Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Plaintiff Brooke Elizabeth Heike, by and through her attorneys, The Victor
Firm, PLLC, hereby states for her complaint against defendants Sue Guevara,
individually and in her official capacity, Dave Heeke, individually and in his official
capacity, Patricia Pickler, individually and in her official capacity, and Central
JURISDICTION
(a) Arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States
and this Court has original federal jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331;
Case 1:09-cv-10427-TLL-CEB Document 1 Filed 02/03/2009 Page 2 of 46
United States providing for equal rights of its citizens and of all persons of any
jurisdiction in the United States, and this Court has original jurisdiction pursuant
U.S.C. §1983. and this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1343(4).
2. The principal events giving rise to the claims stated herein occurred
in this Judicial District and venue is therefore proper in this District pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §1391(b).
THE PARTIES
constitutional body corporate under the Michigan Constitution (1963), Art. 8, §§4-
6, operating in Isabella County, Michigan, within this Judicial District., which has
-2-
Case 1:09-cv-10427-TLL-CEB Document 1 Filed 02/03/2009 Page 3 of 46
Judicial District and who is employed by defendant CMU as Head Coach of the
in her official capacity. By virtue of her position as Head Coach of the women’s
Judicial District and who is employed by defendant CMU as its Athletics Director.
decision-making official for CMU. Defendant Heeke is responsible for the hiring
Guevara.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
-3-
Case 1:09-cv-10427-TLL-CEB Document 1 Filed 02/03/2009 Page 4 of 46
10. While at Romeo High School, plaintiff played on the girls’ basketball
team. During the time plaintiff played on that team, the team - the Bulldogs -
improved from a team which had a record of 1 win and 17 losses (plaintiff’s
freshman year) to one which won its league championship (plaintiff’s senior
year).
team, and to the league championship which the team won in 2006.
12. During high school plaintiff earned numerous awards, including, but
not limited to, Scholar Athlete (for having a 3.5 grade point average), MVP (“Most
Valuable Player”) and Co-Captain of the team in 2006, leading the team to the
best year in the school’s history. For that same year, plaintiff was named MVP of
the MAC Blue All-League Team, member of the 1st tier MAC All-Conference
team, member of the 1st tier All Metro East team (as selected by The Detroit
Free Press), member of the 2d All Metro East team (as selected by The Detroit
News), and received honorable mention on the All-State team (all women’s
basketball teams).
programs and offered her athletic scholarships covering all the costs of her
-4-
Case 1:09-cv-10427-TLL-CEB Document 1 Filed 02/03/2009 Page 5 of 46
15. One of the schools which aggressively recruited plaintiff for its
she enrolled at CMU and joined its women’s basketball team, she would receive
a college education at CMU and that her athletic scholarship would completely
pay for all expenses, including tuition, room and board and other expenses, for
time she was recruited by CMU, “I can’t guarantee how much playing time you’ll
tuition, fees, room, board and book loan for the four years it would take plaintiff to
tuition, fees, room, board and book loan (a copy of this letter is attached hereto
as Exhibit 1). Director of Athletics Deromedi’s letter states that renewal of the
-5-
Case 1:09-cv-10427-TLL-CEB Document 1 Filed 02/03/2009 Page 6 of 46
“subject to the conditions listed on the MAC [Mid America Conference] and
representations to plaintiff before and after November 3, 2005 that she would
receive the “athletic grant,” or scholarship, for all four years of her education.
the other offers which she received and accepted the offer of defendant CMU.
22. Plaintiff signed the Mid America Conference and National Letters of
November 3, 2005 letter (copies of these letters of intent are attached hereto as
was a member of the CMU women’s basketball team beginning in her freshman
team at defendant CMU, the Head Coach of that team was Eileen Kleinfelter.
