$$

tdgas
;1;4 ffi ##pY
$frs #ou mty Sierk

STATE OF MICHIGAN
IN THE CIRCT]IT COURT FOR THE COLTNTY OF GENESEE

ANITA STEWARD,

case No. 2r- //C / -cz

Plaintiff, 7 f
HON. BRIAN S. PICKEIL
P-574tt
SCHOOL DISTzuCT OF THE CITY OF FLINT,
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE SCHOOL
DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF FLINT, and/or
FLINT COMMUNITY SCHOOLS, A
governmental entity, CAROL MCINTOSH,
individually, JOYCE ELLIS-MoNEAL,
individually, DANIELLE GREEN, individually,
and LAURA MacINTYRE, individually,

Defendants.

Tom R. Pabst (P27872)

Attorney for Plaintiff
2503 S. Linden Road
Flint, MI 48532
(8r0) 732-6792
o ffi ce@,tomrp ab stpc. c om

There is no other civil action between these parties arising out of the same transaction
or occurrence as alleged in this complaint pending in this court, nor has any such
action been previously filed and dismissed or transferred after having been assigned to
a judge. I do not know of any other civilaction, not between these parties, arising out
of the same transaction or occurrence as alleged in this complaint that is either
pending or was previously filed and dismissed, transferred, or otherwise disposed of
after having been assigned to a judge in this court.

Covtpr,arNr
ANN
Junv DnuaNo
ANO
Rrvocarrox or CorrrvroN Law AnsrrRArroN Crausr

NOW COMES Tom R. Pabst, representing Anita Steward, Plaintifl and shows unto
this Honorable Court as follows:
 Cotr;uoN Al-t-scA'rtoNs

(1) That at all times pertinent hereto, Anita Steward, Plaintiff, was/is a resident of
Genesee County, Michigan, and was the Superintendent of Schools for the District and
was an
ii'
I employee of Defendants herein.

it (Z) That at all times pertinent hereto, School District of the City of Flint, Board of
Education of the School District of the City of Flint, and/or Flint Community Schools
ii (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant School"), was/is a school district and/or authority
ii
ieaching students right here in the City of Flint, Genesee County, Michigan, and had power
il and/or authority to make policy for Defendant School, but was also obligated by law to obey
il the Bylaws, Rules and Regulaiio.rr gor.rring the operation of Defendant School, as were its
lr
it Directors.
lt
(3) That at all times pertinent hereto, Defendant, Carol Mclntosh (hereinafter
li .,Defendant
Mclntosh"), was/is a Board member of the Board of Education for Defendant
ll School, and was charged with the duty to make policy for Defendant School, but was also
goveming the operation of
il obligated by law to ob.y the Bylawi, Rrl.s and Regulations
ti Defendant School.
II
tt
(4) That at all times pertinent hereto, Defendant, Joyce Ellis-McNeal, (hereinafter
1i .,Defendant Ellis-McNeal"), *ur/is a Board member of the Board of Education for Defendant
School, and was charged with the duty to make policy for Defendant School, but was also
ii the Bylawi, Rul.r and Regulations governing the operation of
il obligated by law to obey
Defendant School.

ii (5) That at all times pertinent hereto, Defendant, Danielle Green (hereinafter
il ,,Defendant Green"), was/is a Board member of the Board of Education for Defendant School.
ii and was charged with the duty to make policy for Defendant School, but was also obligated
by law to ob-ey the Bylaws, Rules and Regulations governing the operation of Defendant
ll
II School.

ii That at all times pertinent hereto, Defendant, Laura Maclntyre (hereinafter

(6)
,,Defendant Maclntyre"), was/is i Board member of the Board of Education for Defendant
li
ii was also
ll School, and was .trurg.A with the duty to make policy for Defendant School. but
ii of
obligated by law to Jbey the Bylawi, R.rl.r and Regulations goveming the operation
1i Defendant School.
ii
il
ii (7) That before being promoted to Superintendent, Anita Steward, Plaintifi held
li the poritio, of Assistant Supeiintendent and Interim Superintendent, because of her
illi competence and expertise in school matters.
il

(8) That Anita Steward, Plaintiff, graduated from Flint Community Schools in
1993 and began her career in the district in 1998 as a sixth grade teacher at Martin
1i Elementary
ri
i
it school.

ii
il
i i
I I
I
I
I I

(9) That Anita Steward, Plaintiff, was promoted to the role of Assistant Principal
in 2010 and Principal in 2011. She also served as a part-time English Instructor at Baker
College from 2006 to 2010.

(10) That following the suspension of former Superintendent Lopez in April of

ZOZO,the Board appointed Anita Steward, Plaintiff, to the Interim Superintendent position.

