courthouse news servicefiles.courthousenews.com/2008/11/03/houstoncollege.pdf2008/11/03 · nielsen...

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

HOUSTON DIVISION

CAROLE KEENEY

HARRINGTON,

PATTI WHITMIRE Carlton,

PAMELA REED,

Plaintiffs

v.

HOUSTON COMMUNITY

COLLEGE, CHRIS OLIVER,

MARY SPANGLER, DANIEL

SEYMOUR, and NORMAN

NIELSEN

Defendants

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO.____________

TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

TO THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

COME NOW Carol e Keeney Harrington (“Harrington”), Patti Whitmire

Carlton (“Carlton”), and Pamela Reed (“Reed”) ( jointly “Plaintiffs”), and complain

of Houston Community College (“HCC”), Chris Oliver (“Oliver”), Mary Spangler

(“Spangler”), Daniel Seymour (“Seymour”), and Norman Nielsen (“Nielsen”)

(jointly “Defendants”); and for causes of action, Plaintiffs would show the

following:

I. PARTIES

A. Plaintiffs

www.courthousenews.com

Courth

ouse

New

s Ser

vice

http://www.courthousenews.com

2

1. Harrington is a married female who resides in Harris County, Texas.

2. Carlton is a married female who resides in Harris County, Texas.

3. Reed is a femme sole, who resides in Harris County, Texas.

B. Defendants

1. HCC is community college which has its principal place of business in

Harris County, Texas; it may be served with process herein by serving

its Chancellor, Spangler, at her place of business, 3100 Main, Houston,

TX 77002.

2. Oliver was at all times material to this cause of action, a member of the

Board of Trustees and the President of the Board of Trustees; Oliver

may be served with process herein at his residence, 11006 Long Gate

Drive, Houston, TX 77047-1012.

3. Spangler, who was essentially recruited by Interim Chancellor Nielsen

in 2007, is Chancellor or CEO of HCC ; she may be served with

process herein at her place of business, 3100 Main, Houston, TX

77002.

4. Seymour, who was recruited by Spangler in 2007, is Spangler’s

Associate Vice Chancellor; he may be served at his place of business,

3100 Main, Houston, TX 77002.



3

5. Nielsen, who was the Interim Chancellor until he resigned in 2007,

may be served with process herein at one of his residences, at

__________ Florida.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

A. JURISDICTION

This Court has jurisdiction and supplemental or pendent jurisdiction pursuant

to the following:

1. Title 28, U.S.C.A., § 1331;

2. Title 28, U.S.C.A., § 1343; and

3. Title 28, U.S.C.A., § 1367.

B. VENUE

The venue of this claim is properly within the Southern District of Texas,

Houston Division pursuant to Title 28, U.S.C.A., §§ 1391(a)(2)/(b)(2).

III. FACTS : ONE

A. Plaintiffs were loyal and competent employees of HCC.

B. Each of the plaintiff’s served and administrative capacity, to wit: Harrington,

employed by HCC for 14 years, had been promoted in 2006 to the position of

“Interim Associate Vice Chancellor, Communications”; Carlton, employed by

HCC 27 years was Executive Director, Contract Training and Continuing



4

Education (Pay Grade Level 12) in the Fall of 2006; and Reed, employed by

HCC for approximately 10 years, serving as Director Workforce Continuing

Education in the Fall of 2006, reporting to Carlton as her immediate

supervisor.

C. Each plaintiff was employed pursuant to a written contract of employment at

all times material to this cause of action.

D. Former HCC Chancellor Bruce Leslie was separated from all HCC in 2006,

and replaced by Interim Chancellor Nielsen.

E. At all times material to this cause of action, Oliver was president of all

HCC’s Board of Trustees.

F. On August 14, 2006 Nielsen summoned Harrington to meet privately with

him even though she reported directly in the chain of command Vice

Chancellor of Student Success, Irene Porcarello (“Porcarello”).

G. During the meeting, Nielsen made thinly veiled overtures suggesting intimacy

and favorable career treatment to Harrington.

