You are on page 1of 31

Case 3:18-cv-02003-C Document 1 Filed 08/01/18 Page 1 of 29 PageID 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION

KIMBERLY WILSON, )
)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO.
)
CITY OF ROWLETT, )
)
Defendant. )
________________________________________ )

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

Plaintiff Kimberly Wilson (“Plaintiff” or “Wilson”), by counsel brings this action for

violations of the Texas Whistleblower Protection Act, sexual harassment and sexually hostile

work environment in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e, et seq. and the Texas Labor Code,

and retaliation in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e, et seq. and the Texas Labor Code

against Defendant, City of Rowlett (“Defendant” or “City of Rowlett”) and would respectfully

show the Court as follows:

I. PARTIES

1.1. Plaintiff Wilson is a citizen of the United States and a citizen and resident of the

State of Texas, who resides at 7518 Spicewood Drive, Garland, TX 75044.

Plaintiff’s Original Complaint 1


Case 3:18-cv-02003-C Document 1 Filed 08/01/18 Page 2 of 29 PageID 2

1.2. Defendant, the City of Rowlett, Texas is a municipal corporation that is located in

Dallas County. The Defendant may be served with process by serving its City Attorney, David

Berman, Nichols, Jackson, Dillard, Hager & Smith, L.L.P., 1800 Ross Tower, 500 North Akard,

Dallas, TX 75201.

1.3. Defendant, the City of Rowlett, is a municipality within the State of Texas and,

until Plaintiff's discharge, was her employer as that term is statutorily defined by the statutes

upon which Plaintiff relies for her causes of action. As a municipality, the City is not immune

from suit or liability in this case. Whenever Plaintiff alleges conduct by the City, it is meant that

the City acted through its officers, agents, servants, employees, or representatives.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2.1. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and pendent and

supplemental jurisdiction of the common law claims.

2.2. Venue for all causes of action stated herein lies in the Northern District of Texas

because the acts alleged in this Complaint took place, in whole or in part, within the boundaries

of this District, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391. Plaintiff Wilson’s EEOC charge was forwarded to

the Department of Justice and the Department of Justice issued a Right to Sue on July 17, 2018.

See exhibit A.

2.3. Plaintiff provided proper and timely notice to Defendant pursuant to the Texas

Tort Claims Act, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 101.101 on November 9, 2017.

III. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

3.1. Plaintiff Kim Wilson started her employment for the City of Rowlett on

September 21, 2015. She worked under the guidance of City Manager Brian Funderburk.

(“Funderburk”). Ms. Wilson was proficient in her position and praised by Mr. Funderburk in her

Plaintiff’s Original Complaint 2


Case 3:18-cv-02003-C Document 1 Filed 08/01/18 Page 3 of 29 PageID 3

January 2017 performance review as having “the potential to be one of the best Chief Financial

Officers in Texas.”

3.2. Ms. Wilson was efficient in her role as CFO, uncovering discrepancies in the

fiscal budget of the City of Rowlett and bringing any miscalculations to the attention of Mr.

Funderburk. Oftentimes, the errors Ms. Wilson discovered were caused by Mr. Funderburk

during the time he managed the City’s budget. However, as Ms. Wilson continued to point out

discrepancies in the fiscal budget and accounts of the City, Mr. Funderburk became frustrated

and angry. Mr. Funderburk even blatantly asked Ms. Wilson to “cover up” or delay informing

the City Council about these glaring errors.

Whistleblowing Activities

3.3. Plaintiff, while employed by the city as a public employee, notified the City

Manager often more than once (and on a couple occasions to the City Attorney and to Human

Resources), of the following violations of policy and law that she had discovered and requested

to be corrected:

(1) The property tax collections had been miscalculated. The City did not account for the
impact of the senior tax freeze, as described below in the property tax revenues for the
General Fund and the Debt Service Fund.

(2) Mr. Funderburk had provided inaccurate information regarding the senior tax freeze, in
both his 2015 Budget memo and again in a council workshop held on July 5, 2016, which
was included in the Mayor’s newsletter in July 2016. When Ms. Wilson discovered the
error in the property tax calculation, she reported it to the City Manager and Assistant
City Manager Jim Proce.

(3) In October 2016, Ms. Wilson requested that former IT Director, Joe Beauchamp take the
cell service contracts to council because in the aggregate the contracts exceeded the
$50,000 level that required the approval of the City Council. All cell service purchase
orders exceeded $165,000. Ms. Wilson brought this to the attention of the City Attorney
and the Executive Staff in December 2016, and Mr. Beauchamp informed the group he
would take the item to council in January or February 2017. However, Mr. Funderburk

Plaintiff’s Original Complaint 3


Case 3:18-cv-02003-C Document 1 Filed 08/01/18 Page 4 of 29 PageID 4

requested that the item be postponed until after the City Manager’s review in April 2017.
The City Manager knowingly deceived the City Council and received a $28,000 increase
in pay and additional fringe benefits after his evaluation. On August 24, 2017, Ms.
Wilson complained to the City Manager again that the cell service contract purchase
orders needed City Council knowledge and approval. After the City Manager returned
from a week-long vacation over Labor Day, on approximately September 11, 2017, he
told HR Director Richard Jones that he was going to find a way to fire Ms. Wilson. Two
days later, on September 13, 2017, Ms. Wilson was terminated.

(4) Ms. Wilson discovered a $300,000 error in the permitting revenue budget in the FY2017
budget. When she informed Mr. Funderburk about what she believed was an
unintentional error, he instructed her to “figure up a way to cover up the errors in the
revenue while discussing it with the City Council,” but Ms. Wilson refused to do so
despite pressure from Mr. Funderburk because it would constitute both fraud and a
breach of her fiduciary duty to the City.

(5) The discount points paid to the underwriter were substantially more than they should
have been for the 2017 private placement Bayside Public Improvement District (PID)
bonds. When the City Council asked about the cost during the council meeting,
Economic Development Director Jim Grabenhorst stated the cost was fair. However,
compared to other private placement bond issues, the costs were exorbitant. The
developer and ultimately the taxpayers were charged over $200,000 more than is
common practice among bond writers for this type of transaction. The underwriter for the
bonds was a friend of the Economic Development Director. In a previous Bayside PID
bond issue, the underwriter told Ms. Wilson that her personal feelings had clouded her
judgment. Ms. Wilson reported this violation of city policy and fraud to City Manager
Funderburk immediately upon learning this information. The Bayside project is expected
to exceed One Billion dollars in public and private development in the City of Rowlett on
Lake Ray Hubbard.