(11) That during her time as Assistant Superintendent, Anita Steward, Plaintifi
collaborated with district leaders and community partners to implement the district's distance
leaming plan amid the Covid-l9 pandemic. Anita Steward, Plaintiff, also lead the school
districtis reopening committee to plan for the fall semester and worked with the Board of
Education to ratifu all three district union contracts for the first time in 15 years, such that for
the first time in 15 years, Flint schools had ratified contracts for all three unions.

(12) That as Principal of Freeman Elementary School, Anita Steward, Plaintifi

increased state assessment M-STEP scores by 67%.

(13) That previously, as a teacher and curriculum coach, Anita Steward, Plaintiff.
helped witir implementation of standards-based lesson plans, evaluation tools, instruction and
curriculum implementation while putting students and families first'

(14) That as former Board President Casey Lester said publicly, assessing Anita
Steward, Plaintiff -

"As a product of Flint Community Schools, Mrs. Steward knows

what it means to be Flint Strong, and she is deeply committed to
serving our families now and into the future. As Interim
Superintendent, she had led our district with acumen through a
time (Covid-l9 pandemic) that has shaken our students and
families to their core - and she has done so without hesitation' I
am confident Mrs. Steward will continue to put the academic,
social and emotional well-being of our students first as we chart
a path forward at Flint Community Schools'"

(15) That Anita Steward, Plaintiff, received her first Master's Degree in teaching
from Marygrove College in Detroit and her second Master's Degree in K-12 administration
from Easte.n tnlirtrigun University. She holds a bachelor's degree in elementary education
and language arts, with a minor in social science from University of Michigan-Flint. She also
holds a-Michigan School Administration Certificate for K-12 and a Michigan Education
Certificate for K-5 in all subjects.

(16) That based on the sterling and exemplary qualifications of Anita Steward'
plaintiff, rh. *ur promoted as Superintendent of Defendant School by written contract
effective July 1, 20i0. A copy of the contract is in the possession of Defendant School.

(17) That Anita Steward, Plaintifi performed her duties as Superintendent in a

,.highly effective" and superlative manner during July, August, September, October,
November and December of 2020.
 (18) That her 6-month Evaluation stated that Anita Steward, Plaintiff, was a "highly
effective" Superintendent and stated this in conclusion -

..The mid-year evaluation was completed and adopted by the

Board in December 2020. Superintendent Steward received an
overall rating of "Highly Effective" by the Board for the mid-
year evaluation. The Board agreed unanimously that
Superintendent Steward first six month's job perforrnance was
excellent. She brought knowledge, professionalism and calm to
the District during a period of transition. Superintendent's
evaluation was facilitated by 2020 FCS Vice President, Diana
Wright." Emphasis added.

(19) That then there was an election, and new directors were elected to the Board of
Directors, including some of the individual Defendants'

(20) That Boards of Education enact broad-based, big picture "policies" to be

followed by emploYees.

(Zl) That Superintendents manage the day-to-day operations of the schools, and

implement the broad-based policies promulgated by the Board of Directors.

(22) That contrary toimportant rules, regulations and bylaws, the individual
and Rules
Defendants herein demanded and iniisted on being allowed to violate the Bylaws
I by being involved in the day-to-day management/operation of the schools' functions.
I
I

I
(23) That Anita Steward, Plaintifl told and reported to the Board and other public
by interfering
bodies tirat Defendants were violating important Rules, Regulations and Bylaws
I

with the day-to-day operations/management of the Schools' activities'

That the individual Defendants herein incredibly, but actually, responded to

the
(24)
about the Bylau's
reports of Anita Steward, Plaintiff, by essentially saying they didn't care
noses at the ver),
and policies! In other words, individud Defendants herein thumbed their
and enforce'
important Rules, Regulations and Bylaws they swore an oath to follow, uphold

(25) That Defendants knowing disregard of their sworn duties led to conduct on
Defendants' part that impeded and, in fact, prevented Anita Steward, Plaintiff,
from
performing her job as Superintendent.

(26) That in fact, Anita Steward, Plaintiff, actually reported and complained that
as well as a
Defendants were creating a hostile work environment for her as Superintendent
hostile work environment for her subordinate employees'

(27) That under the circumstances, Anita Steward, Plaintiff, reported to Defendants
impeded and
and Attomey Kendall Williams, and other public bodies, that she was being
Williams
prevented from doing her job as Superintendent and asked that Attomey Kendall
investigate and give f,ir t"gut opinion as to who should do what according to Bylaws, Rules
and RJgulationslhat everyone swore an oath to foIlow, uphold and enforce'
4
 l