H. In a subsequent chance meeting in HCC’s cafeteria, Nielsen took advantage

of the opportunity in his conversation with Harrington to again use words

suggesting intimacy.

I. In the meantime, HCC was preparing for a Nielsen implemented



5

“reorganization”, to be followed by the employment of a permanent

Chancellor in the spring of 2007.

J. On October 6, 2006 a professional organization entitled Association of

Women Administrators as Harrington to arrange for Nielsen to speak to their

October 6, 2006 meeting, a traditional engagement.

K. Nielsen used the occasion to insist that Harrington ride with him to the

function; and it came time to leave the administration’s offices, Nielsen

telephoned Harrington and in a flirtatious way told her to join him.

L. Harrington managed to invite Carlton to accompany her in the ride with

Nielsen; the Interim Chancellor acted disappointed and became sullen during

the luncheon, saying little to either Harrington or Carlton.

M. On or about October 24, 2006, Harrington was notified by her supervisor

Porcarello that Nielsen, who on August 15, 2006 had indicated to Harrington

that he was not going to post the permanent position of AVCC, and was

likely to appoint her to the permanent position, had posted the position with a

national search firm.

N. Harrington decided to document her accomplishments and put Nielsen on

notice that she sought the “permanent” appointment based on the merit of her

performance as the Interim AVCC.



6

O. Consequently, on October 25, 2006 Harrington sent Nielsen an e-mail in

which he outlined her accomplishments, and asked him to consider promoting

her as others had been previously promoted from similar interim positions.

When Nielsen refused to a knowledge to e-mail, Harrington printed a hard

copy, gave it to Nielsen secretary for delivery to him in a confidential

envelope; he never a knowledge receiving the hardcopy.

P. When Harrington, in casual conversation, reviewed Nielsen’s uninvited and

unwanted behavior with their department’s Office Manager, Nancy Garza,

who shared that she had “set up” or arranged a date for Nielsen with one of

her girlfriends who had reported that Nielsen was sexually aggressive and she

was unwilling to date him again.

Q. It became apparent to Harrington’s co-workers, especially Porcarello, that

Nielson was taking a negative position toward Harrington.

R. Harrington learned from colleagues that other persons who were applying for

the AVCC position were receiving phone calls and application questionnaires

from the national search firm, selected to fill the permanent position, when

she herself had not been contacted or received any communications regarding

the position which she held on an interim basis.

S. Harrington also learned that Porcarello, for HCC Board member Davila was



7

privately circumventing the application process to the extent that she was

recruiting a Hispanic male friend of Davila’s and herself to quietly enter the

application process.

T. The AVCC position was posted on HCC’s website on December 17, 2006,

and yet Harrington had still not received any questionnaire or communication

from the national search firm hired to fill the AVCC position.

IV. FACTS: TWO

A. Reed first met with Nielsen at 10:30 a.m., on Friday, October 27, 2006 in his

office.

B. Friday, October 27, 2006 was the Friday prior to Nielsen’s publishing

Charles Cook and Larry Markey’s “PLAN” for the reorganization of

Corporate Training and Continuing Education (“CTCE”).

C. Reed had her resume with her for the meeting and began the meeting with

Nielsen by saying, “I know who you are and what your credentials are, and I

brought my resume so if you would please peruse it briefly, so you have some

idea of my experience and background.”

D. Nielsen reviewed the resume and commented on Reed’s extensive

background related to CTCE both at one of the system’s colleges and at the

System Office.



8

E. Nielsen soon departed from the topic of Reed’s experience in CTCE, and

began asking questions about her work for 3 l/2 years as a Sex Offender

Therapist at Houston Parole Board VI.

F. Reed redirected the conversation back to the CTCE reorganization Plan,

stating that she was concerned that the Plan had been insufficiently discussed

with or presented to the System’s Executive Team, and was being adopted

without any perusal by the CTCE Directors or the System Office of CTCE.

G. Nielsen listened to Reed’s concerns, and indicated he was not going to

implement or move forward with it yet, and that he too had many concerns

with it. Nielsen thanked Reed for coming forward and sharing her concerns

with him.