25. In the 2005/2006 season, the CMU women’s basketball team had
announced:
-6-
Case 1:09-cv-10427-TLL-CEB Document 1 Filed 02/03/2009 Page 7 of 46
27. On January 16, 2006, defendant Heeke had become the Athletics
Deromedi.
at a press conference as the new Head Coach for the CMU women’s basketball
program.
been abruptly fired as head coach of the women’s basketball team at the
University of Michigan in 2003, and had worked for three years as an assistant
30. Defendants Heeke and CMU did not investigate the reasons for
Guevara had forced players who were not her “type” to leave the team at that
school.
to the fact that there had been a history of poor interpersonal relationships
among defendant Guevara and the players on the women’s basketball team at
the University of Michigan while defendant Guevara was head coach of that
program; or the fact that six players had left the University of Michigan women’s
basketball team during the seven seasons that defendant Guevara coached that
-7-
Case 1:09-cv-10427-TLL-CEB Document 1 Filed 02/03/2009 Page 8 of 46
team, all stating that poor communication on the part of defendant Guevara or
defendant Guevara’s invasions into their personal life (such as being upset
way) were the reasons for their leaving; or the fact that defendant Guevara and
32. In April, 2007, defendant Guevara met with plaintiff, and, without
drive, determination or self-discipline, told plaintiff that she did not want plaintiff to
wear make-up again and had Assistant Coach Bill Ferrara tell plaintiff that she
were alone and when they were in front of others (such as her teammates),
plaintiff believed that defendant Guevara did not consider plaintiff to be her “type”
behavior.
-8-
Case 1:09-cv-10427-TLL-CEB Document 1 Filed 02/03/2009 Page 9 of 46
plaintiff would not abandon her heterosexual preference and adopt a homosexual
preference.
plaintiff, in front of other team players and assistant coaches, that “your only role
on this team is to keep the grade point average up and challenge the players that
39. As part of her discriminatory and wrongful plan to get plaintiff to quit
the team, on December 14, 2007, at team practice, defendant Guevara stated to
plaintiff, in front of the entire team, “just because you never play doesn’t mean
you don’t have to work hard,” to which plaintiff responded, “I work hard all the
time and never get to play? Why wouldn’t I work hard now?” In response,
and harassment and unconstitutional action on December 14, 2007, that she
became ill, could not eat, and vomited profusely. Plaintiff was examined by a
-9-
Case 1:09-cv-10427-TLL-CEB Document 1 Filed 02/03/2009 Page 10 of 46
medical doctor, who instructed by note that she not attend practice on December
defendant Guevara wrongfully told others, including the assistant coaches and
team members, that she had kicked plaintiff out of practice on that day as well.
assistance with her work-outs and training, which was never provided to her but
which was provided to the other players whom defendant Guevara retained on
the team.
unconstitutional actions toward her, and on December 19, 2007, was advised by
her doctor that her medical conditions were being triggered by this significant
emotional stress.
and harassing and unconstitutional actions against her. Plaintiff was never told
that her skills or abilities were lacking in any way. Prior to the tournament at
Northwestern University, Assistant Coach Ferrara advised plaintiff that she was
going to be looked at as a possible starter player, if not the first player off the
45. Plaintiff was selected as the first player off the bench and placed
- 10 -
Case 1:09-cv-10427-TLL-CEB Document 1 Filed 02/03/2009 Page 11 of 46
defendant Guevara on the bus ride back to CMU, and indicated that she wanted
to come in and watch the film of the game because she had actually played in
the game, and it was the longest time she had been able to play in a game.
with whom plaintiff made an appointment to view the film of the game at the
show up at the appointed time, and plaintiff was never provided another
48. The CMU women’s basketball team won only 6 games and lost 23
“deficiencies.”
Guevara never put in place any program to assist plaintiff with her alleged
“deficiencies.”