(6) In November of 2016, before the City had even broken land to build a new radio tower,
the Director of Parks and Recreation to the City Manager Funderburk and Fire Chief Neil
Howard that the tower of being built on the wrong land. In December 2016, the
landowner reported to the City Manager and the Fire Chief verbally and in writing that
they were going to build on the wrong land. Then in or about January 2017, still prior to
construction, the Director of Development Services informed the Fire Chief at an
executive team meeting that the tower could not be constructed on that specific land
because of the fall zone. Ms. Wilson, immediately upon hearing that the wrong land was
being used at this executive team meeting, informed the City Manager that he should hire
someone to manage the tower project because the Fire Chief was not following
permitting laws and not abiding by City Policy and procedure. Despite these warnings
and in contravention of controlling City Policy and Procedures, they decided to keep
building on the land rather than admit their error. When it was determined that the radio
tower had been built on the wrong land, City Manager Funderburk contacted Ms. Wilson

Plaintiff’s Original Complaint 4


Case 3:18-cv-02003-C Document 1 Filed 08/01/18 Page 5 of 29 PageID 5

and asked her to come up with funding to purchase the correct land. Ms. Wilson
contacted the City’s bond counsel and it was determined that bond funds issued for
development of a new fire station could be used to purchase the land if the new fire
station was built on the land. The purchase of the correct land would cost the taxpayers
an extra $500,000 because of the City Manager’s and Fire Chief’s intentional disregard of
the landowner’s warning and City Policy and Procedure. After the issue was presented to
council in executive session, City Attorney David Berman hired an investigator. The
City Manager then manipulated the investigator’s report in violation of his fiduciary duty,
and ethics before it was released to the public. The City Attorney then furthered the
cover-up by ordering the investigator to keep his investigation out of the public record.
On numerous occasions, including on August 24, 2017, Ms. Wilson reported to the City
Manager and City Attorney that this conduct was unlawful, unethical and fraudulent
because it defrauded the taxpayers out of $500,000 and the knowledge that the additional
$500,000 to acquire the correct land could have been avoided and she consistently
implored them to be transparent with the public up until she was terminated.

(7) Mayor Dana-Bashain (formerly a council member) campaigned to get her friend Pam
Liston appointed as the Chief Judge. Dana-Bashain and Liston own a boat together, and it
is also said they have a time share in Colorado together as well. This position of Chief
Judge is typically an hourly contract employee in small and medium sized cities. At the
behest of Mayor Dana-Bashain, the appointment for Rowlett’s Chief Judge was made as
a full-time employee at a salary of $155,000. Ms. Wilson complained to Funderburk that
this salary is higher than even what the judges in the City of Dallas earn, and the public
would be outraged if they knew what this appointment would actually cost the taxpayers.
City Manager Funderburk directed Ms. Wilson to put as little information as possible in
the FY2017 budget change to fund this new position and instructed her to place it on the
consent agenda so there would be no discussion in open council. Ms. Wilson again
complained to the City Manager, City Attorney and Human Resources Director that this
was unlawful and against City Policy Sections 2.1 (Ethics) and 2.2 (Conflict), and she
was instructed not to discuss this with anyone.

3.4. The conduct that Ms. Wilson reported violated City Policy and other laws such as

fraud and breach of fiduciary duty.

3.5. In every situation listed above the City of Rowlett and its top officers have not

conducted themselves in an ethical and professional manner, violating the basic City policy

standards memorialized in the City of Rowlett policy manual. Section 2.1 states:

2.1 Ethics: All employees of the City are expected to act in accordance
with the highest of ethical standards. Conducting oneself in such a
manner includes adherence to the law, policy and administrative
directives. All City employees should maintain the utmost standards of

Plaintiff’s Original Complaint 5


Case 3:18-cv-02003-C Document 1 Filed 08/01/18 Page 6 of 29 PageID 6

personal integrity, truthfulness and fairness in carrying out their duties,


avoiding real or perceived improprieties in their roles as public servants
and never using their City positions or powers for personal or
professional gain for the employee, a relative or other person living in
the same household. All employees are expected to abide by the Code of
Ethics for Public Employees as found in the Rowlett Code of
Ordinances.

3.6. Section 2.2 states:

2.2 Conflict of Interest: (a) Employees should avoid an actual or


perceived conflict of interest. In a greater effort to avoid such
circumstances; no employee will have a monetary interest in any
exchange, purchase, or sale of property goods, or services with the City
outside of the scope of their official position. (b) No employee will
represent a group nor appear in front of the City Council or any other
City department, agency, commission or board on a matter related to
their official duties, except in their official capacity. This policy in no
way prohibits an individual from expressing his/her personal views or
opinions as an individual citizen of Rowlett in front of the Council. (c)
No employee will represent another individual or group in a court of law
or any other setting when the issue at hand is related to City business in
any way. (d) Employees will avoid any action that could create the
appearance of: using public office for private gain, giving preferential
treatment to any organization or person, impeding government efficiency
or economy, losing complete independence or impartiality of action,
making a government decision outside of official channels; or public loss
of confidence in the integrity of government.

3.7. Ms. Wilson was subjected to adverse actions, including termination after she

reported that Defendant had violated City Policy and common law. On numerous occasions

during her employment with the City of Rowlett, Ms. Wilson identified mismanagement of

public funds and informed the City Manager. Although the City Manager stated he would speak

to the City Council regarding the malfeasance, he did nothing. Many of the top city officers

engaged in outrageous misconduct which includes but is not limited to: mishandling taxpayer’s

money, patronage job appointments, overlooking and not investigating harassment, including

sexual harassment in the workplace and deceiving not only the City Council but the people of the

City of Rowlett.

Plaintiff’s Original Complaint 6


Case 3:18-cv-02003-C Document 1 Filed 08/01/18 Page 7 of 29 PageID 7

Sexual Harassment, Hostile Work Environment, Gender Discrimination and Retaliation

3.8 Ms. Wilson was subjected to and reported the following sexual harassment and

sexually hostile work environment directly to Mr. Funderburk and Human Resources:

(1) Police Chief Mike Brodnax often talked about sex around Ms. Wilson, with the entire
executive team as witnesses, including describing his sexual preferences and being naked
at home. Ms. Wilson often asked him to stop, but he never did and on one occasion, he
even responded “that it was too bad if you don’t like it – that’s just who I am.”