H. Nielsen further asked about Reed’s opinions regarding the system’s

leadership; too which Reed commented on the occasionally abusive behaviors

of Larry Markey and Charles Cook. Nielsen inquired and Reed explained

since she had reported the most recent incident to the “Human Resources

Generalist” (“HR Gen”), and the Head of EEO, David Cross (“Cross”). Reed

related to Nielsen that both had said to her that “[under HCC practices and

policies] there is no such thing as a hostile work environment unless it

involves sexual harassment”, nothing else counted and that there was really



9

nothing they could do about Larry Markey’s and Cook’s hostile behaviors,

and that Reed should file a grievance at the next occasion.

I. Nielsen, seemed concerned by Reed’s information. He inquired about Reed’s

job-enjoyment, and Reed assured him that she enjoyed her job duties and felt

that she provided a real service to HCC, and was “not that far” from

retirement age.

J. He indicated that Reed looked “about 40” and that she “had a great body and

that yes, he had noticed what a great body [she] had”. Shocked, Reed

registered no reaction at Nielsen’s inappropriate comments, chose to ignore

them and had nothing to say in response.

K. Nielsen then returned to the subject of the reorganization Plan, and said “.. Be

assured that [he was] not going to put their ‘plan’ forward and that [he was]

still working with the man from LERN on a plan for CTCE before moving

forward.”

L. As Reed was about to leave Nielsen’s office, after the 15 minute scheduled

meeting which had extended to about an hour, Nielsen said, “ I really want to

talk with you further on the plan and these other issues and ‘pick your brain’

on all of the issues in CTCE, but I would prefer that Cook or Markey not

know that I am meeting with you, so can we meet off campus for our next



10

meeting? ”

M. Reed agreed that she would meet him away from the college as he had

requested; Nielsen then asked his secretary to come into his office and tell

him his private cell number since he could not remember it. When he

received the number from his secretary, he wrote it on a card for me and

asked for my cell and home number so that he could reach me on a non HCC

phone if needed.

N. Nielsen said told Reed that he was going to be tied up for a few days, but he

would call and set up a time for them to meet and that since he was not that

familiar with Houston, Reed should pick a nice restaurant where they could

meet and have dinner.

O. As she was leaving Nielsen’s office, Charles Cook suddenly appeared in the

hallway, as Reed was headed back to her office, and asked her to step into a

nearby conference room to speak privately with him.

P. Reed acquiesced; and once the two of them were inside the conference room,

Cook closed the door, and asked how Reed’s “..meeting went with Dr.

Nielsen and if things were resolved?”

Q. Reed queried whether he was referencing her earlier reported problem with

Larry Markey, and when he nodded, Reed responded by saying that the



11

hostile behavior by Markey had to stop towards her and her co-workers. I

also reminded him that while “Larry may appear to get things done, his

methods leave much to be desired and many of them are not legal”.

R. Nielsen did call Reed a few days after their first meeting in his office to set up a

meeting with her off campus, in order to “continue [their] conversation regarding the

restructuring of CTCE”.

S. Reed advised Nielsen that she was to be out of town for a few days, and he

suggested that they could meet when she returned.

T. On Thursday, November 2, 2006, when Reed had returned from her trip, Nielsen

arranged a meeting which was agreed to occur at IBIZA restaurant in Midtown,

Houston.

U. Uneasy, Reed decided to carry a tape recorder and record the dinner meeting with

Nielsen to protect herself.

V. On the evening of November 2, 2006, Nielsen insisted on picking Reed up at her

house, even though she repeatedly suggested that she meet him at the restaurant. He

was determined in his request for Reed’s address. Although she gave Nielsen her

address, she insisted that because she was working late that he meet her at the

restaurant, which he did.

W. During the course of the dinner, Nielsen asked Reed, “Am I too old for you?...No,



12

I’m not!” He also made additional suggestive comments about what a great body

Reed had, then without encouragement took the conversation to the subject of the

frequency of the average couple’s sexual encounters, offering statistics which he

claimed to have read, including comments on the sex lives of one of his grown

children and their spouse.

