Case 1:24-cv-00019-RJJ-PJG ECF No.1, PagelD.1 Filed 01/05/24 Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN KRYSTAL DAVIS-DUNN, Plaintiff, -ys- Case No: Honorable COUNTY OF INGHAM Defendant. ZACHARY T. RUNYAN (P83671) RUNYAN LAW GROUP Attorneys for Plaintiff 31211 Jefferson Avenue St. Clair Shores, MI 48082 P: (248) 341-0794 zrunyan@runyanlawgroup.com A cause of action arising out of similar transactions and occurrences is currently pending in the Ingham County Circuit Court in front of Judge James Jamo and has been assigned Case No 23-000078-CD COMPLAINT ANI JURY DEMAND NOW COMES Plaintiff, KRYSTAL DAVIS-DUNN, by and through her attorneys, Runyan Law Group, and for her Complaint against the defendant named herein, states as follows: JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Jurisdiction is conferred by 28 USC Section 1331. 2. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because Defendant resides in this district and a substantial part of the events and omissions giving rise to Plaintiff's claims occurred in this district.Case 1:24-cv-00019-RJJ-PJG ECF No.1, PagelD.2 Filed 01/05/24 Page 2 of 16 3. Plaintiff exhausted her administrative remedies by filing a claim with the Michigan Department of Civil Rights and obtained a right to sue letter from the EEOC. PAR’ 4, Plaintiff Krystal Davis-Dunn is a black female and resides in the City of East Lansing, County of Ingham, State of Michigan. 5. Defendant Ingham County is a municipal organization in the State of Michigan with the capacity to sue and be sued, FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS DEFENDANT DISCRIMINATED AGAINST PLAINTIFF DUE TO HER DISABILITY AND REFUSED TO PROVIDE PLAINTIFF WITH REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS 6. Plaintiff is a black female with a neurodevelopment disability that makes it difficult for Plaintiff to process certain audio and visual information. 7. Since 2019, Plaintiff has frequently requested reasonable accommodations from Defendant to accommodate her disability. 8. The accommodations requested by Plaintiff included access to computer software for reading and writing, clear written communication from management, and a workspace free from distractions, 9. Indeed, prior to 2022, Plaintiff had submitted requests for the abovementioned accommodations with proper medical documentation from her treating medical physicians on approximately 10 occasions. 10. For years, Defendant failed to provide Plaintiff with any accommodations.Case 1:24-cv-00019-RJJ-PJG ECF No.1, PagelD.3 Filed 01/05/24 Page 3 of 16 11. Defendant even suggested that it was impossible to provide Plaintiff with a quiet workspace or the requested software. However, Defendant has provided other similarly situated employees with similar accommodations to those requested by Plaintiff, 12. After years of requesting accommodations and having to enforce her rights through the MDCR and EEOC, Defendant seemingly attempted to provide Plaintiff with an accommodation in July of 2022 by providing her computer software to aide in reading and writing. 13. However, the software provided was outdated and incompatible with Defendant’s computer system. 14. The software provided by Defendant caused technical issues with Plaintiff's computer, which resulted in Plaintiffs work being completed in an untimely manner. 15. Additionally, Plaintiff requested a microphone to dictate her work in lieu of typing. Defendant refused to provide Plaintiff with a microphone and a quiet workspace. As a result, Plaintiff was forced to attempt to dictate using the computer's built-in microphone, which picked up on Plaintiff's coworkers talking, causing Plaintiff's transcriptions to be incoherent. 16. Despite Plaintiff reporting the abovementioned issues with the software and dictating microphone, Defendant failed to take any corrective measures and refused to provide Plaintiff with a quiet workspace.Case 1:24-cv-00019-RJJ-PJG ECF No.1, PagelD.4 Filed 01/05/24 Page 4 of 16 PERVASSIVE RACIAL 17. Since Plaintiff was hired, she was often subjected to racial harassment, discrimination, and retaliation for asserting her civil rights. 18. For example, Plaintiff's supervisors had referred to Plaintiff as “Aunt Jemima” because Plaintiff is a black woman and wore head wraps to work. 19. Plaintiff was also frequently accused of being “intimidating” and “aggressive” simply because she is a tall black woman, 20. In September of 2020, Plaintiff sent a letter to the Ingham County Board of Commissioners complaining about the pervasive racial discrimination, racial harassment, and retaliation throughout Defendant's departments, specifically within the Ingham County Health Centers. 21. Within the letter, Plaintiff listed several changes that Defendant could implement to reduce the racial harassment and discrimination suffered by black employees. 