Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Atascosa Co Federal Suit 2024

    Uploaded by

    Ivan Herrera
    12K views21 pages
    Atascosa Co Federal Suit 2024

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Atascosa Co Federal Suit 2024

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    12K views21 pages

    Atascosa Co Federal Suit 2024

    Uploaded by

    Ivan Herrera
    Atascosa Co Federal Suit 2024

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 21
    RECEIVED FEB 2 3 2024 in IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT sage oF ONS FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION DEPUTY JOHN PENA ee 1 | bA24CA019 lig ATASCOSA COUNTY; and ‘ CITY OF PLEASANTON § Defendants. § PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT JOHN PENA, Plaintiff herein, files this his Original Complaint, complaining of ATASCOSA COUNTY and CITY OF PLEASANTON, Defendants herein, and in support thereof would show the Court as follows: JURISDICTION and VENUE 1. This action against Defendant Atascosa County is brought pursuant to Disability in violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Title VIE of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended; and retaliation on the basis of making a claim and ‘opposing of a practice made to be unlawful employment practice in violation of 42 U.S, Code § 2000e-3 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 2. This action against Defendant the City of Pleasanton is brought on the basis of violation of Plaintiff's First Amendment Freedom of Speech violation. 3. Jurisdiction in this Court is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 4, Venue in this Court is Proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b)(2) and (c)(2) because the Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in this judicial district and because this judicial district is where a substantial part ofthe events or omissions giving tise to the asserted claims occurred, T. PARTIES 5. Plaintiff is a former employee of Defendant Atascosa County Animal Control and Defendant the City of Pleasanton. Plaintiff resides at 873 Avenue I, Poteet, TX 78065, 6. Defendant, Atascosa County Animal Control is a governmental municipal entity and can be served at 292 Spur 162, Jourdanton, TX 78026. 7. Defendant, City of Pleasanton is a governmental municipal entity and can be served at 108 Second St., Pleasanton, TX 78064, Ul. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO SUIT 8. Plaintiff is a Mexican American male and was thirty-four (34) years old at the time that the incidents of discrimination occurred, °- Plaintiff suffered disabilities of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety and depression, 10. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant Atascosa County Animal Control beginning on February 1, 2022 Plaintiff was hired as a Vet Technician with Defendant Atascosa County Animal Control, 11. Plaintiff was hired by Defendant City of Pleasanton on May 5, 2023, as Kennel Manager/Animal Control Officer. 12. Plaintif's job responsibilities as a Vet Technician with Defendant Atascosa County Animal Control were: daily feeding and watering, overall cleanliness of kennels, Responsible for cuthanizing animals and annotating reason as well as the amount of fatal plus administered on software accurately. 13. Plaintiff's job responsibilities as Kennel Manager with Defendant City of Pleasanton were: to train and supervise Kennel Technician Eydie Groenke, and Animal Control Officer Leandro Garcia, assist the shelter employees in their performance; conduct monthly departmental mectings; handle adoptions; owner reclaims; and make euthanasia decisions that were sent to Defendant Atascosa Animal Control Facility 4, Plaintiff claims while employed with Defendant Atascosa County Animal Control and while employed with Defendant City of Pleasanton there was contractual agreement between both Defendants regarding animal control. 15, Plaintiff's immediate Supervisor with Defendant Atascosa County Animal Control was Anglo female, Sabrina Steenbeke, Kennel Manager and Mexican American male Director Chief Henry Dominguez who was in charge of the Atascosa County Animal Control. 