I
I

i
'
i
I

Kendall Williams did investigate this jurisdictional dispute

I

(28) That AttorneY

I

I
!
between Defendants and Anita Steward, Plaintiff.
I

I (29) That Attorney Kendall Williams told Defendants herein that Bylaw
1032
special meetings of
provides that Board members have legal authority only during regular
and
such as access to records'
the board and that, with respect to school district operations,
same, but not greater rights
buildings and emplfyees, individual Board members have the
rl than those granted to the general
community'

ii That Attorney Kendall Williams also pointed out to Defendants

Bylaw 1190
(30) to the
information from or communicate
ii which provides a process foi Board members to seek make
administrative staff of the District. The Bylaws speciff a form
for a Board member to a

ii *ritt.n request for information. The process creates a record of the request for
information
il and sets u ii*. for response by the administration'
ri
Bylaw 1050
That Attorney Kendall Williams further pointed out to Defendants
(31)
on its policy making and
l1
which directs the Board to concentrate the Board's coliective effort
that best serve the educational
ii ptun rirg responsibilities and to formulate Board policies
interests of the students. In turn, the Superintendeni is charged
with putting into practice the
educational policies of the District.
ii
That Attorney Kendall Williams further pointed out this is what
the actual
il (32)
obligates the parties to do'
contract between Defendants and Anita Steward, Plaintiff,
il
the
1i
That Attorney Kendall Williams actually pointed out .to Defendants
(33)
li members to believe they
warning of other learned legal scholars that it is tempting for board
decisions, but Boards that try to manage
ii are doi"ng their jobs by deiving into management the. credibility and
often end up generating uniritended cons-equences. They undermine
il authority to the detrimJnt
i1 of the organizati-on as a whole' They also risk driving away
competent executives and directors.
ii
nice as he
That, diplomatically, Attorney Kendall Williams was saying as
(34)
violations of important Rules'
possibly could that the reports by'Anita Steward, Plaintiff, of
1i
ii were not abiding by the Bylaws'
Regulations and Bylaw, *.r. weu founded and Defendants
nut"tes and Regulations they swore an oath to follow,
uphold and enforce'

thorough and
(35) That Defendants were incensed by Attorney Kendall Williams'
in part, because of it!
scholarly opinion letter and investigation and fired him,
about the Policies or
(36) That when Defendants herein hautily said they didn't care
Bylaws, they meant it in that after firing long term s.ctrlt
Attorney Kendall williams' they
job as
her
continued impede and prevent ,initu Steward, Plaintiff, from doing
to
reported their violations of the
Superintendent and, in fact, ,.tuliut.d against her for having
important Rules, Regulations and Bylaws'

il
I (37) That specifically, Defendants herein reprimanded Anita steward' Plaintiff' for
li no good reason.
lt 5
il
I
,l
i;
I
 (38) That while off on leave attending to her sick father (who eventually died on
special Board Meeting to punish Anita
ilir June 30, ZOZI) Defendants herein had a secret
Steward, Plaintiff.

(39) That specifically,

Defendants herein ordered Anita Steward, Plaintiff, to abide
by a gag order unleis a Board directed snitch was present to monitor everything Anita
si.*uia,-plaintiff, said, which obviously impeded and prevented Anita Steward, Plaintiff,
from performing her job duties as Superintendent per the contact and, which gag order
-Rul.,
violated the Bylawr, and Reguiations of the school. The gag order specifically
provided -
"NOW THEREFORE, be it fuither resolved that the
Superintendent must cease all communication, as well as
meetings (in-person, virtually, or over the phone), with all
partners and community foundations as well as affiliates of
partners and community foundations, without the presence of the
Board President and his or her designee'"

See Ex. 1, Resolution dated 6116121.

(40) That, specifically, Defendants herein threatened to fire Anita Steward,

in
Plaintiff, if she didn't ,Uia. by-Defendants unlawful gag order, by putting this language
their Resolution.
,,Finally, be it resolved that the Superintendent is to be advised
that continued unacceptable performance, and/or conduct, could
resultindisciplinaryaction,uptoandinc1udingW.',
Emphasis added.

See Ex. 1, Resolution dated 611612l.

That threats made to whistleblowers such as Anita Steward. Plaintiff,

(41) are

unlawful in the State of Michigan. See MCLA 15'361 et seq'

That specifically, Defendants herein, especially, but not limited to' white
(42)
Defendant Maclntyre, retaliaied against Anita Steward, Plaintiff, by
manipulating the
secretarial situation of Anita Steward, Plaintiff, by favoring the white
secretary and
marginalize and
disfavoring Anita Steward, Plaintiff, who is African-American, and did so to
minimize Anita Steward, Plaintiff, in the eyes of her subordinate employees'
under
That the above acts of retaliation are specifically made "adverse actions"
(43)
the pubiished Michigan case of t4rhite v. Department of Transportation,
Court of Appeals No'
349407, for publication, l0 I 1 120 "

(44) That the extreme hostile work environment created for Anita Steward.
Plaintifi by Defendants caused her doctor to order her to take a short leave'
 (45) That Defendants herein used this opportunity to meet in secret and plot to
do and would
hre/terminate the employment of Anita Steward, Plaintiff, which they wanted to
have done but for someone pointing out the fact that she was out on medical leave.

(46) That undaunted, Defendants nevertheless, without consulting Anita Steward.