(2) At a council meeting, Assistant Public Works Director Gary Enna had his first public
presentation. Mike Brodnax and Ms. Wilson were trying to determine a lady’s identity
who was at the council meeting, in the foyer. Mr. Brodnax stated he thought it was
Leighann Welk, and Ms. Wilson responded it was not her. He responded, “Well I don’t
know who she is but she sure does have a nice ass.” He was sitting behind the computer
at the action center near the front door of City Hall. Offended, Ms. Wilson told him,
“you’re awful,” and walked away. When Ms. Wilson complained to the City Manager,
she was told she was just anti-public safety.

3.9. Brandi Bull was working in the HR department when the City terminated Ms.

Wilson on September 13, 2017. Ms. Bull was a witness to the fact that at the time of Ms.

Wilson’s termination, the City of Rowlett terminated Ms. Wilson in proximate time to her

complaints about the above referenced conduct. The Defendant offered Ms. Wilson a Separation

Agreement and informed her that a refusal to sign the Separation Agreement would not result in

an involuntary termination. Human Resources Director Richard Jones also had confirmed this

information with the City Manager and City Attorney. Ultimately it is because Ms. Wilson did

not sign the Separation Agreement, and retained an attorney, that the City of Rowlett listed the

reason for termination as “Involuntary” for “Misconduct.”

3.10. The following similarly situated male employees were treated disparately and

better than Ms. Wilson:

(1) Mr. Proce, who was offered a Separation Agreement, is listed with the City Secretary
office as resigned with “no reason given”, and therefore eligible for rehire with the City
of Rowlett;

Plaintiff’s Original Complaint 7


Case 3:18-cv-02003-C Document 1 Filed 08/01/18 Page 8 of 29 PageID 8

(2) Astonishingly, former Human Resources Director John Murray, whose termination was
recommended by an external investigator/attorney for good cause after a thorough
investigation into his sexual and workplace harassment, was listed as retiring from his
employment, and therefore eligible for rehire with the City of Rowlett;
(3) Tim Rogers, the former City Public Works Director, was terminated but allowed to resign
after his termination, no severance agreement was required, and he was eligible for rehire
with the City of Rowlett;
(4) Joe Beauchamp, the former City IT Director was terminated but allowed to resign after
his termination, no severance agreement was required, and he was eligible for rehire with
the City of Rowlett; and
(5) Alan Guard, the former City Director of Finance who served prior to Ms. Wilson, was
terminated but allowed to resign after his termination, no severance agreement was
required, and he was eligible for rehire with the City of Rowlett.

3.11. Unbelievably, the retaliation continued even after Ms. Wilson left her position as

Chief Financial Officer. After being asked to resign from the City, Ms. Wilson secured a seat in

the Leadership Rowlett class through the Rowlett Chamber of Commerce. The day after the first

meeting, Ms. Wilson received a call from the president of the Rowlett Chamber of Commerce,

Michael Gallops pulling her application and excusing her from the class. He stated that he had

received feedback from different sources that he could not disclose and after discussing the

situation with the leadership committee determined, “this was best.” Ms. Wilson questioned why

“this was best,” and Michael Gallops told Ms. Wilson his sources felt she would cause too much

disruption with the visits by the leadership committee’s members to the City departments.

3.12. Ms. Wilson was subsequently informed by a witness that City Manager Brian

Funderburk actually went to the Chamber of Commerce and told them to pull her application

from Leadership Rowlett. The City provides the Chamber with $50,000 to operate. The Chamber

could not afford to lose that funding, and so they complied with Mr. Funderburk’s demand. The

retaliation did not stop there. The City Secretary's office lists all terminations and reasons for

termination of city employees for the last three (3) years. Ms. Wilson and Ms. Bull were listed as

Plaintiff’s Original Complaint 8


Case 3:18-cv-02003-C Document 1 Filed 08/01/18 Page 9 of 29 PageID 9

"Involuntary Termination" for "Misconduct." They were the only two employees to ever be

terminated for misconduct.

IV. CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT I: Sexual Harassment and Sexually Hostile Work Environment in Violation


of Title VII - 42 U.S.C. §2000e et. seq.

4.1. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations set forth in all of

the above paragraphs of this complaint.

4.2. As discussed in more detail supra, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant as Plaintiff's

employer subjected her to a sexually hostile work environment in violation of § 42 U.S.C. §

2000e-2 et seq.

4.3. Plaintiff is a member of a protected class – female. As discussed in more detail in

supra, Plaintiff was subjected to unwelcome verbal conduct of a sexual nature which continued

between September 21, 2015 until Defendant terminated Plaintiff on September 13, 2017. 42

U.S.C. § 2000e(f).

4.4. Defendant is an employer within the meaning of Title VII. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b).

4.5. All conditions precedent to filing this action for discrimination under federal law

have been met. Plaintiff timely filed her charge of discrimination on the basis of race with the

EEOC, and the EEOC has within ninety (90) days of filing this lawsuit issued Notice of Right to

Sue to Plaintiff, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A hereto.

4.6. Defendant has violated Title VII, as amended, by harassing Plaintiff and/or

creating a hostile work environment, and/or discriminating and/or retaliating against Plaintiff in

connection with compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment because of

Plaintiff's gender, and because Plaintiff engaged in protected activity, including reporting

violations of Title VII.

Plaintiff’s Original Complaint 9


Case 3:18-cv-02003-C Document 1 Filed 08/01/18 Page 10 of 29 PageID 10

4.7. Defendant has engaged in a single, continuous course of conduct of

discrimination and retaliation against Plaintiff because of her gender in order to destroy Plaintiff,

her career, and her professional life.

4.8. Defendant maliciously and recklessly violated its own established rules and

procedures to inflict pain and suffering upon the Plaintiff.

4.9. Defendant allowed a sexually hostile work environment that targeted female

employees to persist and the following is a list of some examples.

4.10. Plaintiff was subjected to and reported sexual harassment and a sexually hostile

work environment directly to Mr. Funderburk and Human Resources.

4.11. For example, on numerous occasions Police Chief Mike Brodnax often talked

about sex around Plaintiff, with the entire executive team as witnesses, including describing his

sexual preferences and being naked at home. Plaintiff often asked him to stop, and he never did

and on one occasion, he even responded “that it was too bad if you don’t like it – that’s just who

I am.”

4.12. In another example, at a council meeting, Assistant Public Works Director Gary

Enna had his first public presentation. Mike Brodnax and Plaintiff were trying to determine a

lady’s identity who was at the council meeting, in the foyer. Mr. Brodnax stated he thought it

was Leighann Welk, and Plaintiff responded it was not her. He responded, “Well I don’t know

who she is but she sure does have a nice ass.” He was sitting behind the computer at the action

center near the front door of City Hall. Offended, Plaintiff told him, “you’re awful,” and walked

away. When Plaintiff complained to the City Manager, she was told she was just anti-public

safety.