16. Sheyanne (Luckman) McGhee, Anglo female, and Craig Tallant, Anglo male, were similar and situated employees who worked in the same position as a Vet Technician for Defendant Atascosa Animal Control and were treated more favorably than Plaintiff. 17. Plaintiff claims Defendant Atascosa County Animal Control Chief Henry Dominguez subjected him to harassment and hostile work environment beginning ftom June 13, 2022, to May 5, 2023, and engaged in post-employment retaliation, 18. On June 13, 2022 Plaintiff claims Dominguez engaged in harassing and intimidating Plaintiff by interrogating Plaintif’s on Plaintiffs disclosure of Vet Tech Sheyanne (Liuckman) McGhee, improperly euthanizing of approximately over twenty (20) cats which violated Procedures of photographing and allowing a three (3) day courtesy holding procedure prior to euthanasia of the animals, Plaintiff claims Sabrina Steenbeke stated she had not given consent to the euthanizing. 19. Claims Dominguez continued to harassed Plaintiff and characterize Plaintiff as a “bleeding heart” for the animals and insisted that this was a normal occurrence at the shelter. 20. Plaintiff claims similar situated employees Vet Techs Sheyanne (Luckman) McGhee, nor Craig Tallant were subjected to the same treatment nor was there any action taken against Sheyanne (Luckman) McGhee, on the improper euthanasia. 21. Plaintiff claims Chief Dominguez subjected Plaintiff to harassment and hostile work environment when he took home a cat (ID#8082) who was at risk for euthanizing after Vet Tech Sheyanne (Luckman) McGhee, exposed the cat to ringworm. Plaintiff claims he coordinated with Kennel Manager, Sabrina Steenbeke to conduct home foster care until cat (ID#8082) was ringworm free and cured. While in home foster care the cat needed ‘Surgery to be spayed. Chief Henry became aware of the surgery and demanded the Plaintiff to return the cat and accused Plaintiff of theft of county services, 22, Plaintiff claims Chief Dominguez engaged in favoritism thereby creating a hostile work cuvironment; and continued to subject Plaintiff to harassraent and hostile work environment, 23. Plaintiff claims Chief Dominguez questioned Plaintiff on July 20", 2022 regarding irregularities in scheduled cat medical procedures and vaccinations. Plaintiff claims Vet Tech, Sheyanne (Luckman) McGhee, was rescheduling medical procedures and vaccinations to shift het workload onto Plaintiff. This caused additional workload on top of normal duties for the Plaintiff. 24. On August 8, 2022, Plaintiff claims he, Chief Dominguez, and Ms. Steenbeke met and accessed the computer which showed that the Jast technician to make changes to the cat records was Vet Tech Sheyanne (Luckman) MoGhee,. Plaintiff was informed that Vet Tech Sheyanne (Luckman) McGhee, would be counseled, Plaintiff claims McGhee, informed him that she was never counseled, nor did she have any knowledge of this matter. 4 25. Plaintiff claims that during the meeting of August 8, 2022, with Dominguez and Steenbeke he disclosed the matter of missing kitten ID¥8787, whose kennel mates #8806 and #8983 were “euthanized healthy” by Vet Tech Sheysnne (Luckman) McGhee, on July 27,2022. Chief Dominguez directed Plaintiff to send all details involving Vet Tech Sheyanne (Luckanan) McGhee, Plaintiff claims Chief Dominguez immediately sent out new software procedures to all employees discussing euthanasia requirements and change of records. Plaintiff claims Chief Dominguez disregarded procedures by allowing favoritism thereby creating a hostile work environment. 26. On August 25, 2022, Plaintiff noticed that on Vet Technician Craig Tallant shift, several dogs that had arrived that day and the day prior did not have any food or water bowls and some dogs were missing from inside their kennel, Plaintiff had previously addressed these concerns to Kennel Manager Sabrina Steenbeke. Plaintiff claims this resulted in dogs losing weight which ‘was a factor in determining the euthanizing of the dogs, Kennel Manager Sabrina Steenbeke after discussed this issue with Vet Tech Craig Tallant to confirm if he had fed and gave the dogs water. Vet Tech Craig Tallant would ignore the Kennel Manager completely and would not respond to Steenbeke's questions. 