22. Defendant responded with a dismissive letter that confirmed Defendant would not institute any of Plaintiff's proposals, 23. Additionally, during Plaintiff's tenure with Defendant, she had applied for over 20 promotions and had been consistently passed over for less qualified applicants due to her race and disability DEFENDANT RETALIATED AGAISNT PLAINTIFF FOR FILING WITH THE MDCR AND EEOC 24. Due to the pervasive harassment and discrimination due to Plaintiff's race and disability, in September 2021, Plaintiff filed an EEOC/MDCR complaint alleging 4Case 1:24-cv-00019-RJJ-PJG ECF No.1, PagelD.5 Filed 01/05/24 Page 5 of 16 violations under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Title VII, and the Elliot Larsen Civil Rights Act. 25. Despite Plaintifi’s Complaint to the MDCR and EEOC, Defendant continued to harass and discriminate against Plaintiff due to her race and disability. 26. Moreover, in January of 2022, Plaintiff had an interview for a promotion, and requested that she be provided the interview questions prior to her interview as part of a reasonable accommodation. 27. Defendant refused to honor Plaintiff's request for reasonable accommodation, resulting in Plaintiff being passed over for a promotion she was qualified for. 28. Defendant’s refusal to provide Plaintiff with the reasonable accommodation was in retaliation for Plaintiff's EEOC/MDCR complaint. 29. Accordingly, in January of 2022, Plaintiff filed a second Complaint with the MDCR/EEOC, complaining that she had been subject to retaliation for filing her first complaint, and continued to endure harassment and discrimination due to her race and disability. 30. In March of 2022, Plaintiff took a new position with Defendant as a Behavioral Health Consultant. 31. In Plaintiffs new position, she had three direct supervisors: a, Matt Wojack, a white male b, Isabella Wackowski, a white female c. Alexander Sullivan, a white male 5Case 1:24-cv-00019-RJJ-PJG ECF No.1, PagelD.6 Filed 01/05/24 Page 6 of 16 32. Shortly after Plaintiff's transfer, Defendant and its employees began lodging false accusations against Plaintiff in an attempt to have her terminated. 33. Onor about March 4, 2022, Plaintiff's supervisor Matt Wojack informed her that he received anonymous complaints that Plaintiff was talking poorly about her supervisors. 34. The accusation was false. 35. On or about March 7, 2022, Plaintiff was falsely accused of screaming at Wojack and Wokowski and referring to them as “Bitches” and “Fags” 36. Based on the false accusations, Defendant suspended Plaintiff for four (4) months despite having no evidence to substantiate the accusations. 37. Indeed, Defendant and its employees created and used the false allegations against Plaintiff for the purpose of retaliating against Plaintiff for filing the EEOC/MDCR complaints. 38. Accordingly, due to the retaliatory suspension, Plaintiff filed a third MDCRVEEOC complaint on June 3, 2022. 39. Plaintiff returned from her suspension on July 22, 2022, 40. Upon returning from her suspension, Plaintiff’s supervisor began referring to is “it” or a “thing”. 41. Another supervisor, Jessica Kirby, advised Plaintiff's coworkers to stay away from Plaintiff, intentionally alienating Plaintiff from her coworkers. 42, Defendant further retaliated against Plaintiff in ways including, but not limited to:Case 1:24-cv-00019-RJJ-PJG ECF No.1, PagelD.7 Filed 01/05/24 Page 7 of 16 a. Subjecting Plaintiff to a discipline for opening the door and closing the blinds in the office Plaintiff works in b. Plaintiff was written up for multiple instances of tardiness for being only minutes late while other employees were not disciplined for arriving much later than Plaintiff. ¢. Defendant falsely accused Plaintiff of threatening coworkers and making coworkers feel unsafe d. Defendant falsely accused Plaintiff of being on drugs and abusing prescription medications e. Suspending Plaintiff for wearing clothes that were similar to clothes worn by her coworkers who were not disciplined. 43. In August of 2022, Plaintiff completed a mandatory onboarding process that was required for her to work with patients. 44. Despite fully complying with the onboarding process, Defendant prohibited from working with patients. 45. On September 26, 2022, Plaintiff was notified by Defendant that she needed to complete three (3) competency reviews in order to receive credentialing and privileging, referred to as “full credentials”. 46. Full credentials would allow Plaintiff to independently provide patient care. 47. Despite employees generally being afforded 120 days to complete competency reviews, Defendant only afforded Plaintiff four (4) days. 48. Upon Complaints from Plaintiff, Defendant extended her time period to thirty (30) days. 49. Competency reviews are customarily completed by the social worker's supervisors and peers.Case 1:24-cv-00019-RJJ-PJG ECF No.1, PagelD.8 Filed 01/05/24 Page 8 of 16 50. However, Sullivan and Wojack refused to complete Plaintiff's competency review. $1. Additionally, Sullivan and Wojack instructed Plaintiff's peers not to perform competency reviews on Plaintiff's behalf. 52. Indeed, upon information and belief, Plaintiff's supervisors had completed competency reviews for Plaintiff's similarly white coworkers on several occasions. 53. Because Plaintifi"s supervisors refused to complete the competency reviews, Plaintiff was only able to provide two completed competency reviews before the credentialling and privileging deadline. 