Plaintiff’s Original Complaint 10


Case 3:18-cv-02003-C Document 1 Filed 08/01/18 Page 11 of 29 PageID 11

4.13. Plaintiff complained about the sexual conduct, in accordance with policy as

denoted in Section 12.2 of the City Employee Manuel by reporting the harassment and hostile

work environment to both the City Manager and Human Resources, but her complaints were all

ignored. Defendant failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent the aforementioned and

described sexual harassment and sexually hostile work environment from occurring.

4.14. Plaintiff would not have been subjected to the harassment but for her gender, as

evidenced by the type of sexual acts, remarks and conduct directed towards her.

4.15. Plaintiff was an exceptional employee for the City of Rowlett, as evidenced

by the praise she received from Mr. Funderburk in her January 2017 performance review as

having “the potential to be one of the best Chief Financial Officers in Texas.” Funderburk

also stated: “Kim’s knowledge and expertise, and her willingness to grow and learn

provided significant benefits for the City in FY2016 . . .”

4.16. The harassment of which Plaintiff complains was severe and pervasive and

altered the terms and conditions of her employment and created a hostile and abusive work

environment.

4.17. On more than one occasion, Plaintiff complained of such harassment to

supervisors and other management employees. Defendant knew or should have known about the

harassment and failed to take prompt remedial action and the harassment and sexually hostile

work environment continued unabated until Plaintiff was terminated.

4.18. As discussed in more detail in, supra, Defendant failed to exercise reasonable care

to prevent the aforementioned and described sexual harassment and sexually hostile work

environment from occurring. Defendant further failed to exercise reasonable care to correct

promptly the aforementioned and described sexually harassing behavior.

Plaintiff’s Original Complaint 11


Case 3:18-cv-02003-C Document 1 Filed 08/01/18 Page 12 of 29 PageID 12

4.19. By the aforesaid acts and omissions of Defendant, Plaintiff has been directly and

legally caused to suffer actual damages including, but not limited to, loss of earnings and future

earning capacity, attorneys' fees, costs of suit and other pecuniary losses not presently

ascertained.

4.20. As a further direct and legal result of the acts and conduct of Defendant, and each

of them, as aforesaid, Plaintiff has been caused to and did suffer and continues to suffer severe

anguish, humiliation, embarrassment, fright, shock, pain, discomfort, and anxiety. The exact

nature and extent of said injuries is presently unknown to Plaintiff, who will seek leave of Court

to assert the same when they are ascertained. Plaintiff does not know at this time the exact

duration or permanence of said injuries, but is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that

some if not all of the injuries are reasonably certain to be permanent in character.

4.21. Plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorney fees and costs under Title VII, 42

U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k).

4.22. Such discrimination by Defendant against Plaintiff was intentional. Accordingly,

Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages from Defendant for back pay, front pay, past and future

pecuniary losses, emotional pain and suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life and

other nonpecuniary losses. Further, this discrimination was done by Defendant with malice or

with reckless indifference to Plaintiff's federally protected rights. Plaintiff is therefore also

entitled to recover punitive damages.

4.23. Plaintiff requests relief as described in the Prayer for Relief below.

COUNT II: Retaliation in Violation of Title VII - 42 U.S.C. §2000e et. seq.

4.24. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations set forth in all of

the above paragraphs of this complaint.

Plaintiff’s Original Complaint 12


Case 3:18-cv-02003-C Document 1 Filed 08/01/18 Page 13 of 29 PageID 13

4.25. Defendant has retaliated against Plaintiff for engaging in protected activities by

reporting an environment hostile to Plaintiff based upon gender by committing the retaliatory

acts of denying Plaintiff advancement, threatening Plaintiff with termination, subjecting Plaintiff

to a hostile work environment, and terminating Plaintiff. Defendant has thereby intentionally

engaged in unlawful employment practices prohibited by 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq. and 29 U.S.C.

§ 623(d).

4.26. All conditions precedent to filing this action for discrimination and retaliation

under federal law have been met. Plaintiff timely filed her charge of retaliation based upon

protected activities.

4.27. Defendant has engaged in a single continuous course of conduct of retaliation

against Plaintiff because of Plaintiff's protected complaints of discrimination and harassment

based upon gender and sexual harassment, and by subjecting Plaintiff to a hostile environment in

order to destroy Plaintiff, her career, and her personal life.

4.28. Plaintiff was a target of discrimination and retaliation by top city officers for the

City of Rowlett after she participated in numerous protected activities that fall within the

purview of Title VII, as discussed in detail above and summarized below.

4.29. When Plaintiff complained to the City Manager Funderburk about the sexual

harassment and inappropriate behavior, Mr. Funderburk never initiated an investigation into

Plaintiff’s complaints. Further and unbelievably, in response to Plaintiff’s numerous complaints,

Mr. Funderburk informed Plaintiff that she was “anti-public safety.”

4.30. Then, within a close time proximity to Plaintiff’s complaints to Mr. Funderburk

about the sexually fueled inappropriate behavior, she was abruptly and unexpectedly terminated

on September 13, 2017.

Plaintiff’s Original Complaint 13


Case 3:18-cv-02003-C Document 1 Filed 08/01/18 Page 14 of 29 PageID 14

4.31. Plaintiff was never provided a reason for her termination when her employment

ended abruptly and unlawfully on September 13, 2017. Instead she was asked to sign a

separation agreement releasing the City from liability. Because Plaintiff did not sign the

Separation Agreement and retained an attorney, the City of Rowlett listed the reason for

termination as “Involuntary” for “Misconduct.”

4.32. Plaintiff’s termination being classified as Involuntary and for Misconduct was

blatant retaliation for her reporting the unlawful conduct described in detail supra and retaliatory

for refusing to sign the Separation Agreement and retaining an attorney in this matter. By listing

her as being terminated for misconduct the City of Rowlett not only blacklisted her from

obtaining employment in the public sector but damaged her reputation and credibility making it

hard to obtain employment in the private sector too.

4.33. The retaliation continued even after Plaintiff left her position as Chief Financial

Officer. After being asked to resign from the City, Plaintiff secured a seat in the Leadership

Rowlett class through the Rowlett Chamber of Commerce. The day after the first meeting,

Plaintiff received a call from the president of the Rowlett Chamber of Commerce, Michael

Gallops, who informed her that he was pulling her application and excusing her from the class.

Plaintiff subsequently learned from reliable sources that Mr. Funderburk visited the Chamber of

Commerce and told them to pull her application from Leadership Rowlett.

