for other jobs, making it impossible for her to find other employment
41. On information and belief, from May 1, 1999, and continuing to the present time, acting individually but under of color of state law, defendant James W. Riley has given plaintiff unwarranted bad recommendations when she has applied for other jobs, making it impossible for her to find other employment.
42. On information and belief, from May 1, 1999, and continuing to the present time, defendant Sara Teasdale, acting under color of state law, has given plaintiff unwarranted bad recommendations when she applied for other jobs, making it impossible for her to find other employment.
43. Defendants therefore acted maliciously, reckless and with callous indifference toward the plaintiff's liberty interest in finding future employment when they covered up Hunt's harassment of her, fired her and then gave her bad recommendations to prevent her from finding future employment.
44. The City of Bloomington had a policy and custom of "blackballing" former employees who had embarrassed the administration.
45. By acting together and separately as alleged, defendants have deprived plaintiff of her liberty interest in the right to seek employment without Due Process of Law, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment as follows:
1. Judgment against the defendants, jointly and severally, for the following sums:
a. As back pay since May 1, 1999, at a rate of $24,000.00 per year plus interest thereon.
b. As front pay, from the time of judgment until age 65, at $24,000.00 per year, with reasonable adjustments for inflation.
c. As compensation for emotional distress, loss of sleep, headaches, humiliation, stress, and related emotional, physical and psychological injuries since May 1, 1999, the sum of $500,000.00
2. Judgment against the defendants, jointly and severally, in the additional sum of two million dollars ($2,000,000.00) as punitive and exemplary damages.
3. An award of attorneys fees, expenses, costs and disbursements in this action.
4. Judgment that the defendants, jointly and severally, be permanently enjoined from issuing unfavorable job recommendations against plaintiff.
5. Such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.