Guevara never communicated to plaintiff in any way that plaintiff did not meet
- 11 -
Case 1:09-cv-10427-TLL-CEB Document 1 Filed 02/03/2009 Page 12 of 46
53. Despite the complete lack of notice, on March 13, 2008, defendant
Guevara called plaintiff into her office and told plaintiff that plaintiff was not
defendant Guevara’s “type” and that she was taking away her scholarship and
54. During the meeting on March 13, 2008, defendant Guevara did not
tell plaintiff any reason for depriving plaintiff summarily of her property and liberty
rights, except only that plaintiff wasn’t defendant Guevara’s “type.” Defendant
Guevara gave never told plaintiff that she was taking away plaintiff’s scholarship
because of any deficiency on the part of plaintiff, or because plaintiff did not have
that plaintiff had been removed from the team and her scholarship taken away
from her because plaintiff was “unhappy,” not because of any deficiency on the
basketball team for two years, defendant Guevara refused to permit plaintiff to
attend the concluding dinner/banquet at the end of the season, thereby causing
57. Defendant Guevara deprived plaintiff and two other players on the
women’s basketball team of their scholarships so that she could give them to
players of a different race and color than plaintiff and the other two then-players
- 12 -
Case 1:09-cv-10427-TLL-CEB Document 1 Filed 02/03/2009 Page 13 of 46
hearing as to the non-renewal of her scholarship and financial aid, and in that
written correspondence, set forth the reasons why she believed defendants had
acted discriminatorily and wrongfully in depriving her of her scholarship, and thus
renewal of Ms. Heike’s athletic aid for the 2008-2009 academic year has been
scheduled for Wednesday June 11, 2008” (a copy of this letter is attached as
Exhibit 7).
- 13 -
Case 1:09-cv-10427-TLL-CEB Document 1 Filed 02/03/2009 Page 14 of 46
and Sue:” and does not even mention plaintiff’s name (Exhibit 7).
(Exhibit 7).
the reason as to why the appeal committee was to determine if the action to
plaintiff “was a substantial injustice,” or from what source this “standard” was
derived.
from what source or on what basis the appeal committee was to decide that
to plaintiff and defendant Guevara a written procedure for the hearing, which
permitted plaintiff to make a closing statement and which stated that, “The
student-athlete may ask questions of the coach and his or her witnesses” (Exhibit
7).
- 14 -
Case 1:09-cv-10427-TLL-CEB Document 1 Filed 02/03/2009 Page 15 of 46
document which had not previously been given to, shown to or reviewed with
plaintiff in any way, entitled “Brooke Heike Statement, prepared by Sue Guevara,
April 24, 2008” (a copy of this “statement” is attached hereto as Exhibit 8).
68. For the first time ever (and more than a month after she wrongfully
took away plaintiff’s scholarship), defendant Guevara set forth the purported
“consistently could not compete at the same level of other players in our
program. Her skills were significantly deficient in each and every measurable
reinforced by the secondary role that she played in all basketball practice
most disconcerting is that Brooke never appeared to strike for success” (Exhibit 8
at 2).
though Brooke was failing to meet these expectations, she did not seek
- 15 -
Case 1:09-cv-10427-TLL-CEB Document 1 Filed 02/03/2009 Page 16 of 46
and she never asked for additional assistance, even though her statistics and
purported “quotations” which plaintiff allegedly made to her on April 25, 207
December 14, 2007, plaintiff “was kicked out of practice for lack of effort, poor
body language, and bad attitude overall ... this stemmed from her consistently
missing sprint times and not grasping basic concepts essential to the completion
December 15, 2007, plaintiff “was kicked out of practice again for lack of effort,
poor body language, and bad attitude ... this again stemmed from her
consistently missing sprint times and not grasping basic concepts essential to the
number of those members of the team who were underachieving throughout the
year demanded additional time from coaches to help them with the process of
- 16 -
Case 1:09-cv-10427-TLL-CEB Document 1 Filed 02/03/2009 Page 17 of 46
that she had taken plaintiff’s scholarship away from her because plaintiff did not
meet the conditions listed on the MAC and National Letters of Intent.
78. On June 11, 2008, plaintiff appeared before what was termed an
“Appeals Committee” at the CMU Office of Scholarship and Financial Aid (this
79. Prior to the June 11th meeting, plaintiff had asked some current
meeting, but was told by those current team members that defendant Guevara
had instructed them that they were not allowed to attend and testify on plaintiff’s
behalf.