4.34. This termination was also in violation of City policy. Plaintiff was terminated in

direct violation of City of Rowlett Policy, specifically Section 14.1 (D)(3) of the Defendant’s

operative Employee Manuel, as follows:

The Director of Human Resources is authorized to terminate an


employee for conduct-related matters and policy violations. In those
instances, Department Directors will conduct the Pre-Disciplinary
Conference and provide their written recommendation with justification.

Plaintiff’s Original Complaint 14


Case 3:18-cv-02003-C Document 1 Filed 08/01/18 Page 15 of 29 PageID 15

If the termination is a Department Director, including the Director of


Human Resources, for conduct-related matters and policy violations, the
Assistant City Manager will conduct the Pre-Disciplinary Conference
and provide his written recommendation with justification. If the
termination is the Assistant City Manager, the City Manager may assign
a Department Director to this task or may, at his option, conduct the
Pre-Disciplinary himself….

4.35. As discussed in detail above, Plaintiff took the proper steps in the process of

complaining about the sexual harassment and inappropriate behavior. Also, as described in

detail above, Mr. Funderburk and the City retaliated against Plaintiff by subjecting her to a

hostile work environment and terminating her without cause and all of these adverse actions took

place in temporal proximity to her instances of protected activities.

4.36. By the aforesaid acts and omissions of Defendant, Plaintiff has been directly and

legally caused to suffer actual damages including, but not limited to, loss of earnings and future

earning capacity, attorneys' fees, costs of suit and other pecuniary loss not presently ascertained,

for which Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend when ascertained.

4.37. As a further direct and legal result of the acts and conduct of Defendant, as

aforesaid, Plaintiff has been caused to and did suffer and continues to suffer severe emotional

and mental distress, anguish, humiliation, embarrassment, fright, shock, pain, discomfort, and

anxiety. The exact nature and extent of said injuries is presently unknown to Plaintiff, who will

seek leave of Court to assert the same when they are ascertained. Plaintiff does not know at this

time the exact duration or permanence of said injuries, but is informed and believes, and thereon

alleges, that some if not all of the injuries are reasonably certain to be permanent in character.

4.38. Plaintiff has been generally damaged in an amount within the jurisdictional limits

of this Court.

Plaintiff’s Original Complaint 15


Case 3:18-cv-02003-C Document 1 Filed 08/01/18 Page 16 of 29 PageID 16

4.39. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the Defendant, by

engaging in the aforementioned acts and by ratifying such acts, engaged in willful, malicious,

intentional, oppressive and despicable conduct, and acted with willful and conscious disregard of

Plaintiff’s rights, welfare, and safety, thereby justifying an award of punitive and exemplary

damages in an amount to be determined at trial.

4.40. As a result of Defendant's harassing and discriminatory acts as alleged herein,

Plaintiff is entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit as provided in Title VII of the

Civil Rights of 1964, as amended.

4.41. Plaintiff also requests relief as described in the Prayer for Relief below.

COUNT III: Gender Discrimination in Violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq.

4.42. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations set forth in all of

the above paragraphs of this complaint.

4.43. The foregoing conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42

U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq., which makes discrimination against employees on the basis of sex

illegal.

4.44. Plaintiff was subjected to comments and actions made against her on the basis of

her gender.

4.45. Comments and actions the Plaintiff was subjected to by Defendant’s employees

include, the City Secretary's office lists all terminations and reasons for termination for the last

three (3) years. Plaintiff (terminated on September 13, 2017) and Brandi Bull (terminated on

October 6, 2017), both female employees, were listed as “Involuntary Termination” for

“Misconduct.” They were the only two employees to ever be terminated for misconduct.

Plaintiff’s Original Complaint 16


Case 3:18-cv-02003-C Document 1 Filed 08/01/18 Page 17 of 29 PageID 17

4.46. The following similarly situated male employees were treated disparately and

better than Ms. Wilson:

(1) Mr. Proce, who was offered a Separation Agreement, is listed with the City Secretary
office as resigned with “no reason given”, and therefore eligible for rehire with the City
of Rowlett;
(2) Astonishingly, former Human Resources Director John Murray, whose termination was
recommended by an external investigator/attorney for good cause after a thorough
investigation into his sexual and workplace harassment, was listed as retiring from his
employment, and therefore eligible for rehire with the City of Rowlett;
(3) Tim Rogers, the former City Public Works Director, was terminated but allowed to resign
after his termination, no severance agreement was required, and he was eligible for rehire
with the City of Rowlett;
(4) Joe Beauchamp, the former City IT Director was terminated but allowed to resign after
his termination, no severance agreement was required, and he was eligible for rehire with
the City of Rowlett; and
(5) Alan Guard, the former City Director of Finance who served prior to Ms. Wilson, was
terminated but allowed to resign after his termination, no severance agreement was
required, and he was eligible for rehire with the City of Rowlett.

4.46. Defendant is in violation of gender discrimination against Plaintiff. She was

treated unfavorably specifically because she was a woman, even though she was an exceptional

employee with the same skills and success as other similarly situated male employees.

4.47. By listing her as being terminated for misconduct the City of Rowlett not only

blacklisted her from obtaining employment in the public sector but damaged her reputation and

credibility making it hard to obtain employment in the private sector too.

4.48. By the aforesaid acts and omissions of Defendant, Plaintiff has been directly and

legally caused to suffer actual damages including, but not limited to, loss of earnings and future

earning capacity, attorneys' fees, costs of suit and other pecuniary losses not presently

ascertained.

4.49. As a further direct and legal result of the acts and conduct of Defendant, and each

of them, as aforesaid, Plaintiff has been caused to and did suffer and continues to suffer severe

anguish, humiliation, embarrassment, fright, shock, pain, discomfort, and anxiety. The exact

Plaintiff’s Original Complaint 17


Case 3:18-cv-02003-C Document 1 Filed 08/01/18 Page 18 of 29 PageID 18

nature and extent of said injuries is presently unknown to Plaintiff, who will seek leave of Court

to assert the same when they are ascertained. Plaintiff does not know at this time the exact

duration or permanence of said injuries, but is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that

some if not all of the injuries are reasonably certain to be permanent in character.

4.50. Plaintiff has been generally damaged in an amount within the jurisdictional limits

of this Court.

4.51. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the Defendant by

engaging in the aforementioned acts and/or in ratifying such acts, engaged in willful, malicious,

intentional, oppressive and despicable conduct, and acted with willful and conscious disregard of

the rights, welfare and safety of Plaintiff, thereby justifying the award of punitive and exemplary

damages in an amount to be determined at trial.

4.52. As a result of Defendant’s conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiff is entitled to

reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit as provided in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of

1964, as amended.