Interim
Plaintiff, in any way, shape or form, removed her as Superintendent and appointed an
Superintendent.

(47) That the newspaper reported Defendants' actions with the following headline,
.,Flint schools superintend.rit.rnporirily replaced after performance review." See Ex, 2. In
performance
other words, Deiendants herein made it appear that Anita Steward, Plaintiff s
was subpar and that was the reason they appointed an Interim Superintendent.

(48) That, other words, Anita Steward, Plaintiff, was evaluated as "highly
in
effective" as Superintendent in January of 2021, but according to these Defendants her
performance was subpar such that she had to be removed and an Interim Superintendent
appointed 8 months later.

(4g) That appointing an Interim Superintendent under these circumstances also

..adverse-actioni within the meanin g of White v. Department of Transportation,
constituied an
Court of Appeals No. 349407, for publication, 101 | 120'

(50) That pursuant to the venue provision contained in MCLA 15.363, Genesee
County, Michigan islhe County of proper venue to file this lawsuit.

(51) That the amount in controversy exceeds One Hundred Thousand ($100'000)
Dollars, exclusive of costs, interest and attorney fees'

CouNr I
Wnrsu,Bnlowpn Pnorpcuon Acr Vlolauox(S)

(52) That we repeat paragraphs 1-51.

(53) That we have an employee protection law in Michigan known as the

,,Whistleblowers' Protection Act," being MCLA $15.36i, et seq., which provides, in pertinent
part, that -
,.15.362. Discharge threats, or discrimination against
employee for reporting violations of law'

Sec. 2. An employershall not discharge, threaten, or otherwise

discriminate against an employee regarding the employee's
compensation, terms, conditions, location, or privileges of
because the employee, or a person acting on
"-pioy.n.nt
behalf of the employee, reports or is about to report, verbally or
in writing, a vi,olation or a suspected violation of a law or
regulation or rule promulgated pursuant to law of this state, a
political subdivision of this state, or the United States to a
7
 public body, unless the employee knows that the report is false,
or because an employee is requested by a public body to
participate in an investigation, hearing or inquiry held by that
public body, or a court action." See MCLA $15'362'

(54) That Anita Steward, Plaintiff, "engaged in protected activity" in accordance

with the aforesaid employee protection law, for which he was not supposed to be either
discriminated and/or retaliated against - yet Defendants did just that'

(55) That specifically, but not by way of limitation, Defendants herein

discriminaied and/or retaliated against Anita Steward, Plaintiff, in violation of the
aforesaid
employee protection law because, in part at least -
(a) Anita Steward, Plaintifl reported violations and/or
suspected violations of important laws, rules or regulations
to public bodies; and/or

(b) Anita Steward, Plaintiff, participated in investigations

and/or inquiries and/or hearings by a public body, in
particular, but not by way of limitation, of the Defendant
School and its agents, servants or employees'

That the proofs will show that Defendants herein were displeased that Anita Steward,
plaintifi ingaged in protected activity as aforesaid, and did in fact discriminate and/or
retaliate against her because of it.

(56) That it is the law of Michigan that an employer cannot take an adverse
was because that person
employment actions against a person if one of the reasons they did so
includes:
.ngugia in protected a-ctivity, and under the law an adverse employment action

(a) Making a threat towards the plaintiff; and/or

(b) Imposing a gag order on the plaintiff restricting to

whom she can talk or sPeak;

(c) Imposing a "snitch must be present" rule when the

plaintiff does sPeak;

(d) Deliberately interfering with the plaintiff s ability to

do herjob;

(e) Threatening to fire the plaintiff at a secret meeting,

but backing off when someone at the meeting says,
she is on medical leave;

(0 Stripping the plaintiff of her position of

supeiint-ndent and appointing an interim
superintendent at the secret meeting;
8
 (e) Telling the media the plaintiffs performance was
subpar, which was totallY false;

(h) Marginalizing and demeaning the plaintiff in the

eyes of her subordinate employees regarding a
secretarial situation;

(i) Making it impossible for the plaintiff to do her job

and iniffect ionstructively discharging the plaintiff
per MCivJI 105.05 and Vagts v. Perry Drug Stores,
204 Mich. App. 481 (1994).

That non-monetary misconduct by Defendants, such as the above constitutes "adverse

v. Department of
actions" according to Michigan law, specifically, but not limited to White
Transportation, Ciurtof Appeals No. 349407, for publication, l0lll20.