80. According to defendant Pickler, the purpose of the June 11, 2008
Appeals Committee meeting was “because Brooke has been notified that her
athletic scholarship will not be renewed for the 2008/2009 academic year and
she has requested the committee to review the decision” (a transcript of this
be heard before an impartial tribunal before depriving her of her property and
liberty rights, the Appeals Committee of defendant CMU at the June 11th
- 17 -
Case 1:09-cv-10427-TLL-CEB Document 1 Filed 02/03/2009 Page 18 of 46
substantive due process before being taking away her property rights.
82. Throughout the entirety of the June 11th meeting, defendant Pickler
plaintiff at the June 11th meeting include, but are not limited to, not permitting
ask questions of witnesses which were relevant to the issues before the Appeals
depriving any other player who was not defendant Guevara’s “type” of her
verbally abusive to her father, who was at the meeting, and threatening to throw
him out of the meeting for not “sitting back” (plaintiff’s father had merely leaned
forward in his chair to hold an exhibit for his daughter); cutting off plaintiff in the
relevant question of defendant Guevara, “what’s your point?”; and cutting off the
wrongful conduct of defendant Guevara by telling her, “I think you’ve made your
84. While defendant Guevara stated at the June 11, 2008 meeting that
she took away plaintiff’s scholarship because plaintiff did not work hard and that
- 18 -
Case 1:09-cv-10427-TLL-CEB Document 1 Filed 02/03/2009 Page 19 of 46
defendant Guevara did not feel that plaintiff “did anything to improve herself after
being told over and over again what she needed to do” and that plaintiff “never
came in for help with her position coach, never sought any help after being told
what she needed to do and I just feel that she did not meet the expectations”
(Exhibit 9), defendant Guevara could not provide any examples at the hearing of
85. At the June 11th meeting, defendant Guevara confirmed that she
contrary to the assertions she made in her April 24th “statement” (Exhibit 9).
86. At the June 11th meeting, defendant Guevara confirmed that she
never put in place any program which would have assisted plaintiff to correct her
87. Despite the fact that defendant Guevara claimed to have deprived
defendant Guevara, “how many times did I come to your office and say, ‘Coach,
what can I do? What can I do?” defendant Guevara replied, “Brooke, you’re right.
You’re right. You came in” (Exhibit 9), contrary to the assertions defendant
88. At the June 11th meeting, defendant Guevara admitted that she
had never before taken away any player’s scholarship (Exhibit 9).
- 19 -
Case 1:09-cv-10427-TLL-CEB Document 1 Filed 02/03/2009 Page 20 of 46
89. At the June 11th meeting, defendant Guevara admitted that she
had pressured other players on teams she had coached in the past to transfer to
90. At the June 11th meeting, defendant Guevara admitted that other
players on the women’s basketball team had missed sprints and yet remained on
the team and retained their scholarships, contrary to the assertions she made in
91. At the June 11th meeting, defendant Guevara admitted that other
players on the women’s basketball team had been “kicked out of practice” and
yet remained on the team and retained their scholarships, contrary to the
92. Plaintiff provided the Appeals Committee with the statistics for each
game of the 2007/2008 season, which showed that the players who were
retained on the team did not produce results and yet received a much greater
amount of playing time than did plaintiff (a copy of these statistics are attached
defendant Guevara made in her April 24th “statement” that plaintiff’s “skills were
other evidence that plaintiff’s skills were significantly deficient in each and every
measurable category, and defendant Guevara could not identify any examples of
- 20 -
Case 1:09-cv-10427-TLL-CEB Document 1 Filed 02/03/2009 Page 21 of 46
that plaintiff did not fail to “grasp the team concept” or provide “inconsistent play”
or that her “skills were significantly deficient in each and every measurable
“statement.”
evidence as to her athletic ability, basketball skills, work ethic, and initiative,
commitment and self-discipline for self-improvement, and that she did not miss
99. Defendant Guevara did not, and could not, produce any notes or
other written document to support the alleged “quotations” she set forth in her
April 24th “statement,” and admitted that there were no such writings (Exhibit 9).
witness at the June 11th meeting, who testified in the nature of a “rebuttal
witness,” stated that the entire team needed to improve and that plaintiff was
frustrated with being singled out for disparate treatment, but that plaintiff’s skills
101. Assistant Coach Ferrara confirmed at the June 11th meeting that
he never told plaintiff that her scholarship was in jeopardy (Exhibit 9).