4.53. Plaintiff also requests relief as described in the Prayer for Relief below.

COUNT IV: Sexual Harassment and Sexually Hostile Work Environment in Violation of
Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code

4.54. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations set forth in all of

the above paragraphs of this complaint.

4.55. As discussed in more detail supra, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant as Plaintiff's

employer subjected her to sexual harassment and a sexually hostile work environment in

violation of Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code commonly referred to as the Texas Commission

on Human Rights Act. Texas courts have defined sex discrimination to include sexual

harassment.

Plaintiff’s Original Complaint 18


Case 3:18-cv-02003-C Document 1 Filed 08/01/18 Page 19 of 29 PageID 19

4.56. Plaintiff is a member of a protected class – female. As discussed in more detail in

supra, Plaintiff was subjected to unwelcome verbal conduct of a sexual nature which continued

between September 21, 2015 until Defendant terminated Plaintiff on September 13, 2017.

4.57. Defendant has violated Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code, as amended, by

harassing Plaintiff and/or creating a hostile work environment, and/or discriminating and/or

retaliating against Plaintiff in connection with compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of

employment because of Plaintiff's gender, and because Plaintiff engaged in protected activity,

including reporting violations of Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code.

4.58. Defendant has engaged in a single, continuous course of conduct of

discrimination and retaliation against Plaintiff because of her gender in order to destroy Plaintiff,

her career, and her professional life.

4.59. Defendant maliciously and recklessly violated its own established rules and

procedures to inflict pain and suffering upon the Plaintiff.

4.60. Plaintiff was subjected to and reported sexual harassment and sexually hostile

work environment directly to Mr. Funderburk and Human Resources.

4.61. For example, on numerous occasions Police Chief Mike Brodnax often talked

about sex around Plaintiff, with the entire executive team as witnesses, including describing his

sexual preferences and being naked at home. Plaintiff often asked him to stop, and he never did

and on one occasion, he even responded “that it was too bad if you don’t like it – that’s just who

I am.”

4.62. In another example, at a council meeting, Assistant Public Works Director Gary

Enna had his first public presentation. Mike Brodnax and Plaintiff were trying to determine a

lady’s identity who was at the council meeting, in the foyer. Mr. Brodnax stated he thought it

Plaintiff’s Original Complaint 19


Case 3:18-cv-02003-C Document 1 Filed 08/01/18 Page 20 of 29 PageID 20

was Leighann Welk, and Plaintiff responded it was not her. He responded, “Well I don’t know

who she is but she sure does have a nice ass.” He was sitting behind the computer at the action

center near the front door of City Hall. Offended, Plaintiff told him, “you’re awful,” and walked

away. When Plaintiff complained to the City Manager, she was told she was just anti-public

safety.

4.63. Plaintiff complained about the sexual conduct, in accordance with policy as

denoted in Section 12.2 of the City Employee Manuel by reporting the harassment and hostile

work environment to both the City Manager and Human Resources, but her complaints were all

ignored. Defendant failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent the aforementioned and

described sexual harassment and sexually hostile work environment from occurring.

4.64. Plaintiff would not have been subjected to the harassment but for her gender, as

evidenced by the type of sexual acts, remarks and conduct directed towards her.

4.65. Plaintiff was an exceptional employee for the City of Rowlett, as detailed

supra.

4.66. The harassment of which Plaintiff complains was severe and pervasive and

altered the terms and conditions of her employment and created a hostile and abusive work

environment.

4.67. On more than one occasion, Plaintiff complained of such harassment to

supervisors and other management employees. Defendant knew or should have known about the

harassment and failed to take prompt remedial action and the harassment and sexually hostile

work environment continued unabated until Plaintiff was terminated.

4.68. Defendant failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent the aforementioned

behavior and described sexual harassment and sexually hostile work environment from

Plaintiff’s Original Complaint 20


Case 3:18-cv-02003-C Document 1 Filed 08/01/18 Page 21 of 29 PageID 21

occurring. Defendant further failed to exercise reasonable care to correct promptly the

aforementioned and described sexually harassing behavior.

4.69. By the aforesaid acts and omissions of Defendant, Plaintiff has been directly and

legally caused to suffer actual damages including, but not limited to, loss of earnings and future

earning capacity, attorneys' fees, costs of suit and other pecuniary losses not presently

ascertained.

4.70. As a further direct and legal result of the acts and conduct of Defendant, and each

of them, as aforesaid, Plaintiff has been caused to and did suffer and continues to suffer severe

anguish, humiliation, embarrassment, fright, shock, pain, discomfort, and anxiety. The exact

nature and extent of said injuries is presently unknown to Plaintiff, who will seek leave of Court

to assert the same when they are ascertained. Plaintiff does not know at this time the exact

duration or permanence of said injuries, but is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that

some if not all of the injuries are reasonably certain to be permanent in character.

4.71. Plaintiff has been generally damaged in an amount within the jurisdictional limits

of this Court.

4.72. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the Defendant by

engaging in the aforementioned acts and/or in ratifying such acts, engaged in willful, malicious,

intentional, oppressive and despicable conduct, and acted with willful and conscious disregard of

the rights, welfare and safety of Plaintiff, thereby justifying the award of punitive and exemplary

damages in an amount to be determined at trial.

4.73. As a result of Defendant’s conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiff is entitled to

reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit as provided in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of

1964, as amended.

Plaintiff’s Original Complaint 21


Case 3:18-cv-02003-C Document 1 Filed 08/01/18 Page 22 of 29 PageID 22

4.74. Plaintiff also requests relief as described in the Prayer for Relief below.

COUNT V: Retaliation in Violation of Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code

4.75. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations set forth in all of

the above paragraphs of this complaint.

4.76. As discussed in more detail supra, Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant as

Plaintiff’s employer retaliated against her for engaging in protected activity in violation of

Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code commonly referred to as the Texas Commission on Human

Rights Act (i.e. reporting and objecting to sexual harassment and a sexually hostile work

environment).

4.77. Plaintiff opposed a discriminatory practice when she complained about sexual

harassment and a sexually hostile work environment. In spite of performing her duties in a

professional manner and following Defendant’s policies, Plaintiff’s complaints were ignored by

Defendant, and Plaintiff was terminated.

4.78. Defendant has engaged in a single continuous course of conduct of retaliation

against Plaintiff because of Plaintiff's protected complaints of discrimination and harassment

based upon gender and sexual harassment, and by subjecting Plaintiff to a hostile environment in

order to destroy Plaintiff, her career, and her personal life.