(57) That as a direct and proximate result of Defendants' violations of MCLA

$15.361, et seq., Anita Steward, Plaintiff, suffered
the following injuries and damages,
amongst others:

(a) Loss of position and job as superintendent (constructive

discharge);

(b) Damage to his professional reputation, past and future;

il (c) Lost wages, past and future;

ii (d) Loss of eaming caPacitY;

ii
ii
li (e) Emotional distress and mental anguish, past and future;
i

il I

I
I
I
(f) Injury to his feelings, including extreme embarrassment
and humiliation, Past and future;
I
I I

I
I

I
I I
(e) Outrage, past and future;
I

I (h) Incunence of actual attorney's fees and costs for having

to enforce his legal rights and vindicate himself for the
I
I

I I

I
I
wrongful misconduct of Defendant herein; and
I
I

I
(i) other injuries and damages, the exact nature and extent
of which are not now known.

(5g) That Defendants are directly and/or vicariously liable for the acts and/or
by persons who
omissions and/or misrepresentations and/or unlawful misconduct committed
of Defendants, and acting within
were then and there agents and,/or employees and/or officers
the course and scope-of said employment and/or agency by reason of the
facts hereinabove
 stated or otherwise known to Defendants herein; or acting in such a way
as to bind
Defendants pursuant to the Restatement Second Agency, Section 219 (l & 2)' Defendants are

also liable for acquiescing in, and/or rati$ing, the unlawful conduct of others'

(59)That upon information and betiel Defendants herein, including the agents,
and aided and
servants and employeis of Defendant School, acted in concert with one another
abetted one another, in ways currently unknown to Plaintiff, but well known
to Defendants
herein.

(60) That the damages attributable to the aforesaid injuries far exceed One Hundred
Thousand (S 1 00,000.00) Dollars'

COUNI II
ELCRA Vtolartox

(61) That we repeat paragraphs 1-60.

il
ll (62) That we have an employee victim protection ladstatute in Michigan
benevolently called ELCRA, which provides that a person or two or more
il colloquially and
persons shall not do certain things, including -

Fail or refuse to hire, or recruit, or discharge,

i1
(a) or
otherwise discriminate against an individual with respect
ii to employment, compensation, or a term, condition, or
1l
privilege of employment, because of religion, race,
color, national origin, age, sex, height, weight, gender or
ii marital status.
il
II (b) Limit, segregate, or classify an employee or applicant
for employment in a way which deprives or tends to
deprive the employee or applicant of an employment
opportunity, or otherwise adversely affects the status of
an- employee or applicant because of religion, race,
ir
li color, national origin, age, sex, height, weight, gender or
marital status.
ii (c) Segregate, classiff, or otherwise discriminate against a
p.itoi on the basis of sex, gender, and/or race with
il
I
iespect to a term, condition, or privilege of employment'
i
including a benefit Plan or sYstem.
I

(d) Retaliate or discriminate against a person because the

person has opposed a violation of this act, or because the
p.r.on has made a charge, filed a complaint, testified,
assisted, or participated in an investigation, proceeding'
or hearing under this act'

10
 (e) Aid, abet, incite, compel, or coerce a person to engage in
a violation of this act.

(D Attempt, directly or indirectly to commit an act

prohibited by this act.

(g) Ratiffing the illegal misconduct of others; and

(h) Harass and/or create a hostile and/or offensive work

environment based on protected bases.

See MCLA $37.2101 , et seq. (emphasis added); MCLA $37.2301 , et seq';

Burlington
Northern & sanra Fe (BNSF)'naitwiy co. v. l(hite,548 U.S. 53 (2006); and especially
see

Downey v Charlevoix Road Commission,22T Mich App 621 (1998), which

extended the
protection of the above prohibited bases to harassment claims.

(63) That specifically, under the circumstances of our case, Defendants' misconduct
violated the ELCRA, specificatly those things set forth in flS(a-h), because it
was based upon
impermissible consideiations of race or ictions in opposition to violations
of ELCRA
regarding the terms and conditions of employment'

(64) That under the circumstances of this case, Defendants herein, especially the
individual Defendants, showed a predisposition to discriminate, and further, violated
the

aforesaid employee victim law/statute of ttti.higun in a number of ways,

including for
example, but not by way of limitation:

(a) Making a threat towards the plaintiff; and/or

(b) Imposing a gag order on the plaintiff restricting to

whom she can talk or sPeak;

(c) Imposing a "snitch must be present" rule when the

plaintiff does sPeak;

(d) Deliberately interfering with the plaintiff s ability to

do herjob;

(e) Threatening to fire the plaintiff at a secret meeting,

but backing off when someone at the meeting says,
she is on medical leave;

(0 Stripping the plaintiff of her position of

supeiintindent and appointing an interim
superintendent at the secret meeting;

(g) Telling the media the plaintiff s performance was

subpar, which was totallY false;

11
 (h) Marginalizing and demeaning the plaintiff in the
eyes of her subordinate employees regarding a
secretarial situation;

(i) Making it impossible for the plaintiff to do her job

and in effect constructively discharging the plaintiff
per MCivJI 105.05 and Vagts v. Peruy Drug Stores,
204 Mich. App. 481 (1994).

