Case 1:23-cv-00547-UNA Document 1 Filed 05/19/23 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

MICHAEL A. BROWN :
:
Plaintiff, : CASE NO.
:
v. : TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED
:
CITY OF WILMINGTON, :
a Municipal Corporation, :
:
Defendants. :

COMPLAINT

NOW COMES, the Plaintiff, Michael A. Brown, Sr., by his counsel, The

Poliquin Firm, LLC, and for his cause of action states as follows:

THE PARTIES

1. Plaintiff, Michael A. Brown, Sr. (“Plaintiff Brown”) was at all times

relevant to this complaint a resident of the State of Delaware. Brown is 67 years old.

2. Defendant, City of Wilmington, (“Defendant City”) is a Delaware

municipality organized under the Wilmington City Charter. The City's legislative

functions are invested in the City Council (the "Council"), which consists of 13

members: the Council President (the "President"), eight members elected from

separate geographical districts, and four members elected from the city at large.

1
 Case 1:23-cv-00547-UNA Document 1 Filed 05/19/23 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: 2

JURISDICTION

3. Plaintiff alleges age discrimination in violation of the Age

Discrimination and Employment Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 621 et seq (“ADEA”) and

Delaware’s Discrimination in Employment Act (DDEA), 19 Del. Code §710, et

seq (DDEA).

VENUE

4. The unlawful employment practices alleged herein were committed

within the State of Delaware.

EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

5. Prior to the filing of this action, Plaintiff timely filed a Charge of

Discrimination with the Delaware Department of Labor and Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission on January 25, 2023. Charge of Discrimination

incorporated and attached as Exhibit 1.

6. On or about February 28, 2023, the EEOC issued Plaintiff Brown a

“Right to Sue Notice” which was received by Plaintiff on or about March 2, 2023.

EEOC Right to Sue Notice attached as Exhibit 2.

2
 Case 1:23-cv-00547-UNA Document 1 Filed 05/19/23 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: 3

FACTS

7. On or around February 2022, the Wilmington City Council’s Chief of

Staff, Daniel Walker; resigned from the post.

8. The position was posted in April 2022.

9. After a dozen candidates applied and interviews were conducted, only

Plaintiff Brown and Dougherty were deemed qualified candidates.

10. On July 7, 2022, Dougherty’s name was withdrawn by Council

President Ernest “Trippi” Congo due to a lack of support.

11. No one was hired.

12. The position was opened a second time in September 2022.

13. On September 8, 2022, Plaintiff Brown applied (the second time) for

the chief of staff position.

14. Brown’s credentials were already previously vetted as “qualified”

since he was chosen to interview for the position.

15. Brown’s qualifications are beyond reproach. Brown was previously a

council member and longtime senior employee for the city. He served as City

Councilman at Large from 2005-2016 and as Executive Director for the William

Hicks Anderson Community Center.

16. Brown was one of two candidates who were pre-screened qualified

and considered for the position when the position was previously posted.

3
 Case 1:23-cv-00547-UNA Document 1 Filed 05/19/23 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: 4

17. During the second application process, Brown reached out to

Councilwoman Shané Darby asking if she had any questions about his professional

qualifications. Darby explicitly responded:

18. In the text exchange, Darby conceded Brown met the qualifications,

but she was supportive of bringing “new and younger people”.

19. Considering Plaintiff Brown met the qualifications; Darby’s

comments clearly demonstrate age discrimination against Brown.

20. Darby was a decision-maker in the process as she had a vote on who

4
 Case 1:23-cv-00547-UNA Document 1 Filed 05/19/23 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: 5

received the position.

21. In addition, Brown’s due process rights were violated since he was

not given an interview despite meeting all job qualifications.

22. On September 16, 2022, Brown received a letter from Marchell

Basnight that Brown did not meet the qualifications for the Chief of Staff position.

23. This representation was categorically false as Brown was one of two

finalists in the preceding application process.

24. Darby’s comments along with the entire record demonstrate Brown

was discriminated against because of his age despite impeccable qualifications.

25. On October 14, 2022, Brown sent a letter to the City of Wilmington

complaining about the alleged age discrimination.

26. Despite the letter and a follow-up to the letter, the City neither

acknowledged nor investigated Brown’s complaint of age discrimination.

COUNT I: AGE DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION FO ADEA AND

DDEA

27. Plaintiffs re-allege and adopt the allegations of paragraphs 1-26

above as if fully set forth herein.

28. Such acts as described above constitute unlawful age discrimination

against Plaintiff in violation of the ADEA and the DDEA.

29. Specifically, Plaintiff was not hired because the City Council was

looking for younger applicants.

5
 Case 1:23-cv-00547-UNA Document 1 Filed 05/19/23 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: 6

30. Plaintiff Brown’s age was a determining factor in the City’s decision

not to hire him as City Council Chief of Staff.

31. The city, by and through its agents, servants, and/or employees violated

the ADEA and DDEA by:

a. Treating Brown differently because of his age.

b. Subjecting Brown to increased scrutiny not directed at younger

employees.

c. Failing to give Brown an equal opportunity to be hired for the

Chief of Staff position.

d. Failing to investigate Brown’s claims of age discrimination.

e. Unfairly evaluating Brown’s application.

f. Failing to hire Brown because of his age; and

g. Other acts of discrimination yet to be discovered.

32. The City’s actions in violation of the ADEA and DDEA were willful

and in reckless or callous indifference to Brown’s state and federally protected

rights.

33. As a direct and proximate result of the City’s violations of the ADEA,

and DDEA, Brown has suffered and will in the future suffer damages, including,

but not limited to:

6
 Case 1:23-cv-00547-UNA Document 1 Filed 05/19/23 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: 7

a. Loss of employment and all compensation flowing from that

employment.

b. Loss of promotional opportunities.

c. Loss of employee benefits.

d. Loss of wages and earning potential.

e. Embarrassment, humiliation, inconvenience, mental anguish,

indignity, outrage, and disappointment.

f. Other damages to be determined.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Brown request this Honorable Court enter a

judgment in their favor and against the Defendants as follows:

a. Declare the conduct engaged in by the defendant to be in violation of

the plaintiff’s statutory rights.

b. Award the plaintiff sufficient funds to compensate him for his losses,

pain, and mental suffering, which cannot otherwise be compensated by equitable

relief.

c. Award the plaintiff compensatory damages such as front pay and

punitive damages not otherwise specified.

d. Award the plaintiffs any and all other liquidated damages, which

would make the plaintiff “whole.”

7
 Case 1:23-cv-00547-UNA Document 1 Filed 05/19/23 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: 8

e. Award the plaintiff’s attorney fees, the costs of this action, pre-

judgment and post-judgment interest, and;

f. Such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

THE POLIQUIN FIRM, LLC

/s/ Ronald G. Poliquin

Ronald G. Poliquin, Esq.
DE Bar I.D. No. 4447
1475 S. Governors Ave.
Dover, DE 19904
(302) 702-5501

Date: May 19, 2023 Attorney for Plaintiff Michael A. Brown, Sr.