- 21 -
Case 1:09-cv-10427-TLL-CEB Document 1 Filed 02/03/2009 Page 22 of 46
102. There was no evidence produced at the June 11th hearing that
plaintiff had not met the conditions listed on the MAC and National Letters of
Intent.
103. Plaintiff made clear to the Appeals Committee that she believed
she was being singled out for disparate, discriminatory treatment and abusive
wrongful sexual harassment because of her race and color and because of her
treatment of her.
104. Even in the face of this evidence, the Appeals Committee did not
it in any way.
only one “rebuttal” witness - who actually confirmed that which plaintiff had stated
to the Appeals Committee - and not a single document to support her decision to
“reasonable.”
- 22 -
Case 1:09-cv-10427-TLL-CEB Document 1 Filed 02/03/2009 Page 23 of 46
107. Defendant Heeke and the Appeals Committee (of which defendant
and unbiased decision about plaintiff’s dismissal from the women’s basketball
team and the deprivation of her scholarship. Instead, they each simply “rubber-
scholarship and dismiss her from the team for discriminatory and unlawfully
abilities or capabilities.
procedural due process and substantive due process, treated plaintiff differently
basketball team, thereby depriving her of her right to equal protection under the
CMU women’s basketball team, whose athletic performance and work ethic were
CMU women’s basketball team, whose athletic performance and work ethic were
- 23 -
Case 1:09-cv-10427-TLL-CEB Document 1 Filed 02/03/2009 Page 24 of 46
heterosexuality.
114. At all times plaintiff advised defendant Guevara that her adverse
were unwelcome, but defendant Guevara would not cease from making such
comments.
Procedures” when plaintiff brought to their attention that she had been subjected
due process and equal protection under the laws and were unlawfully
discriminatory because of plaintiff’s race and color and sexual preference and
- 24 -
Case 1:09-cv-10427-TLL-CEB Document 1 Filed 02/03/2009 Page 25 of 46
117. The incidents set forth in the preceding paragraphs are sadly just a
and has caused plaintiff to suffer significant economic, physical, emotional and
actions are municipal actions, and are inherently arbitrary and capricious, and a
COUNT I
123. Plaintiff by her race and color and gender is a member of the
classes protected by the federal civil rights statutes, including 42 U.S.C. §1983.
- 25 -
Case 1:09-cv-10427-TLL-CEB Document 1 Filed 02/03/2009 Page 26 of 46
her from the women’s basketball team was arbitrary and capricious and
review process either prior to or following the deprivation of her scholarship and
which stigmatized her and severely damaged her opportunities for future
protected rights, privileges and immunities provided by federal law and the
United States Constitution, and wrongfully discriminated against her, and plaintiff
plaintiff’s constitutional and civil rights, took no action to remedy the violation of
plaintiff’s constitutional and civil rights, and instead engaged in further wrongful
acts after they became aware, or should have become aware, of the
representatives and employees of defendant CMU acting under color of state law
- 26 -
Case 1:09-cv-10427-TLL-CEB Document 1 Filed 02/03/2009 Page 27 of 46
and in concert with one another, by their conduct, showed intentional, outrageous
representatives and employees of defendant CMU acting under color of state law
and in concert with one another, acted out of vindictiveness and animus and ill
133. The acts of defendants Guevara, Heeke, Pickler and other agents,
defendant CMU.