(65) That as a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid discrimination in

violation of our civil rights employee victim protection law/statute, African-American Anita
Steward, Plaintiff, was caused to suffer and sustain the following injuries and damages,
amongst others:

(a) Loss of position and job as Superintendent (constructive

discharge);

(b) Damage to his professional reputation, past and future;

(c) Lost wages, past and future;

(d) Loss of eaming capacitY;

(e) Emotional distress and mental anguish, past and future;

(0 Injury to his feelings, including extreme embarrassment

and humiliation, past and future;

(e) Outrage, past and future;

(h) Incurrence of actual attomey's fees and costs for having

to enforce his legal rights and vindicate himself for the
wrongful misconduct of Defendant herein; and

(i) other injuries and damages, the exact nature and extent
of which are not now known'

(66) That upon information and belief, Defendants herein acted in concert with one
another, and in fact aided and abetted one another, in retaliating against/punishing African-
American Anita Steward, Plaintiff, for their own various Dersonal purposes.

(67) That the damages attributable to the aforesaid injuries far exceed One Hundred
Thousand ($ 1 00,000.00) Dollars.

(68) That Defendants herein are directly and/or vicariously liable for the acts and/or
omissions and/or misrepresentations and/or tortious misconduct committed by persons who
were then and there ug.nt. and/or employees and/or ofhcers of Defendants herein, and acting
within the course un-d ,.op. of said employment and/or agency by reason of the facts
12
hereinabove stated or otherwise known to Defendants herein; or acting in such a way as to
bind Defendants herein pursuant to the Restatement Second Agency, Section 219 (1 & 2).

(69) That Michigan law, including the ELCRA as set forth above, also prohibits
harassment based upon protected categories such race. See Downey v Charlevoix Rctad
Comm'rs 227 Mich App 621,633;576 NW2d 712 (1998), and Burlington Northern & Santa
Fe (BNSF) Railway Co. v. l(hite,548 U.S. 53 (2006).

(70) That Defendants violated the aforesaid ELCRA law by taking materially
adverse employment action(s) against African-American Anita Steward, Plaintifl

(71) That Defendants behavior towards African-American Anita Steward, Plaintiff,

affected her ability to do his job and/or created an intimidating, hostile or offensive
employment environment.

(72) That Defendants and/or their agents, servants or employees, upon information
and belief, aided and abetted one another, and conspired with one another, to discriminate
and/or harass and/or retaliate against African-American Anita Steward, Plaintifl on the basis
of her protected characteristics.

(73) That Defendants herein, including specifically, but not limited to Defendant
Maclntyre, used race as a factor in dealing with Anita Steward, Plaintiff, and her secretariai
situation and favored the white female employee over African-American Anita Steward,
Plaintiff, in order to marginalize and minimize Anita Steward, Plaintiff, and undermine her
credibility and authority with her subordinate employees.

(74) That as a direct and proximate result of the violations of the aforesaid ELCRA
Iaw, African-American Anita Steward, Plaintifl was caused to suffer and sustain the injuries
and damages, amongst others, as set forth hereinabove.

(75) That the damages attributable to the aforesaid injuries far exceed One Hundred
Thousand ($ 1 00,000.00) Dollars.

(76) That upon information and belief, Defendants herein acted in concert with one
another, and in fact aided and abetted one another, in retaliating against/punishing African-
American James Richardson, Plaintiff, for their own various personal purposes.

(77) That Defendants are directly and/or vicariously liable for the acts and/or
omissions and/or misrepresentations and/or tortious misconduct committed by persons who
were then and there agents and/or employees and/or officers of theirs, and acting within the
course and scope of said employment and/or agency by reason of the facts hereinabove stated
or otherwise known to Defendants herein; or acting in such a way as to bind Defendants
pursuant to the Restatement Second Agency, Section 219 (l &2).

COUXT III
Bnplcu on CoxrRnct aNo ToRttous IxrrnrBRBNcr

(79) That we repeat paragraphs 1-78.

13
 (80) That Defendants and Anita Steward, Plaintiff, entered into a contract, which is
in the possession of Defendants.

(81) That it was reported to Defendants herein, repeatedly and over time, that
Defendants were in violation of important Bylaws, Rules and Regulations, and their acts were
preventing Anita Steward, Plaintiff, from performing her part of the contract. Defendants
were told this via reports by Anita Steward, Plaintiff, and Attomey Kendall Williams.

(82) That Defendants acted upon their express state of mind which was that they
didn't care about Bylaws or Policies, thereby making their breach of contract willful.

(83) That as to the individual Defendants herein, this conduct constitutes tortious
interference with contractual relations for which they have no governmental immunity
pursuant to MCLA 691.1407(3).

(84) That as for Defendant School, failing to remedy the aforesaid misconduct of
Defendants herein constituted and created a breach of contract.

(85) Despite Anita Steward, Plaintiff s repeated request to cure these breaches of
contract, Defendants failed and refused to do so.

