Opinion
Case No: 2:04-cv-01099-JPS.
November 12, 2004
HEINS LAW OFFICE LLC, Counsel for the Plaintiff, Janet L. Heins, State Bar No. 1000677, Mequon, Wisconsin.
COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Gina Hopper, by her counsel, HEINS LAW OFFICE LLC, as and for a claim against the Defendant, alleges and shows to the court as follows:
1. This court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as this case involves a federal question, and 28 U.S.C. § 1343, as this case involves an Act of Congress providing for the protection of civil rights.
2. The unlawful employment practices of which Plaintiff complains occurred within the Eastern District of Wisconsin and venue is therefore proper in this District pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3).
3. The Plaintiff, Gina Hopper, is an adult female resident of the state of Wisconsin residing in Racine County with a post office address of 609 Edgewood Drive, Burlington, WI 53105.
4. The Defendant, Legacy Property Management Services, LLC, was, at all times material herein, a Wisconsin limited liability company with a principal office address of 8400 Lakeview Parkway, Suite 700, Pleasant Prairie, Wisconsin 53158.
5. At all times material herein until her constructive termination on or about February 10, 2004 Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as Regional Property Manager.
6. From approximately October 2003 through her constructive termination in February 2004, Plaintiff was subjected to severe and pervasive unwelcome sexual and sexist comments and behavior from Garth Doering, her supervisor, creating a hostile working environment.
7. On or about October 1, 2003 at approximately 3:00 p.m., Doering said to Ms. Hopper: "The reason I was hired is because David [Nankin, the owner of Defendant] no longer respects your opinion . . . because you're a woman," and laughed at Ms. Hopper.
8. On or about November 24, 2003, Doering called Aurora Vargas, the apartment manager of one of Defendant's properties and a subordinate of Ms. Hopper, when Ms. Hopper was present. After speaking with Doering, Vargas hung up the phone and told her, "I don't want to know what is going on, but Garth just said he still loves you." This caused Ms. Hopper to have to deny any romantic relationship and convince Vargas that she was not seeing Doering romantically, which greatly humiliated her, in part because Ms. Hopper is happily married.
9. On or about November 26, 2003, between 3:00 and 4:00 p.m., Doering knocked on Ms. Hopper's office window at Candlewick Apartments and blew her a kiss.
10. On or about November 26, 2003, between 3:00 and 4:00 p.m., Doering was present with Ms. Hopper and Laurie (last name unknown) and Laila Vadnais in the office at the Candlewick Apartment complex. To examine furniture, Doering physically pushed Ms. Hopper out of the way with his body. When Ms. Hopper asked if Laurie and Laila saw this, Doering replied, "Quit being such a woman." On a similar occasion at about the same time with Ms. Vadnais present, Ms. Hopper was examining a paint color for suitability when Ms. Vadnais asked Doering what he thought of the color. Doering replied, "All I can see is Gina's butt."
11. On or about December 18, 2003, Doering argued with Ms. Hopper unnecessarily over the details of having a maintenance crew paint apartment units. He attempted to stop her from communicating with Nankin and explained that owners did not know what they wanted. Ms. Hopper grew very frustrated and left the office upset. She e-mailed Nankin about the problem and explained that a severe problem existed between her and Doering and that Doering had verbally assaulted her earlier in the day. Nankin took no action in response.
12. Later on the same day, a tenant with a maintenance problem demanded to speak to Ms. Hopper's supervisor, so she gave the tenant Doering's cell phone number to call. An hour later, Doering stormed into the office and demanded to know why Ms. Hopper gave out his cell phone number. He then raised other unnecessary issues and implied that Ms. Hopper was somehow incompetent at her job. During this yelling match, he threw several papers at Ms. Hopper and screamed at her in a demeaning fashion. After this encounter and the previous events of the day, Ms. Hopper suffered such severe head pain in response to the stress that her husband had to drive her to the emergency room for pain treatment with very strong medication.
13. Doering continued to berate and insult Ms. Hopper during the course of their employment and use sexist and abusive language toward her. The Defendant took no action to reprimand Doering for his actions and instead continued to support Doering, so Doering's sexist and abusive language and treatment of the Plaintiff continued.
14. Plaintiff was very uncomfortable working with Mr. Doering because of his sexual and sexist comments and behavior toward her, and this behavior made it very difficult for her to complete her job duties for the Defendant.
15. Despite the harassment, Plaintiff at all times material herein adequately and appropriately performed her duties in a manner consistent with the reasonable expectations of her by Defendant.
16. Plaintiff complained to the Defendant's management verbally and in writing about Mr. Doering's unwelcome sexual advances, comments and behavior toward her, but the Defendant took no action to stop it. Plaintiff compiled a list of the incidents contained in paragraphs 7-13 above and delivered them in a written complaint to Nankin on or about December 22, 2003, and requested that Nankin take action against Doering.
17. Instead of reprimanding Doering, the Defendant transferred the Plaintiff after receiving her complaint to a less desirable position at another property in retaliation for her complaints, which Defendant's employees viewed as a demotion of Ms. Hopper.
18. After the December 2003 complaint, Nankin and Doering escalated their abusive conduct toward Ms. Hopper, adopted a very negative attitude toward her, and refused to deal with her on important work issues required by Ms. Hopper to be performed. They also assigned her more work in an effort to make her quit. After a brief pro forma investigation, Nankin resumed requiring Ms. Hopper to report to Doering as her supervisor.
19. On or about January 21, 2004, Plaintiff filed a charge of sexual harassment, sex discrimination and retaliation against Defendant with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, designated as EEOC Charge No: 260-2004-01488.
20. On or about February 10, 2004, the Plaintiff was constructively discharged from her employment when she could no longer tolerate the verbal and mental abuse from Doering and the Defendant and its exacerbating effect on her Crohn's disease.
21. Plaintiff was issued a Notice of Right to Sue on her charge by the EEOC on August 13, 2004, which Plaintiff received on August 14, 2004.
22. Plaintiff has exhausted all of her administrative remedies and has satisfied all conditions precedent to bringing this action.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
23. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1-22 of this complaint by reference.
24. Defendant intentionally discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of her sex in the terms and conditions of her employment and fostered a hostile environment on the basis of the Plaintiff's sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., as amended, and in reckless indifference to her federally protected rights.
25. As a result of Defendant's intentional discrimination, Plaintiff has suffered damages in the form of humiliation, pain and suffering, emotional distress, loss of the enjoyment of life, medical bills, loss of wages and other employment benefits.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
26. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1-25 of this complaint by reference.
27. Defendant intentionally discriminated against Plaintiff by constructively discharging her on the basis of her sex and in retaliation for complaining about sexual harassment and sex discrimination, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., as amended, and in reckless indifference to her federally protected rights.
28. As a result of Defendant's intentional discrimination, Plaintiff has suffered damages in the form of humiliation, pain and suffering, emotional distress, loss of the enjoyment of life, medical bills, loss of wages and other employment benefits.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:
1. Issue a declaratory judgment that the acts, policies, practices, and procedures of Defendant violated Plaintiff's rights under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.;
2. Issue a permanent injunction against future acts, policies, practices and procedures violative of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, by Defendant;
3. Order Defendant to make Plaintiff whole by providing appropriate back pay, compensatory damages, reinstatement and/or front pay, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and reimbursement for other benefits and expenses in an amount to be shown at trial;
4. Grant to Plaintiff her attorney fees, costs and disbursements as provided by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k), and by all other applicable statutes and provisions;
5. Grant to Plaintiff punitive damages against Defendant; and
6. Grant to Plaintiff whatever other relief this Court deems just and equitable.