134. At all material times hereto, plaintiff had clearly established rights to
due process of law about which a reasonable public official would have known.
law, of plaintiff’s procedural and substantive due process rights guaranteed under
the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
suffered and will continue to suffer injury, including irreparable harm, and
damages, including but not limited to monetary damages, the loss of her
scholarship or “athletic grant,” the loss of her education and degree, time and
- 27 -
Case 1:09-cv-10427-TLL-CEB Document 1 Filed 02/03/2009 Page 28 of 46
resources, the loss of career opportunities and earning capacity, physical and
emotional injury, mental and emotional distress, anxiety and mental anguish,
humiliation and embarrassment, and the loss of her personal and professional
reputation.
have a complete and adequate remedy at law, and injunctive relief is required.
disregard and callous indifference for plaintiff’s federally protected rights, plaintiff
is entitled to exemplary and/or punitive damages as well as redress for all other
damages which she has suffered, including costs and attorneys fees pursuant to
42 U.S.C. §1988.
enter an order granting the relief requested in the Request for Relief below, and
COUNT II
141. Plaintiff by her race and color and gender is a member of the
classes protected by the federal civil rights statutes, including 42 U.S.C. §1983.
- 28 -
Case 1:09-cv-10427-TLL-CEB Document 1 Filed 02/03/2009 Page 29 of 46
143. Plaintiff has the right to fair and equal treatment under the law, as
144. Defendants have intentionally singled out and treated plaintiff less
favorably than other similarly-situated persons, without any rational basis for that
treatment.
protected rights, privileges and immunities provided by federal law and the
United States Constitution, and wrongfully discriminated against her, and plaintiff
plaintiff’s constitutional and civil rights, took no action to remedy the violation of
plaintiff’s constitutional and civil rights, and instead engaged in further wrongful
acts after they became aware, or should have become aware, of the
representatives and employees of defendant CMU acting under color of state law
and in concert with one another, by their conduct, showed intentional, outrageous
- 29 -
Case 1:09-cv-10427-TLL-CEB Document 1 Filed 02/03/2009 Page 30 of 46
representatives and employees of defendant CMU acting under color of state law
and in concert with one another, acted out of vindictiveness and animus and ill
149. The acts of defendants Guevara, Heeke, Pickler and other agents,
defendant CMU.
150. At all material times hereto, plaintiff had clearly established rights to
fair and equal treatment under the law about which a reasonable public official
151. At all material times hereto, plaintiff had clearly established rights
not to have defendants discriminate against her on the basis of her race and
152. At all material times hereto, plaintiff had clearly established rights
law, of plaintiff’s federal rights guaranteed under the Equal Protection Clause of
- 30 -
Case 1:09-cv-10427-TLL-CEB Document 1 Filed 02/03/2009 Page 31 of 46
the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, for which plaintiff
suffered and will continue to suffer injury, including irreparable harm, and
damages, including but not limited to monetary damages, the loss of her
scholarship or “athletic grant,” the loss of her education and degree, time and
resources, the loss of career opportunities and earning capacity, physical and
emotional injury, mental and emotional distress, anxiety and mental anguish,
humiliation and embarrassment, and the loss of her personal and professional
reputation.
have a complete and adequate remedy at law, and injunctive relief is required.
disregard and callous indifference for plaintiff’s federally protected rights, plaintiff
is entitled to exemplary and/or punitive damages as well as redress for all other
damages which she has suffered, including costs and attorneys fees pursuant to
42 U.S.C. §1988.
enter an order granting the relief requested in the Request for Relief below, and
- 31 -
Case 1:09-cv-10427-TLL-CEB Document 1 Filed 02/03/2009 Page 32 of 46
COUNT III
contract.
or implied contract, plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer injury and
damages, including but not limited to monetary damages, the loss of her
scholarship or “athletic grant,” the loss of her education and degree, time and
resources, the loss of career opportunities and earning capacity, physical and
emotional injury, mental and emotional distress, anxiety and mental anguish,
humiliation and embarrassment, and the loss of her personal and professional
reputation.
enter an order granting the relief requested in the Request for Relief below, and
- 32 -
Case 1:09-cv-10427-TLL-CEB Document 1 Filed 02/03/2009 Page 33 of 46
COUNT IV
Defamation
163. Defendants have each made statements about plaintiff orally and in
writing to third parties which are false and malicious and defamatory, as set forth
in detail in the preceding paragraphs and which are incorporated herein as if fully
164. Defendants knew that the statements which they made were false
or misleading.
falsity.