(86) That as a direct and proximate cause of Defendant Schools' breach of contract
and the individual Defendants' tortious interference with the contractual relations, Anita
Steward, Plaintiff, suffered the damages heretofore set forth in paragraph 66.

(86) That Defendants are directly and/or vicariously liable for the acts and/or
omissions and/or misrepresentations and/or unlawful misconduct committed by persons who
were then and there agents and/or employees and/or officers of Defendants, and acting within
the course and scope of said employment and/or agency by reason of the facts hereinabove
stated or otherwise known to Defendants herein; or acting in such a way as to bind
Defendants pursuant to the Restatement Second Agency, Section 219 (l & 2). Defendants are
also liable for acquiescing in, and/or ratiffing, the unlau{ul conduct of others.

(87) That upon information and belief, Defendants herein acted in concert with one
another and aided and abetted one another, in ways currently unknown to Plaintiff, but well
known to Defendants herein.

(88) That the damages attributable to the aforesaid injuries far exceed One Hundred
Thousand ($ 1 00,000.00) Dollars.

COUNT V
Gnoss Npcr,rcrNcr prn MCL 691.1407(2)
(as ro tHB rxorymua.r, DBrrh[oA.Nrs)

(89) That we repeat paragraphs 1-88.

l4
 (90) That Defendants at all times pertinent hereto owed the Anita Steward, Plaintiff.
a duty ofdue and reasonable care.

(91) That Defendants breached the aforesaid duty of due and reasonable care when
they intentionally and maliciously -

(a) Falsely misrepresented material facts about Anita Steward,

Plaintiff, to the public entity and to its employees indicating
she had failed to perform her duties as expected, and/or was
rendering a subpar performance;

(b) Made sure these knowingly false misrepresentations of fact

were published to the public, coworkers and anyone else
living in the City of Flint by giving a press conference;

(c) Adversely affected Anita Steward, Plaintiffs relationship

with her employees.

All of this occurred because Anita Steward, Plaintiff, reported Defendants' unlawful conduct.

(92)That as a direct and proximate result of individual Defendants' aforesaid

misconduct, Anita Steward, Plaintiff, was caused to suffer the injuries and damages set forth
herein with particularity in paragraph 66"

(84) That the individual Defendants herein are directly and./or vicariously liable for
the acts and/or omissions and/or misrepresentations and/or misconduct committed by persons
who were then and there agents and/or employees and,/or officers of Defendants herein, and
acting within their course and scope of said employment and/or agency by reason of the facts
hereinabove stated, or otherwise known to the Defendants herein. Defendants herein are also
legally responsible for aiding and abetting and/or inciting one another or acting in such a wa),'
as to bind other Defendants herein, and for acts done by their co-conspirators, named and
unnamed, in furtherance of the conspiracy.

(85) That the individual Defendants herein acted in concert with and conspired with
one another and aided and abetted one another in accomplishing the actions and consequences
set forth herein, and in implementing and effecting Defendants' unlawful
agreement/conspiracy. The exact nature and extent of the concerted action and conspiracy is
well known to Defendants.

(86) That upon information and belief, the individual Defendants hLrein did what
they did, in part at least, for their own pgponal reasons.

(87) That the damages attributable to the aforesaid injuries far exceed One Hundred
Thousand ($ 1 00,000) Dollars.

(88) That this cause of action is permitted pursuant to MCLA 691.1407(2), since
the individual Defendants did what they did intentionally.

15
 WHEREFORE, and for all of which damages, Anita Steward, Plaintiff, herein,
demand judgment against Defendants herein in whatever amount in excess of One Hundred
Thousand ($100,000.00) Dollars the trier of fact finds to be fair and just, in accordance with
the law and evidence, together with interest, costs and attorney fees, including ACTUAL
attomey fees allowed by MCLA $15.361, et. seq.

\
?
Date
-t'11 TOM R. PABST (
Representing Plaintiff

Junv DruaNo

Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial in the above matter.

/bY
Date -qJ
TOM R. PABST (P27872)
Representing Plaintiff

Rnvoclrton or Comrr.rox Llw AnrtrRlrtoN AcnnBn'rcNr

The contract between Anita Steward, Plaintiff, and Defendant School contained an

Arbitration Clause, being Article 15 of the Contract. However, there is a big difference

between cortmon law arbitration and statutory arbitration. According to Michigan law -
"...common law arbitrations are unilaterally revokable
[anytime] before an arbitration award is made. To be an
irrevocable statutory arbitration agreement subject to the
Michigan Arbitration Act, the agreement to arbitrate must
provide for a judgment of any circuit court to be rendered on
the arbitrator's award..." Emphasis and amplification added.

See Roovakker v. Plante Moran, p. 153. Thus, providing for the entry ofjudgment based on

award is a key provision of any contract.