X. Reed did not respond to Nielsen’s comments of Neilsen, and attempted to redirect

the conversation to the subject of the reorganization of the CTCE..

Y. When the waiter brought the tab, Reed offered to pay for her portion of the dinner,

but Neilsen insisted that since we were “talking business” that HCC would pay for

the outing.

Z. Neilsen ended the dinner by requesting that Reed agree to another meeting and that

he would be back in touch with her to schedule the meeting so that they continue the

CTCE reorganization discussions.

A2. While Reed was extremely put off by his behaviors and advances, she was afraid

to refuse to meet with him again, and concluded that she had to meet with him again

since she was in line for one of the newly posted positions which was part of the

pending reorganization, comforting herself with the knowledge that after the

reorganization, Nielsen would be leaving town, to be replaced by a new Chancellor.

B2. On Wednesday, November 15, 2006, Nielsen called Reed and scheduled a meeting



13

with her at 6:30 p.m. at Bonnie’s Restaurant on the Gulf Freeway, to “continue our

dialogue regarding my input on CTCE”.

C2. During the course of the second dinner meeting Neilsen asked which of the three top

jobs in CTCE Reed thought was the best fit for her, took notes on her job

description as it was vat the time and said that he would incorporate it into the job

description for Executive Director of Continuing Education – System. Neilsen also

suggested that Reed talk with “Madeline”, withhold that he and Reed had been in

conversation, and suggest that she apply the Executive Director of Corporate

Training position so that the two women would not be in competition with each

other for the same jobs.

D2. Neilsen said that he definitely only wanted someone from the outside for the

Associate Vice Chancellor position of CTCE and that he had a couple of highly

qualified people in mind. Reed assured him that HCC had excellent “internal

candidates” who were highly qualified as well including the current Executive

Director of CTCE, Patti Carlton and that to bring someone in that was not familiar

with the State regulations, politics and issues could create quite a learning curve for

someone. He persisted that he wanted an “external” person although he did

ultimately change the posting to internal and external.

E2. Nielsen went over the generalities of the LERN model after the LERN consultant had



14

talked with him, but “told” the LERN consultant what he wanted the report to say

rather than having him independently write it, choosing his old “Kirkwood” model

with a few modifications.

F2. The bulk of the rest of the evening of November 2, 2006 was spent with Nielsen

making suggestive and inappropriate statements, unwanted and unresponded to by

Reed, such as:

1. Nielsen’s asking Reed when they first sat down and began talking, “Did you

miss me?”

2. Continuing references to what a great body Reed had, and asking how does she

keep it that way given her age.

3. Nielsen at one point took Reed’s hand in his, gazed into her eyes and said “We

should do this every week. We could be dangerous together!” Reed pulled her

hand back and said “You are the dangerous one, not me.”

4. Nielsen stated, “Well if we are involved, I guess since neither of us are

married, it wouldn’t be an affair”. Reed did not respond to that and continued

trying to take the conversation back to the restructuring of CTCE, and without

insulting him, letting him know that she was NOT interested in a personal

relationship with him; still, he persisted in talking about sex, Reed’s body, her

age, etc.



15

6. Reed finally confronted him by saying “I thought you had a girlfriend, so why

are you hitting on me?”

7. Reed went on to say, “ Has it not dawned on you that I may have someone in

my life? ”

8. Nielsen ignored the point which Reed was making of her non-interest, and

started explaining about his long distance girlfriend and generally spilling his

personal life to Reed.

9. When Reed displayed disinterest in Nielsen’s personal data, he started

questioning Reed about her significant other, who he was, what he did for a

living, etc.

10. Nielsen then went back to when his wife died and began a litany of “poor me”

stories in an effort to cover himself for being such an aggressive, sexually

harassing idiot. He then said “well I have done a lot of dumb things in my life

and career”.

11. The dinner ended and as Reed walked out of the door ahead of Nielsen, he

made another comment of “How does a woman of your age have such a cute

little butt?”