4.79. Plaintiff was a target of discrimination and retaliation by top city officers for the

City of Rowlett after she participated in numerous protected activities that fall within the

purview of Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code.

4.80. When Plaintiff complained to the City Manager Funderburk about the sexual

harassment and inappropriate behavior, Mr. Funderburk never initiated an investigation into

Plaintiff’s Original Complaint 22


Case 3:18-cv-02003-C Document 1 Filed 08/01/18 Page 23 of 29 PageID 23

Plaintiff’s complaints. Further and unbelievably, in response to Plaintiff’s numerous complaints,

Mr. Funderburk informed Plaintiff that she was “anti-public safety.”

4.81. Within a close time proximity to Plaintiff’s complaints to Mr. Funderburk about

the sexually fueled inappropriate behavior, she was abruptly and unexpectedly terminated on

September 13, 2017.

4.82. Plaintiff was never provided a reason for her termination when her employment

ended abruptly and unlawfully on September 13, 2017. Instead Plaintiff was asked to sign a

separation agreement releasing the City from liability. Because Plaintiff did not sign the

Separation Agreement and retained an attorney, the City of Rowlett listed the reason for

termination as “Involuntary” for “Misconduct.”

4.83. Plaintiff’s termination being classified as Involuntary and for Misconduct was

blatant retaliation for her reporting the unlawful conduct described in detail supra and retaliatory

for refusing to sign the Separation Agreement and retaining an attorney in this matter. By listing

her as being terminated for misconduct the City of Rowlett not only blacklisted her from

obtaining employment in the public sector but damaged her reputation and credibility making it

hard to obtain employment in the private sector too.

4.84. The retaliation continued even after Plaintiff left her position as Chief Financial

Officer. After being asked to resign from the City, Plaintiff secured a seat in the Leadership

Rowlett class through the Rowlett Chamber of Commerce. The day after the first meeting,

Plaintiff received a call from the president of the Rowlett Chamber of Commerce, Michael

Gallops, who informed her that he was pulling her application and excusing her from the class.

Plaintiff subsequently learned from reliable sources that Mr. Funderburk visited the Chamber of

Commerce and told them to pull her application from Leadership Rowlett.

Plaintiff’s Original Complaint 23


Case 3:18-cv-02003-C Document 1 Filed 08/01/18 Page 24 of 29 PageID 24

4.85. This termination was also in violation of City policy. Plaintiff was terminated in

direct violation of City of Rowlett Policy, specifically Section 14.1 (D)(3) of the Defendant’s

operative Employee Manuel.

4.86. As discussed in detail above, Plaintiff took the proper steps in the process of

complaining about the sexual harassment and inappropriate behavior. Also, as described in

detail above, the City retaliated against Plaintiff by subjecting her to a hostile work environment

and terminating her without cause and all of these adverse actions took place in temporal

proximity to her instances of protected activities.

4.87. By the aforesaid acts and omissions of Defendant, Plaintiff has been directly and

legally caused to suffer actual damages including, but not limited to, loss of earnings and future

earning capacity, attorneys' fees, costs of suit and other pecuniary loss not presently ascertained,

for which Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend when ascertained.

4.88. As a further direct and legal result of the acts and conduct of Defendant, as

aforesaid, Plaintiff has been caused to and did suffer and continues to suffer severe emotional

and mental distress, anguish, humiliation, embarrassment, fright, shock, pain, discomfort, and

anxiety. The exact nature and extent of said injuries is presently unknown to Plaintiff, who will

seek leave of Court to assert the same when they are ascertained. Plaintiff does not know at this

time the exact duration or permanence of said injuries, but is informed and believes, and thereon

alleges, that some if not all of the injuries are reasonably certain to be permanent in character.

4.89. Plaintiff has been generally damaged in an amount within the jurisdictional limits

of this Court.

4.90. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the Defendant, by

engaging in the aforementioned acts and by ratifying such acts, engaged in willful, malicious,

Plaintiff’s Original Complaint 24


Case 3:18-cv-02003-C Document 1 Filed 08/01/18 Page 25 of 29 PageID 25

intentional, oppressive and despicable conduct, and acted with willful and conscious disregard of

Plaintiff’s rights, welfare, and safety, thereby justifying an award of punitive and exemplary

damages in an amount to be determined at trial.

4.91. As a result of Defendant’s harassing and discriminatory acts as alleged herein,

Plaintiff is entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit as provided in Title VII of the

Civil Rights of 1964, as amended.

4.92. Plaintiff also requests relief as described in the Prayer for Relief below.

COUNT VI: Violation of the Texas Whistleblower Protection Act, Tex. Gov’t Code §§
554.001, et. seq.

4.93. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations set forth in all of

the above paragraphs of this complaint.

4.94. As described in detail, supra, Plaintiff discovered and reported the following

violations of the law and City Policy: (1) Miscalculation of Property Taxes; (2) Provision of

Inaccurate Information in the Senior Tax Freeze 11 Cent Statement; (3) Errors in Permit

Revenue in FY2017 Budget; (4) Cell Service Contracts without City Council Approval; (5)

Overpaying for private placement of PID bonds; (6) Manipulation of a report about an extra cost

to the taxpayers of $500,000 for a radio tower; (7) Permitting Judge Liston’s hiring at an

astronomical rate and in a manner to deceive the public; and (8) Failure to investigate complaints

of Police Chief Mike Brodnax’s sexual harassment.

4.95. Plaintiff reported all of the violations described above to City Manager Mr.

Funderburk and the City Attorney (and on a couple occasions to the Assistant City Manager,

Executive Staff, and Human Resources) and informed them that the aforementioned actions

constituted violations of the City Policy and the law, such as fraud and breach of fiduciary duty.

Plaintiff’s Original Complaint 25


Case 3:18-cv-02003-C Document 1 Filed 08/01/18 Page 26 of 29 PageID 26

4.96. The Texas Whistleblower Act waives sovereign immunity when the public

employee alleges a violation of Chapter 554 of the Government Code. A violation under Chapter

554 occurs when a governmental entity retaliates against a public employee for making a good

faith report of a violation of law to an appropriate law enforcement authority.

4.97. Plaintiff, while employed by the city as a public employee, notified the City

Manager and City Attorney on more than one occasion (and in some instances to the Assistant

City Manager, Executive Staff, and Human Resources), of the following violations of policy and

law that she had discovered and requested to be corrected: (1) Miscalculation of Property Taxes;

(2) Provision of Inaccurate Information in the Senior Tax Freeze 11 Cent Statement; (3) Errors in

Permit Revenue in FY2017 Budget; (4) Cell Service Contracts without City Council Approval;

(5) Overpaying for private placement of PID bonds; (6) Manipulation of a report about an extra

cost to the taxpayers of $500,000 for a radio tower; (7) Permitting Judge Liston’s hiring at an

astronomical rate and in a manner to deceive the public; and (8) Failure to investigate complaints

of Police Chief Mike Brodnax’s sexual harassment.