Defendant School's Article 15 arbitration clause only created a comrnon law

arbitration agreement, revokable at the will of either party. Defendant School's own contract

t6
language, which it drafted, prevents Plaintiff from being able to enter a judgment on the

award in Plaintiff s favor and expressly states as follows -

"An arbitrator's award is final and binds the parties. A
judgment on the award may be entered in the highest state or
federal court having jurisdiction. The District shall have thirty
(30) days after receipt of an arbitral award in favor of the
Superintendent to fully comply with it, and a iudgment may
not be entered to enforce it until the District has had a
reasonable opportunity to complv with the arbitral award
in accordance with this provision." Emphasis added.

See Defendant School's own contract, Article 16, paragraph 8. Thus, Plaintiff is prohibited

from entering a judgment on an award in her favor. Accordingly, the most Defendant

School's documents would have created is a common law agreement which is revocable at

any time before the award is entered. Thus, by filing this Complaint, Plaintiff hereby revokes

any pseudo agreement to arbitrate the subject matter of this lawsuit.

lkl/)
Date TOM R. PABST (P27872)
Representing Plaintiff

l7
ExHIBIT 1
FOR ACTION
Flint Board of Education
Special Board Meeting, June 16, 2021
Volurne 148

21.39 FLINT BOARD OF EDUCATION DPECTATIONS OF SUPERINTENDENT

WEEREAS, the Board is in the procsss of receiving Govornance training from

Michigan Association of School Boards to gain a greater rurderstanding of its role ancl
responsibilitics as the public-school diskict's goveming body; and

WHEREAS, the Superintendent is in the process of developing a Strategic Plan which

wiil guide the future of the F[nt School District; and

WIIEREAS, the Superintendent may not fully understand the expectations frorn Board
members, relating to her communications with, and dissemination of infotmation to, the
Board of Education members; and

\YHEREAS, to clarify the Board's expectations until the Board receives in its entirety
the MASB Governance training, and the Strategic Plan is completed and ftilly adopted
by the Board of Education, the Board wishes to adopt these procedwes to describe to
the Superintendent the Board's expectations.

NOW, TI{EREFORE, be it resolved that it is the Superintendent's responsibility to

inform the entire Roard of Education, collectively and in a timely maluter, of all
information that is pertinent regarding the school district, including at least but not
limited to the following:

1.) COVID-l9 Relief tunds

2.) Enhanced Deficit Elimination Plan with Department of Treasury
3.) District Parhrership Agreement with Michigan Department of
Education
4) Plans of Reopening schools for scholars and teaching staff

NOW, THEREFORE, be it further resolvecl that the Superintendent must cease all
communication, as well as meetings (in-person, virtually, or over the telephone), witlt
all partners and commurity foundations as well as affiliates of partners and community
foundations, without the presence of the Board President and his or her designee.

FINALLY, be it resolved that the Superintendent is to be advised that continued

unacceptable performance, and/or conduct, could result in disciplinary action, up to and
including dismissai.

I hereby certiff that this is a true copy of thc Resolution acted upon and adopted by the
Board of Education of the School Distriot of the City of Flint at its Special meeting held
on the 16e day of June 2021, and that said Resolution is in full force and effect as of the
date hereof.

F'lint Board of Education

ExHIBIT 2
 Subscribe

llpnest data, remg an+pers@you can,t get anywhere

else. Subscribe today=

Flint schools superintendent

temporarily replaced after
performance review
Updated: Sep. 02,zozl,L!:44a.m. I published: Sep. oz,zozl,l!:42 a.m,
 B y DVle n_G o etr l_dgo etz@ mI_ve.c o.tn

FLINT, Ml -- Flint Community Schools Board of Education voted Wednesday night to

appoint Kevelin Jones, once assistant superintendent, to act as a temp orary
replacement for Superintendent Anita Steward.

The school board held a special meeting to review Superintendent Anita Steward's
performance.

After coming out of closed session, the board appointed Jones to interim
superintendent.

It is not clear why Steward was put on leave. The performance review was conducted
in closed session.

The school board issued a verbahryarning to Steward in June for not keeping members
of the board informed.

The first four weeks of the new school year were full of cancellations due to excessive
heat and mold found in class .

Read more on MLive:

Flint schoo! board g_to supSfintendent for not pjng members

informed

Recall_lenguage against Davison scho ected,_to be refiled

&yl-e.Byder El-ementary students will be spread across distr

FIint school

Flint schools canc yl_dyder classes for res

Note to readers: if you purchase something through one of our affiliate links we may earn a commission.

A D\Z\IY C tr i:iilffi;:il ffr

Agreement updated
!ilH ::t: l: TffT:,'#: ;r::Hffi
l/l/21.
ffi
Privacy Policy and Cookie Statement updated 5/l/2021).

LOCAL
@2021Advance Local Media LLC, All rights reserved (About Us).
The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used, except with the prior written
permiss;ion of Advance Local.

CommuUlly_Rules apply to all content you upload or otherwise submit to this site.