27. On August 26, 2022, Chief Henry Dominguez reviewed cameras for the dates of August %2, 2022, and would direct Plaintiff to feed the dogs. Plaintiff claims Chief Dominguez disclosed that Vet Tech Craig Tallant had not fed the dogs for 2 separate days of his four-day (4) day shi and that during audio recordings “wasn’t a big deal” and some shelters don’t always feed or give dogs water daily. 28. On August 30, 2022, Chief Henry Dominguez met with Plaintiff in his private office to discuss past issues. Chief Dominguez advised Plaintiff to “chill out" with expectations of his 5 fellow coworkers. Dominguez accused Plaintiff of creating a hostile work environment for coworkers. Chief Dominguez informed Plaintiff that it would be easier to terminate him as opposed to terminating Plaintiff's coworkers who were committing the offenses. Chief Dominguez directed Plaintiff that inthe future to never address any issues with him directly, did not want to hear them, and to direct them to the Kennel Manager, Sabrina Steenbeke. Plaintiff claims Chief Dominguez? discussion was a threat to him being terruinated and subjected the Plaintiff to harassment and hostile work enviroament. 29. Plaintiff claims Chief Dominguez was violating the Atascosa’s Animal Control own Policy on the public treatment of animals. Plaintiff claims Chief Dominguez: was allowing employees to violate Atascosa’s Animal Control Section 9-Treatment of Animals and Section 9.1 Prohibition of inhumane Treatment. 30, Plaintiff had a second job with the City of Poteet, Texas. On November 7, 2022, Chief Dominguez stopped Plaintiff as Plaintiff was dropping off a dog at Defendant's Atascosa County Animal Control for the City of Poteet facility. Chief Dominguez confronted Plaintiff in front of Atascosa County Fire Marshall Devon Wilbom and told Plaintiff he needed to discuss outside employers with him and that Plaintiff's job with the City of Potect was a conflict of interest. 31. Plaintifi claims Chief Dominguez was aware Vet Tech Craig Tallant was also employed outside Defendant's Atascosa Animal Control with the City of Charlotte Animal Control and was bringing animals to the Atascosa Animal Control. Plaintiff claims Chief Dominguez did not subject Vet Tech Craig Tallant, a similar situated employee, to the same treatment nor was Vet ‘Tech Craig Tallent informed of a conflict of interest; nor was Vet Tech Craig Tallant subjected to humiliation in front of others. Plaintiff claims Chief Dominguez subjected him harassment, hostile work environment, retaliation, and disparate treatment discrimination. 6 32. On December 31, 2022, Plaintiff discovered the computer folder he used to store photos for cat intake was being used by Vet Tech Sheyanne (Luckman) McGhee, to store files that included photos of friends, family and her upcoming wedding information. Plaintiff placed a note ‘hat asked Vet Tech Sheyanne (Luckman) MoGhee, to, “Please stop saving and deleting your Wedding stuff here” and placed the note in his personal folder. 33. On January 6, 2023, the Plaintiff was sent messages and was threatened via social media by Vet Tech Sheyanne (Luckman) McGhee, fiancé Nick McGhee. On January 7, 2023 Plaintiff arrived at work end found the cat intake desktop and recycling bin were completely empty. Plaintiff claims the “Shelter Pro” software which was used to maintain animal records for Atascosa County Animal Control, had been deleted from everything but the password protected hard drive, 34. Plaintiff claims that the last input shown from the previous day was by Vet Tech Sheyanne Luckman McGhee, for “fleas and ticks” at 5:53 pm, which was 7 minutes prior to her clock out. Plaintiff was forced to use the computer in the lobby from cat intake which caused Plaintiff additional work by leaving the cat intake soem to input information in the system. Plaintiff claims the software was not able to be restored until January 9, 2023, when Vet Tech Mallory Goller, a personal friend of Vet Tech Sheyanne “Luckman” MoGhee, attived for her scheduled shift and within minutes this was restored. 