54. Asa result, on November 17, 2022, the Board of Directors of the Ingham Community Health Centers denied Plaintiff's application for full privileges, 55. Defendant used Plaintiff's denial of full privileges to suspend her indefinitely. 56. Plaintiff was suspended for allegedly not obtaining full privileges despite full privileges not being a requirement of Plaintiff's job and/or job duties. 57. On December 8, 2022, Plaintiff appealed Defendant's decision to deny her full privileges, and presented five (5) completed competency reviews. 58. Despite Plaintiff providing five (5) completed competency reviews and timely submitting her appeal, Defendant delayed providing Plaintiff an answer to the appeal 59. After a significant delay, Defendant denied Plaintiff's appeal and refused to provide Plaintiff full privileges.Case 1:24-cv-00019-RJJ-PJG ECF No.1, PagelD.9 Filed 01/05/24 Page 9 of 16 60. As aresult, Plaintiff's employment was terminatied 61. Asa result of Defendant’s actions Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer damages, including but not limited to the following: a. Stress; b. Humiliation; c. Embarrassment; d. Outrage; e. Mental anguish; f. Fear and mortification; g. Emotional Damages; h, Economic damages; i, Non-economic Damages; j. Attomey fees and costs; k, Other damages to be discovered through the course of litigation COUNT E LE VII- DISCRIMINATION ON THE BAS AND SEX S OF RACE 62. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 63. Plaintiff is a member of a protected on the basis of race and sex. 64. Plaintiff, in all respects, was performing her job in a manner that was consistent with Defendant’s legitimate business expectations. 65. Defendant, through its agents, representatives, and employees, wereCase 1:24-cv-00019-RJJ-PJG ECF No.1, PagelD.10 Filed 01/05/24 Page 10 of 16 predisposed to discriminate on the basis of sex, and/or race and/or color and acted in accordance with that predisposition. 66. Defendant, through its agents, representatives, and employees, treated Plaintiff differently from similarly situated employees in the terms and conditions of employment, based on the unlawful considerations of sex, and/or race, and/or color. 67. Defendant’s actions were willful, intentional, and/or made in reckless disregard of Plaintiff's rights and sensibilities. 68. As a result of said disregard of Plaintiff's rights and sensibilities, Plaintiff was suspended on multiple occasions, passed over for promotions she was qualified for, subjected to increased scrutiny, and subjected to several unwarranted disciplinary actions, and terminated from employment. 69. Defendant’s actions were taken with a willful and wanton disregard of Plaintiff's Rights under Title VII 70. Asa direct and proximate cause of said unlawful employment practices, and in disregard of Plaintiffs rights and sensibilities, Plaintiff has suffered injuries and damages. WHEREFORE Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter judgment on Plaintiff's claims in a sum that the yurt or jury find to be fair and just, including attorney fees, costs, and punitive damages. 10Case 1:24-cv-00019-RJJ-PJG ECF No.1, PagelD.11 Filed 01/05/24 Page 11 of 16 COUN? LE VII- RETALIATION 71. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 72. Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff for engaging in protected activities including but not limited to filing complaints of racial harassment and racial discrimination. 73. Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff including, but not limited to, for filing complaints of racial harassment, discrimination, and retaliation, 74, Plaintiff was subjected to adverse employment actions, including but not limited to being suspended on multiple occasions, passed over for promotions she was qualified for, subjected to increased scrutiny, subjected to several unwarranted disciplinary actions, and terminated, 75. Defendant’s actions were taken with a willful and wanton disregard of Plaintiff's Rights under Title VII 76. Asa direct and proximate cause of said unlawful employment practices, and in disregard of Plaintiff's rights and sensibilities, Plaintiff has suffered injuries and damages. WHEREFORE Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter judgment on Plaintiff's claims in a sum that the Court or jury find to be fair and just, including attomey fees, costs, and punitive damages. ulCase 1:24-cv-00019-RJJ-PJG ECF No.1, PagelD.12 Filed 01/05/24 Page 12 of 16 col HO! WORK ENVIRO! 77. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 78. Plaintiff was subjected to unwelcomed conduct due to her race, and/or color. 79. The unweleomed conduct complained of was based on Plaintiff's race and/or color. 