G2. During the time between Thankgiving and Christmas 2006, there was little contact

between Reed and Nielsen with Reed avoiding meeting points and times



16

H2. Reed had applied for the position of Director of Continuing Education (Nielsen had

changed the title from executive director but explained that he would leave the Level

13 in place based on HR’s recommendations that to do otherwise would create havoc

in other Level 13 positions which titles included the word “Executive”), and the

position of Associate Vice Chancellor of CTCE .

I2. During Reed’s “dinners” with Nielsen, he had asked if Reed had any enemies

who he “should make sure weren’t on the selection committee as he was going

to use one committee for all three positions”; Reed told him that she had as

“Compliance” officer raised serious questions about integrity issues regarding

the conduct of Larry Markey, Charles Cook or Maya Durnovo (Dean of

Workforce at NW College), and was concerned that they might try to discredit

her if possible.

J2. On December 7, 2006, Reed met with Nielsen in his office on matters of

apparent which she had been discussing with and reporting to the State

Comptroller’s office. Nielsen, deflected Reed’s concerns with comments such

as the following,

1. “Well I am not going to be here for long, so I don’t want to get involved

in that and I am bent on being out of here by February 7 ”, andth

2. “I only came to hire a new person over IT and to restructure CTCE and



17

then go”.

K2. Nielsen had asked who Reed thought would be good CTCE people that would

be knowledgeable to be on the selection or screening committee and yet not

applying for any of the jobs; Reed provided some names for him which he

wrote down (as this was before I asked about his girlfriend and told him of my

significant other).

L2. When Reed had her first interview position of Associate Vice Chancellor of

CTCE, she was shocked when she saw the committee members, who were

clearly negative to her and closely aligned with Cook, Markey and Durnovo. It

was crystal clear that Nielsen had gotten names and suggestions from Charles

Cook and Larry Markey, and stacked the committee against Reed.

M2. Reed’s name was not “sent forward”, nor was the name of my direct

supervisor, Patti Whitmire Carlton (who had been Executive Director of CTCE

at the System, and who was performing in that position at the time).

N2. As for qualifications, both Reed and Carlton had more doctoral hours, more

years of Continuing Education experience, and other experience than either of

the two internal candidates that were put forward as finalists for the Associate

Vice Chancellor position.



18

O2. Reed received proof that the outside bidding for the position wasn’t open or

fair, because while Dr. Liz Thornton, known statewide to have an extensive

and outstanding work history, experience and status throughout the state in

both Corporate Training and Continuing Education, was a finalist, and granted

an interview, HCC hired Dan Seymour (“Seymour”) who has stated that his

apparently chief qualifications were that he had prior connections “with

Spangler (the incoming Chancellor) and Nielsen”.

P2. Further, Seymour had no prior resume-noted experience in CTCE, only

experience in “academics” and as a “consultant”.

Q2. Spangler was hired by HCC in mid –December even though she was not to

start until February or ultimately March 2007.

Q2. On January 4, 2007 after HCC reopened from Winter Break, Reed noticed

that the posting for the “Associate Vice Chancellor” position which had earlier

been slated to close on “1/2/07", had been reopened.

R2. Reed called Nielsen to ask why.

S2. Nielsen said, “ The only time I have to talk with you is while I eat lunch

because my day is packed...Why don’t you meet me for lunch at IBIZA ?”

T2. Reed agreed, and asked Nielsen why the reposting, to which he replied, “We

wanted a better pool of candidates...”



19

U2. After her interview for Associate Vice Chancellor and not becoming a finalist,

Reed did interviewed for the Director of Continuing Education (which is just an

elaborated job description and salary upgrade and changing of one word in the

title of her then current position).

V2. Reed learned that HCC employees Marshall McGhee and Madeline Burillo

were finalists for the AVC position and that neither she nor Carlton nor had

been “forwarded” for consideration.

W2. Reed called Nielsen and complained to him that was clearly inequity and

manipulation occurring on his “committee” and timing of the posting for the

AVC position.

X2. Nielsen responded, “I don’t care who gets it because I am leaving this place!”