35. On January 13, 2023, Plaintiff disclosed incidents regarding Vet Tech Sheyanne “Luckman” MeGhee, to Chief Dominguez and the threats from Vet Tech Sheyanne Luckman MeGhee, fiancé. Regarding the threats, Chief Dominguez told Plaintiff, “That's just whet husbands do.” Regarding the computer incident, Chief Dominguez told Plaintiff, “this is a normal Securrence and was most likely done by IT Justin Vasquez.” Plaintiff claims that during a year’s employment he had never experienced any computer issues that would be considered a “normal 7 cccurrence”, Plaintiff claims Chief Dominguez created a hostile work environment and ignored the harassment he was being subjected to. 36. On January 13, 2023, Chief Henry Dominguez had a mandatory meeting with all employees to discuss future changes under Judge Weldon Cude. 37. Plaintiff claims after the meeting, he was accosted by Chief Henry Dominguez and Vet Tech Sheyanne Luckman McGhee. Plaintiff claims McGhee and Dominguez would make several accusations against the Plaintiff such as having “a whistleblower mentality”; insisting the accusations made against her were due to the Plaintiff's own scheduling mistakes; and that Plaintiff ‘was having an inappropriate affair with Kennel Manager, Sabrina Steenbeke and alleged the inappropriate relationship was going on within the facility, during work hours. 38. Plaintiff claims Chief Dominguez added that the changing of medical records was “not abig deal”; denied Vet Tech Sheyanne Luckman McGhee action were not intentional; he was near to terminating Plaintiff, and directed Plaintiff to only “come to work, do his job and leave” 39. Plaintiff claims after the meeting of January 13, 2023, Chief Dominguez would continue to berate the Plaintiff by comparing him to past employees that would “stab Chief Henry Dominguez in the back.” Plaintiff claims Chief Dominguez was subjecting him to retaliation, harassment, hostile work environment, and disparate treatment, 40. On or about January 20, 2023, Plaintiff met with Defendant Atascosa County Judge Weldon Cude, Atascosa County Judge. Plaintiff claims he disclosed to Judge Cude that Chief Dominguez was not taking appropriate actions on intemal issues he had complained about to Chief Dominguez. Plaintiff claims he disclosed to Judge Cude of the unchecked euthanasia of cats and record changes and falsifications by Sheyanne Luckman Moghee; recent issues with Craig Tallant who was suspended for intentionally withholding food and water from dogs within the facility. 8 Plaintiff claims he made it clear to Judge Cude that Chief Dominguez? failure to take appropriate action had taken a serious mental toll on both him and his coworkers. 41. Plaintiff claims he informed Judge Cude how the work environment was, and it was affecting his disability. Judge Cude informed Plaintiff that if he wanted to push forward with concems, they would need to be addressed with the District Attorney. 42. Plaintiff claims disclosed to Judge Cude he hed audio recorded of the January 13-2023 the meeting with Chief Dominguez and Vet Tech Sheyanne Luckman McGhee. Plaintiff claims Judge Cude replied, “Well son, now you have a case”, Judge Cude informed Plaintiff he would forward the matter to Atascosa County Distriet Attomey and an investigation would be opened; and assured the Plaintiff that once this investigation began, and the claims were brought forward, that both he and Chief Dominguez would be suspended with pay, pending the investigation, 43. On January 21, 2023, Kennel Manager Sabrina Steenbeke was called into Judge Cude’s office to confirm Plaintiff's claims, 44. On January 23, 2023 Plaintiff claims Chief Dominguez increased his harassment and subjection to hostile work environment and retaliated against Plaintiff by making comments to Kennel Manager Sabrina Steenbeke comparing Plaintiff’s personality to that of a “Murder/Suicide Criminal.” 45. Plaintiff claims the following weeks, Chief Dominguez would no longer sign off on euthanasia’s, ewrote the entire employee handbook, started to enforce daily kennel walks through, and enforced the mandatory 3 day holds on all animals entering the facility. 46. On March 18-19, 2023, Plaintiff noticed several dogs had been euthanized by an inexperienced Animal Control Officer Roland Jimenez, via intravenous injection. Jimenez, had little experience in this process but managed to do all of his injections IV. Plaintiff claims this 9 ‘was during the time thet the Vet Tech Sheyanne Luckman McGhee was in dog intake and was not allowed to perform euthanasia’s due to having an expired certification. 