80. The unweleomed conduct affected a term or condition of employment and/or had the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with Plaintiff's work performance and/or creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment. 81. Asa direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful actions, Plaintiff has sustained and continues to sustain injuries and damages. WHEREFORE Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter judgment on Plaintiff's claims in a sum that the Court or jury find to be fair and just, including attomey fees, costs, and punitive damages. COUNT IV FAILURE TO PROVIDE A REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION IN VIOLATION OF THE AMERICANS Failure to Accommodate 82. Plaintiff, by reference, incorporates the preceding paragraphs of his Complaint as though fully set forth herein, 83. __Plaintiffhas been diagnosed with a neurodevelopment disability, making her a "qualified individual with a disability" within the meaning of 42 U.S.C.A. § 12111 of the 12Case 1:24-cv-00019-RJJ-PJG ECF No.1, PagelD.13 Filed 01/05/24 Page 13 of 16 ADA. Plaintiff could perform the essential functions of her position with a reasonable accommodation. 84, Plaintiff notified Defendant of her disability and requested a reasonable accommodation on approximately 10 occasions. 85. Defendant refused to engage in the interactive process and denied Plaintiff's request. 86. Plaintiff suffered damages as a result of Defendant's unlawful discriminatory actions, including emotional distress, past and future lost wages and benefits, and the costs of bringing this action, 87. Defendant intentionally violated Plaintiff's rights under the ADA with malice or reckless indifference and, as a result, is liable for punitive damages. WHEREFORE Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter judgment on Plaintiff's claims in a sum that the Court or jury find to be fair and just, including attomey fees, costs, and punitive damages. COUNT V RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT 42 §§ 12181 ET SEQ. Retaliation 88. Plaintiff, by reference, incorporates the preceding paragraphs of his Complaint as though fully set forth herein. 89. Plaintiff was qualified for her position. 1BCase 1:24-cv-00019-RJJ-PJG ECF No.1, PagelD.14 Filed 01/05/24 Page 14 of 16 90. Plaintiff engaged in protected activities under the ADA when she request accommodations from Defendant, and when she filed complains with the Michigan Department of Civil Rights alleging violations of the ADA. 91. Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff for engaging in the protected activity by, among other things: a, Subjecting Plaintiff to a discipline for opening the door and closing the blinds in the office Plaintiff works in b. Plaintiff was written up for multiple instances of tardiness for being only minutes late while other employees were not disciplined for arriving much later than Plaintiff. c, Defendant falsely accused Plaintiff of threatening coworkers and making coworkers feel unsafe d. Defendant falsely accused Plaintiff of being on drugs and abusing prescription medications ° Suspending Plaintiff for wearing clothes that were similar to clothes worn by her coworkers who were not disciplined. f, Terminating Plaintiff's employment. 92. Defendant's alleged reason for terminating Plaintiff's employment is pretextual and baseless. Defendant fired Plaintiff because she engaged in protected activities, 93. Plaintiff suffered damages as a result of Defendant's unlawful retaliatory actions, including emotional distress, past and future lost wages and benefits, and the costs of bringing this action. 14Case 1:24-cv-00019-RJJ-PJG ECF No.1, PagelD.15 Filed 01/05/24 Page 15 of 16 94. Defendant intentionally violated Plaintiff's rights under the ADA with malice or reckless indifference and, as a result, is liable for punitive damages. 95. At all times relevant herein, Plaintiff was and is an individual with a disability within the meaning of the the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq 96. Defendant was Plaintiff's employer by and within the meaning of the ADA. 97. Defendant was aware of Plaintiff's disabilities, as she provided the necessary paperwork and request for accommodations. 98. Defendants’ acts and/or omissions proximately caused these injuries. WHEREFORE Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter judgment on Plaintiff's claims in a sum that the Court or jury find to be fair and just, including attorney fees, costs, and punitive damages. Respectfully submitted, 4s/ Zachary T_ Runyan Zachary T. Runyan (P83671) RUNYAN LAW GROUP 31211 Jefferson Ave Saint Clair Shores, MI 48082 Phone: (248) 341-0794 Email: zrunyan@runyanlawgroup.com Dated: January 5, 2024 1SCase 1:24-cv-00019-RJJ-PIG ECF No.1, PagelD.16 Filed 01/05/24 Page 16 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN KRYSTAL DAVIS-DUNN, Plaintiff, -ys- Case No: Honorable COUNTY OF INGHAM. Defendant. ZACHARY T. RUNYAN (P83671) RUNYAN LAW GROUP Attorneys for Plaintiff 31211 Jefferson Avenue St. Clair Shores, MI. 48082 P: (248) 341-0794 zrunyan@runyanlawgroup.com JURY DEMAND Plaintiff, by and through counsel, hereby requests a trial by jury in the above- captioned matter. Respectfully submitted, (s/ Zachary T_ Runyan Zachary T. Runyan (P83671) RUNYAN LAW GROUP 31211 Jefferson Ave Saint Clair Shores, MI 48082 Phone: (248) 341-0794 Email: zrunyan@runyanlawgroup.com Dated: January 5, 2024 16