- 33 -
Case 1:09-cv-10427-TLL-CEB Document 1 Filed 02/03/2009 Page 34 of 46
plaintiff to suffer injury, including but not limited to, interfering with her
plaintiff, plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer injury and damages,
including but not limited to monetary damages, the loss of her scholarship or
“athletic grant,” the loss of her education and degree, time and resources, the
loss of career opportunities and earning capacity, physical and emotional injury,
mental and emotional distress, anxiety and mental anguish, humiliation and
enter an order granting the relief requested in the Request for Relief below, and
COUNT V
- 34 -
Case 1:09-cv-10427-TLL-CEB Document 1 Filed 02/03/2009 Page 35 of 46
CMU.
177. Defendants Guevara, Heeke and Pickler for personal reasons and
CMU.
defendant CMU.
and will continue to suffer injury and damages, including but not limited to
monetary damages, the loss of her scholarship or “athletic grant,” the loss of her
education and degree, time and resources, the loss of career opportunities and
earning capacity, physical and emotional injury, mental and emotional distress,
anxiety and mental anguish, humiliation and embarrassment, and the loss of her
enter an order granting the relief requested in the Request for Relief below, and
- 35 -
Case 1:09-cv-10427-TLL-CEB Document 1 Filed 02/03/2009 Page 36 of 46
COUNT VI
intentional.
society.
of emotional distress, plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer injury and
damages, including but not limited to monetary damages, the loss of her
scholarship or “athletic grant,” the loss of her education and degree, time and
resources, the loss of career opportunities and earning capacity, physical and
emotional injury, mental and emotional distress, anxiety and mental anguish,
humiliation and embarrassment, and the loss of her personal and professional
reputation.
enter an order granting the relief requested in the Request for Relief below, and
- 36 -
Case 1:09-cv-10427-TLL-CEB Document 1 Filed 02/03/2009 Page 37 of 46
COUNT VII
service and an educational institution, all as defined in the Michigan Civil Rights
work ethic, more favorable than they treated plaintiff, because of plaintiff’s race
and color.
work ethic, more favorably than they treated plaintiff, because of plaintiff’s
heterosexual preference.
- 37 -
Case 1:09-cv-10427-TLL-CEB Document 1 Filed 02/03/2009 Page 38 of 46
preference.
grant or scholarship and dismissing her from the women’s basketball team and
grant or scholarship and dismissing her from the women’s basketball team and
195. Defendants’ actions resulted in denying plaintiff the full and equal
196. Defendants’ actions resulted in denying plaintiff the full and equal
- 38 -
Case 1:09-cv-10427-TLL-CEB Document 1 Filed 02/03/2009 Page 39 of 46
committed in deliberate disregard of, and/or with reckless indifference to, the
Michigan Civil Rights Act, plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer injury
and damages, including but not limited to monetary damages, the loss of her
scholarship or “athletic grant,” the loss of her education and degree, time and
resources, the loss of career opportunities and earning capacity, physical and
emotional injury, mental and emotional distress, anxiety and mental anguish,
humiliation and embarrassment, and the loss of her personal and professional
reputation.