47. Plaintiff claims this incident was investigated by Texas Attomey Generals officer, Sergeant Eli Garcia, who was investigating the improper treatment of the animals disclosed to Judge Cude during the meeting of January 20, 2023. Plaintiff claims all video recordings for the March 18-19, 2023, were missing and not available. Plaintiff claims that the euthanasia’s were performed by Vet Tech Sheyanne Luckman McGhee and not Animal Control Officer Roland Jimenez, 48. On March 29, 2023, Plaintiff met with Chief Dominguez for a 45 minute “time ‘management meeting” (o discuss the Plaintiff conduct of March 28, 2023. On March 28, 2023, Chief Dominguez had brought five (5) kittens for euthanasia in the last fifteen (15) minutes of the workday and dizected Plaintiff to euthanize the kittens. Plaintiff claims Chief Dominguez informed Plaintiff he had been monitoring his work performance over the past thirty (30) days and that the cleanliness in cat intake was becoming an issue. Chief Dominguez then had Kennel Manager Sabrina Steenbeke attend the meeting and engaged in pressuring Steenbeke to agree and support his claims against Plaintiff. 49. Plaintiff claims Chief Dominguez then blamed Kennel Manager 8. Steenbeke for not relaying the Plaintiff's shelter concerns. Kennel Manager S. Steenbeke was on paid time off and could not have responded to Plaintiff's shelter concerns, 50. During the meeting of March 29, 2023, Plaintiffclaims he disclosed to Chief Dominguez and addressed his mental health disabilities and expressed his mental health was being exuberated and was taking antidepressants for this reason. Plaintiff olaims Kennel Manager Sebtina Steenbeke became so stressed during the meeting that she abruptly left the meeting stating she 10 “needed a minute” and that she was emotionally overwhelmed. Plaintiff claims Chief Dominguez Continued to retaliate, harass, and subject him to a hostile working environment. 51. Plaintiff claims Ms. Steenbeke had knowledge and was aware of Plaintiff's medical disability condition of PTSD. Chief Dominguez was aware of Plaintiff's disability of PTSD. Plaintiff was taking medications of bupropion 100mg and sertraline SOmg for depression; and obtaining counseling for his anxiety and depression as a result ofthe harassment and subjection to hostile work environment. 52. On March 30, 2023, Chief Dominguez met with Plaintiff and Kennel Manager Sabrina Steenbeke, Dominguez disclosed he had viewed Plaintiff on the camera socializing with the dogs and had a ball in his hand. Plaintiff claims Dominguez accused him of not working, Plaintiff requested and asked to view the cameras, Dominguez appeared annoyed and asked the Plaintiff, “Give me my intakes bro”. Dominguez then directed Plaintiff to handle the dog intakes, Plaintiff’ claims the dog intakes had been left behind by Vet Tech Craig Tallant who had not performed his responsibilities related to the dog intakes. Plaintiff claims Chief Dominguez subjected him to harassment, subjection to hostile work environment, retaliation, and disparate treatment. 53. Plaintiff claims the harassment and hostile work environment he was being subjected to and had become severe that it effected his abilities to perform his job responsibilities 54, Plaintiff claims Chief Dominguez was aware and had knowledge Plaintiff wes a Veteran and suffered from PTSD. Plaintiff claims Dominguez’ harassment and subjection to hostile work environment was severely exacerbated by this time. 55. On May 5, 2023, Plaintiff received a job offer from Defendant City of Pleasanton for the position of Kennel Manager/ Animal Control Officer. On May 6, 2023, Plaintiff submitted his ‘two (2) week notice to Chief Henry Dominguez. Plaintiff claims Dominguez informed Plaintiff 1 hhe was no longer needed and directed Plaintffto surrender his badge and uniform, Plaintiffclaims Dominguez notified him of being terminated effective immediately; and Plaintiff would be paid by the Atascosa County for the remaining two weeks following his resignation. 