4.98. Plaintiff’s good faith reports to the City Manager and City Attorney (and on a

couple occasions to the Assistant City Manager, Executive Staff, and Human Resources)

regarding the misconduct and unlawful activities described in detail supra were clearly protected

activity under Chapter 554 of the Government Code.

4.99. On September 13, 2017, Defendant terminated Plaintiff’s employment in

violation of Section 14.1 (D)(3) of the Defendant’s operative Employee Manuel and in direct

retaliation to her protected conduct and thereby violated Chapter 554. Defendant’s stated reasons

for terminating Plaintiff’s employment are neither true nor valid, but are clearly a pretext on

unlawful retaliation in violation of Chapter 554. Further, Defendant would not have terminated

Plaintiff’s Original Complaint 26


Case 3:18-cv-02003-C Document 1 Filed 08/01/18 Page 27 of 29 PageID 27

Plaintiff had the Plaintiff not reported Defendant’s violations of the City Policy and the law,

including fraud and breach of fiduciary duty.

4.100. Plaintiff has exhausted all administrative appeals required by Defendant before

filing this suit and all such conditions precedent have been met. Under Sections 14.1 (D)(4) and

15.1 of the Defendant’s operative Employee Manuel, employees can, but are not required to,

appeal the decision to terminate.

4.101. Plaintiff provided proper and timely notice to Defendant pursuant to the Texas

Tort Claims Act, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 101.101.

4.102. Plaintiff's report to City Manager was the appropriate law enforcement agency to

whom such a report should be made to trigger the protection of the Texas Whistleblower's Act.

The City of Rowlett Policy Manuel defines the City Manager as the employee who “leads,

directs and coordinates all City operations and staff. The City Manager is, in effect, the Chief

Executive Officer, who answers to the ‘Board of Directors,’ the Mayor and City Council, elected

by the citizens of Rowlett.” Plaintiff believed in good faith that both the City Manager, Assistant

City Manager and the Executive Staff were authorized to regulate under, enforce, investigate, or

prosecute a violation of the state’s sexual harassment and other laws and policies.

4.103. Plaintiff suffered adverse actions, such as being subjected to a hostile work

environment wherein she was continuously ridiculed and criticized without cause by City

Officials and wherein her job was often threatened by City Officials. And the adverse actions

took place within a close temporal proximity to each of the reports of unlawful conduct.

4.104. Plaintiff was terminated by Defendant on September 13, 2017, which was only

three (3) weeks after she complained yet again about the cell service contract violations to the

City Manager and only two (2) days after the City Manager stated he was going to find a way to

Plaintiff’s Original Complaint 27


Case 3:18-cv-02003-C Document 1 Filed 08/01/18 Page 28 of 29 PageID 28

fire her. Defendant failed to adhere to established city and departmental policies in its treatment

of Plaintiff subsequent to the report, and Defendant exhibited discriminatory treatment toward

Plaintiff in comparison to similarly situated employees.

4.105. Plaintiff’s termination being classified as Involuntary and for Misconduct was

blatant retaliation for her reporting the unlawful conduct described in detail supra and retaliatory

for refusing to sign the Separation Agreement and retaining an attorney in this matter. By listing

her as being terminated for misconduct the City of Rowlett not only blacklisted her from

obtaining employment in the public sector but damaged her reputation and credibility making it

hard to obtain employment in the private sector too.

4.106. The retaliation continued even after Plaintiff left her position as Chief Financial

Officer. After being asked to resign from the City, Plaintiff secured a seat in the Leadership

Rowlett class through the Rowlett Chamber of Commerce. The day after the first meeting,

Plaintiff received a call from the president of the Rowlett Chamber of Commerce, Michael

Gallops, who informed him that he was pulling her application and excusing her from the class.

Plaintiff subsequently learned from reliable sources that Mr. Funderburk visited the Chamber of

Commerce and told them to pull her application from Leadership Rowlett.

4.107. The City Manager was the proper government law enforcement agent for Plaintiff

to report the city policy violations and unlawful conduct. It was not until after Plaintiff was

terminated that she discovered City Manager Funderburk was exploiting his position as City

Manager to promote his own agenda and retaliate against Plaintiff for her reports. Mr.

Funderburk neither investigated any claims and financial miscalculations nor did he go to the

City Attorney or City Council about blatant violations of City policy.

Plaintiff’s Original Complaint 28


Case 3:18-cv-02003-C Document 1 Filed 08/01/18 Page 29 of 29 PageID 29

4.108. Consequently, Plaintiff is entitled to damages in the form of lost wages, attorney's

fees and liquidated damages.

4.109. Plaintiff also requests relief as described in the Prayer for Relief below.

V. ATTORNEYS’ FEES

5.1. It was necessary for Plaintiff to hire the undersigned attorney to file this lawsuit.

Upon judgment, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorney fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. §

1988, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5 et seq, and 29 U.S.C. 209 sec. 107(a)(3).

VI. JURY TRIAL

6.1. Trial by jury is demanded.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff prays that Defendant be cited to appear

and answer herein, and that on final trial, Plaintiff have and recover the following relief against

Defendant:

(1) Judgment for actual damages in the amount of past and future lost earnings and
benefits and damages to past and future earnings capacity;
(2) Judgment for back pay and front pay as allowed by law;
(3)Judgment for past and future pecuniary losses, emotional pain and suffering,
inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life and other nonpecuniary losses;
(4) Damages for past and future mental anguish, emotional distress, and physical distress;
(5) Exemplary damages in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact;
(6) Prejudgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum legal rate;
(7) All costs of Court;
(8) Attorneys' fees;
(9) Such other and further relief to which Plaintiff may be justly entitled.
Dated: August 1, 2018 Respectfully Submitted,

Andrea S. Loveless
Texas State Bar No. 24041889
1301 Ballinger Street
Fort Worth, Texas 76102
(949) 679-4690
Fax (949) 666-7424
andrea@lovelesslawfirm.com
Attorney for Plaintiff

Plaintiff’s Original Complaint 29


Case 3:18-cv-02003-C Document 1-1 Filed 08/01/18 Page 1 of 1 PageID 30

EXHIBIT A
Case 3:18-cv-02003-C Document 1-2 Filed 08/01/18 Page 1 of 1 PageID 31