enter an order granting the relief requested in the Request for Relief below, and
- 39 -
Case 1:09-cv-10427-TLL-CEB Document 1 Filed 02/03/2009 Page 40 of 46
COUNT VIII
202. Defendants CMU and Heeke both owed plaintiff a duty to use
reasonable care in hiring and retaining only those employees who would not
203. Before they hired defendant Guevara, defendants CMU and Heeke
limited to, the fact that there was a history of poor interpersonal relationships
among defendant Guevara and the players on the women’s basketball team at
the University of Michigan during the time defendant Guevara was head coach of
that program; and the fact that six players left the women’s basketball team at the
University of Michigan during the seven seasons that defendant Guevara was
head coach of that program, each departing player citing poor communication on
personal life (such as being upset because she wore make-up or tight clothing or
otherwise acted in a feminine way) as the reasons for her leaving the team; and
the fact that defendant Guevara and the University of Michigan had been sued by
204. Before they hired defendant Guevara, defendants CMU and Heeke
knew or should have known that defendant Guevara was unfit for hiring as Head
Coach of the CMU women’s basketball program, based on her past work history,
- 40 -
Case 1:09-cv-10427-TLL-CEB Document 1 Filed 02/03/2009 Page 41 of 46
poor interpersonal relationships with players on teams she coached, and her
actions towards the players on those teams which caused those players to leave
the teams.
before hiring her as Head Coach of the CMU women’s basketball program.
Guevara’s previous work history and performance in interacting with the student-
athletes before hiring her as Head Coach of the CMU women’s basketball
207. Defendants CMU and Heeke had actual knowledge, or should have
and color and sexual preference and to deprive players such as plaintiff of their
negligent hiring of defendant Guevara, plaintiff has suffered and will continue to
suffer injury and damages, including but not limited to monetary damages, the
loss of her scholarship or “athletic grant,” the loss of her education and degree,
time and resources, the loss of career opportunities and earning capacity,
physical and emotional injury, mental and emotional distress, anxiety and mental
- 41 -
Case 1:09-cv-10427-TLL-CEB Document 1 Filed 02/03/2009 Page 42 of 46
anguish, humiliation and embarrassment, and the loss of her personal and
professional reputation.
enter an order granting the relief requested in the Request for Relief below, and
COUNT IX
210. Defendants CMU and Heeke both owed plaintiff a duty to use
knew or should have known that defendant Guevara was discriminating against
plaintiff and unlawfully harassing plaintiff because of her race and color and
rights.
- 42 -
Case 1:09-cv-10427-TLL-CEB Document 1 Filed 02/03/2009 Page 43 of 46
her and unlawfully harassed her because of her race and color and sexual
Guevara’s previous work history and performance in interacting with the student-
athletes before hiring her as Head Coach of the CMU women’s basketball
215. Defendants CMU and Heeke had actual knowledge, or should have
known, that defendant Guevara was discriminating against plaintiff and unlawfully
harassing plaintiff on the basis of her race and color and sexual preference, and
continue to suffer injury and damages, including but not limited to monetary
damages, the loss of her scholarship or “athletic grant,” the loss of her education
and degree, time and resources, the loss of career opportunities and earning
capacity, physical and emotional injury, mental and emotional distress, anxiety
and mental anguish, humiliation and embarrassment, and the loss of her
enter an order granting the relief requested in the Request for Relief below, and
- 43 -
Case 1:09-cv-10427-TLL-CEB Document 1 Filed 02/03/2009 Page 44 of 46
exemplary and/or punitive damages and attorneys fees, and further that this
on their behalf, from violating plaintiff’s rights to due process, from denying
plaintiff equal protection under the laws and from retaliating against plaintiff for
plaintiff on the basis of her race and color and/or sexual preference;
fees, interest, lost profits, and all other actual, compensatory, incidental,
attorneys fees, interest, lost profits, and all other actual, compensatory,
- 44 -
Case 1:09-cv-10427-TLL-CEB Document 1 Filed 02/03/2009 Page 45 of 46
G. Awards any other and further relief to plaintiff as this Court deems
Plaintiff Brooke Elizabeth Heike, by and through her attorneys, The Victor
Firm, PLLC, hereby demand a trial by jury on her causes of action against
defendants Sue Guevara, individually and in her official capacity, Dave Heeke,
individually and in his official capacity, Patricia Pickler, individually and in her
- 45 -
Case 1:09-cv-10427-TLL-CEB Document 1 Filed 02/03/2009 Page 46 of 46
- 46 -