56. On May 5, 2023, State Attorney General Sergeant Eli Garcia initiated the investigation into the claims he made to Judge Weldon Cude on January 20, 2023, Sergeant Garcia informed Chief Dominguez and Plaintiff that the investigation was regarding Plaintif?’s concems he made ‘o Judge Weldon Cude, Plaintiff claims Judge Weldon Cude violated his promise of anonymity and paid suspension, 37. On May 11, 2023, the Plaintiff met with the Attomey General Investigator Sergeant Eli Garcia in a closed recorded session at the Atascosa County Sheriff's Office. Sergeant Garcia addressed all Plaintiff's claims disclosed to Judge Cude. Plaintiff provided Sergeant Garcia audio, video and photographic to support Plaintiffs claims. Sergeant Garcia explained the incidents were not criminal but were serious issues that needed to be handled in house. Sergeant Garcia informed Plaintiff he would review the information and when the investigation was completed, he would contact the Plaintiff. Plaintiff claims Sergeant Garcia never contacted him again. Plaintiffalleged hhe was discriminated against and retaliated against after disabilities of PTSD and informed Garcia that the circumstances had taken a mental toll on him. 58. Plaintiff claims there was an existing contract with Defendant City of Pleasanton and Defendant Atascosa Animal Control for services for Defendant City of Pleasanton’s animal control. 59. On May 23, 2023, Plaintiff begin his employment as a Kennel Manager/ Animal Control Officer with Defendant City of Pleasanton Animal Control Department. Plaintiff claims Vietoria Solis, Defendant's HR representative discussed Plaintif?'s large number of following on TikTok 2 in how it would be useful in helping to get dogs adopted and approved Plaintiff's posting on TikTok as long as Plaintiff did not ever mention the employer's name or show the Plaintiff's uniform. 60. Plaintif?’s immediate Supervisor with Defendant City of Pieasanton was David Alviso, Plaintiff claims Alviso was aware and had knowledge of Plaintiff's medical disability of PTSD. 61, From June 19 through June 28, 2023, Plaintiff was repeatediy contacted by Defendant Atascosa County Animal Control Kennel Manager Sabrina Steenbeke informing Plaintiff that Chief Henry Dominguez was requesting Plaintiff return the employee handbook afer the Plaintiff was dismissed from employment on May 6, 2023. 62. Defendant Atascosa County Animal Control Kennel Manager Sabrina Steenbeke informed Plaintiff that Chief Henry Dominguez would pursue theft charges against the Plaintiff if the employee (paper) handbook was not retumed. Plaintiff claims he returned the employee handbook to Judge Weldon Cude office on June 28, 2023, Plaintiff claims Dominguez continued {0 contact him despite no longer being employed with Defendant Atascosa County Animal Control. 63. On June 30, 2023, Plaintiff claims he was informed by Chief Henry Dominguez, who was a City Council member for the City of Poteet, he was no longer employed by the City of Poteet. 64, Plaintiff claims he contacted the City of Poteet City Administrator Melissa Popham and Popham informed Plaintiff that she was made aware by the City of Poteet Police Department that the Plaintiff would no longer be employed with the city. Plaintiff claims he was informed by the that the City of Poteet Administrator Melissa Popham, and Poteet City Council Representative (Chief) Councilman Henry Dominguez were aware of his termination, 13. 65. On July 3, 2023, City of Poteet Administrator Melissa Popham would confirm the ‘ermination of employment with the Plaintiff and explained it wes due to “budget restraints”, Plein claims that his termination of employment was retaliation by Defendant Atascosa County Animal Control Chief Dominguez, a City Council member with the City of Poteet, 66. On July 27, 2023, during a standard transfer of a dog from the City of Pleasanton animal control fo Defendant Atascosa Animal Control shelter; City of Pleasanton Animal Control officer Leandro Garcia was stopped by Chief Henry Dominguez and requested Garcia rewrite the intake Paperwork to request euthanasia on a dog that was being transferred to the Atascosa County Animal Control Facility due to lack of space issues. 67. Plaintiff claims Chief Henry Dominguez was extremely upset and complained there 25 no room to house a potentially aggressive dog and demanded that the dog be “euthanized immediately” and thatthe intake paperwork reflect this request. Plaintiff claims he spoke directly with Chief Henry Dominguez and was told by Chief Dominguez that Atascosa County Animal Control would not be renewing the City of Pleasanton’s contract regarding euthanasia because Plaintiff was now an employee and certified to perform euthanasia at the City of Pleasanton Shelter, 58. Plaintiff claims despite informing Chief Dominguez regarding the lack of facility needs, and housing for controlled substances at the City of Pleasanton, Chief Dominguez insisted this matter would have to be resolved before the October 1, 2023, renewal date of the contract between Defendants Atascosa County Animal Control and Defendant City of Pleasanton and discussed an extension if needed. 69. Plaintiff claims he questioned Chief Dominguez if Defendant Atascosa County Animal Control would be terminating contracts with other local cities, Plaintiff claims Chief Henry rT) Dominguez stated that it would only affect Defendant The City of Pleasanton, Plaintiff contacted Supervisor John Sanchez end David Alviso, Ditector of Public Works, with The City of Pleasanton. Plaintiff claims he made a disclosure of being retaliated by Chief Dominguez in an attempt to terminate Defendant Atascosa County Animal Control's contract with the City of Pleasanton. 70. On or about July 30 or August 2, 2023, Plaintiff was informed of the State Attomey General Office's completion of the investigation. Plaintiff claims the Attomey General’s investigative findings were turned over to Defendant's Atascosa County Attorney Lucinda Vickers and informed it would be Lucinda Vickers’ decision as to whether any actions would be taken, Plaintiff was informed that all issues disclosed to both Judge Weldon Cude and Attomey General Sergeant Eli Garcia were dismissed. The Attorney General informed Plaintiff that the only investigation completed was the improper euthanasia's by Atascosa Animal Control Officer Roland Jimenez and that all video evidence was deleted due to the timing of the investigation starting after the automatic delete period. 71. On August 3, 2023, the Plaintiff would posta TikTok video on his social media platform detailing hhis personal experience while employed with Defendant Atascosa County Animal Control. Plaintiff claims he was not in a City of Pleasanton uniform when he posted the TikTok and was posted from his home and personal computer, as previously agreed with Human Resources Victoria Solis. 72. On August 4, 2023, Defendant Atascosa County Judge Weldon Cude released a public Statement claiming that the Attomey Generel had found no criminal wrongdoing in an investigation regarding the Plaintiffs’ complaints. Plaintiff claims Atascosa County Attorney 15 Tueinds Vickers filed to take action on Plaintiff's complaints of animal abuse, retaliation, and discrimination, 73. On August 4, 2023, Plaintiff claims he received a call from the City of Pleasanton Human Resources Department, Vietoria Solis, demanding Plaintiff remove the video or face termination for violation of the City of Pleasanton social media policy 74. Plaintiff requested that he be given the opportunity to review the City of Pleasanton's social media policy beforchand and be given the opportunity to seek legal representation. Plaintiff claims he was threatened by Victoria Solis when told that if he did not immediately comply with removing the TikTok video he would be terminated. Plaintiff claims he disclosed to Solis the Tequest to remove his TikTok video going against his moral code, freedom of speech, and would see if they decided to terminate him. Plaintiff claims he received a telephone call ftom the City of Pleasanton Public Works Director, David Alviso informing him his employment with the City of Pleasanton was terminated. 75. On August 15, 2023, Plaintiff fled formal grievance with the City of Pleasanton, Defendant's Vietoria Solis, Human Resources claiming diserimination based on retaliation, These arievances were never addressed by the City of Pleasanton or City Council. While on addressed in his grievance Plaintiff claims he disclosed to Vietoria Solis thatthe actions taken were against his freedom of speech. 76. On August 18, 2023, Plaintiff received the Attomey General's investigation report Which provided that only (1) of the issues disclosed to Judge Weldon Cude was investigated. The Attomey General only claim investigated was euthanasia’s performed by Defendant Atascosa Animal Control Officer R. Jimenez on March 18-19, 2023. Plaintiff claims the Attorney General 16 did not address the changing of medical records, not feeding the dogs, giving them water on @ regolar basis, and claims of employer retaliation and discrimination were investigated, ‘7. On August 18, 2023, Plaintiff received his personnel file from the City of Poteet. Plaintiff claims the file contained document(s) he had not seen before, specifically a document Stating Plaintiff's employment was temporary until the ordinance officer retumed. Plaintiff claims hhe was receiving animal control calls from Poteet Police Department, Poteet City Hall, and Poteet City Mayor. This was reflected by paychecks for work done by the plaintiff for the City of Poteet until April, 21* of 2023. Plaintiff elaims he continued to receive short animal control calls until July 1, 2023, from the City of Poteet, 78. On August 10, 2025, Plaintiff filed a formal grievance with the City of Poteet, Human Resource director, Abigail Frautschi complaining of his employment termination; was informed of the termination by (Chief) Poteet City Council member Henry Dominguez who was not his direct supervisor with the City of Poteet; and Dominguez’ superiors were unaware of the ‘ermination decision, Plaintiff claims he was terminated by the City of Poteet after posting his TikTok video associated with his employment experience with Defendant Atascosa County Animal Control. Plaintiff claims he was originally terminated by the City of Poteet because of budget restraints and later claim the termination based on the return of the Ordinance Officer. 79. On September 4, 2023, the Plaintiff received a copy of his personnel file from the City of Pleasanton and noticed a document that appeared to be forged. Plaintiff claims the employee handbook agreement page 34 document was missing his name vritten et the top of the acknowledgment, that page 34 was copied from page 32 anti-fraud policy agreement, and that his signature had been forged. Plaintiff claims he reported this matter to the City of Pleasanton Police Department but was immediately dismissed. 7 80. Plaintiff claims Chief Henry Dominguez subjected Plaintiff to a hostile work cavironment, disparate treatment, retaliation, and disability discrimination ftom June 13, 2022, ‘through May 23, 2023. Plaintiff claims during this time period Dominguez would audit Pleinti’s work charts on a frequent and daily basis, was treated less favorably then other similarly situated employees, was assigned extra duties towards the end of the shifts, was frequently criticized on ime management skills; and was frequently assigned to performing other Vet Tech duties not completed during their shift. Plaintiff claims because of the harassment and subjection to hostile ‘work environment exacerbated his PTSD, anxiety, and depression, Plaintiff claims Chief Henry Dominguez engaged in post-employment retaliation and harassment and suffered an adverse employment action. Plaintiff claims Defendant Atascosa County Attomey Lucinda Vickers failed {0 take necessary legal actions associated to Plaintiff's claims of discrimination and animal abuse. 81. On September 21, 2023, Plaintiff filed a written statement claiming disorimination with {he Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), BEOC Case No. 451-2023-03929, against Defendant City of Pleasanton. 82. On or about September 21, 2023, Plaintiff was interviewed by EEOC Investigator Carla Gonzalez. via a telephone conference regarding his written statement of discuimination against Defendant City of Pleasanton. Plaintiff was questioned by Gonzalez why he felt he was being discriminated against because of his race and national origin, disability, and retaliation. Gonzalez informed Plaintiff he did not have a claim against Defendant City of Pleasanton and therefore his claim would be dismissed, 83. EEOC Investigator Gonzalez advised and recommended Plaintiff should file a claim ‘against Atascosa County Animal Control due to the ongoing discrimination he was being subjected to. Plaintiff claims Gonzalez informed him he only had claims of retaliation and disability. 18 Plaintiff claims he was misled by Gonzalez and relied on the EEOC to properly evaluate all potential claims he was entitled to. 84. Plaintiff claims the EEOC never provided EEOC Form 5 on his discrimination claims against Defendant City of Pleasanton, thereby denying Plaintiff to identify all claims of

    You might also like