Y2. Reed noticed a big change from the comments in his earlier, and seductive

conversations with Reed when he had been so focused on how much he cared

about those three positions and who was in them to ensure that CTCE had a

good outcome and future success, and how he could manipulate the

composition of the search committee and have the final choice in hiring the

Director of Continuing Education, the Director of Corporate Training and the

Associate Vice Chancellor of Corporate Training and Continuing Education.

Z2. On January 31, 2007, in the late afternoon, at about 5pm, Reed called Nielsen



20

again and told him she was still experiencing major concerns about the input

from Cook and Markey and their close associates to the “search committee” as

it was probably affecting her.

A3. Nielsen indicated that he had someone in his office and it was clear to Reed

that she was on speaker phone, I asked if I could talk with him after they left.

He said very loudly and sarcastically, theatrically, “I don’t care if you’re on

speaker phone and I have someone in my office, just go ahead and tell me what

you want”. Reed told him the above concerns. Nielsen rudely and oddly said,

“You are becoming a problem and I don’t think you and I are gonna make it..I

have no interest in or care about who gets the jobs. I am leaving.” It was clear

tha the was acting out a role for whoever was hearing the conversation.

B3 Reed’s supervisor Carlton stepped into her office; Reed told Nielsen that her

supervisor Carlton was in the room with her, and that as of that moment Reed

was putting him on notice that she was notifying Carlton of his sexual

harassment and abusive conduct of Reed me over the past months, and of his

retaliation utilizing the selection committee to ensure or most likely prevent her

promotion. Reed then hung up.

C3. About five minutes later, Nielsen called Reed, and left a voice mail saying that

whoever was in his office was now gone and asked her to come over and see



21

him.

D3. Reed didn’t go to Nielsen’s office.

E3. Nielsen then called Reed’s office again and left another voice mail, saying, “ I

am sorry for losing my temper. Kathy Housel and you [Reed] are both finalists

for the Director of Continuing Education position...you are still a viable

candidate.”

F3. When Reed did not return his call, or come to his office, Nielsen left yet

another voicemail for her indicating that he and Mary Spangler (the newly hired

Chancellor) had discussed Reed’s concerns and that Spangler had agreed [with

him] they had merit and that he wanted to talk with Reed about that and about

a Director of Compliance position which he and Reed had already discussed

being set up as well and at the Level 13 just like the other two Director

positions. “

G3. Each of his voice mails were about 5-10 minutes apart.

H3. After the calls, Reed became frightened of meeting Nielsen in the emptying

building, and asked Carlton to walk with her out of the building.

I3. Carlton escorted Reed out of the building; however, during Reed’s disclosure

to Carlton, she told Reed that she too had been sexually harassed by Neilsen

when he had first arrived.



22

J3. It was also discussed between Carlton and Reed that Carole Keeney

Harrington (who the Chancellor had r been praising as doing a great job as

Interim Associate Vice Chancellor of Communications and a person who

would likely be appointed to the permanent position) had also been the

unwilling recipient of sexual overtures and when she rebuffed him or avoided

his flirtations, she had been excluded from advancement within Nielsen’s

reorganizational process.

K3. When Carlton had reported to Interim HCC Chancellor Nielsen, at his request,

on August 22, 2006, she was shocked that he made comments and sinquiries of

inappropriate familiarity with her.

L3. Without Carlton from prompting him, Nielsen launched into a conversation

about his two simultaneous romantic interests in two different states, (not

Texas). He began to ask Carlton for personal information about herself. When

she put him off, he suddenly seemed offended and made a reference to her age,

implying that she was perhaps not eligible for his planned reorganization

because of her age and marriage, making comments about her “potential for

longevity” or “less baggage”.

M3. Nielsen told Carlton that he would only be advertising the new Associate Vice

Chancellor (“AVC”) position externally, outside of HCC . Carlton clearly



23

perceived that Nielsen was reacting negatively to her refusal to pick up

positively on his veiled flirtations. Carlton replied, “I don’t exactly have one

foot in the grave...what is going to happen to me?” Nielsen suddenly warmed

and moved his hand toward Carlton’s, saying “I don’t know, we’ll have to

work on that...Leave it to me”. Then he added “I’m surprised you’re not

already retired, you should try it. I am enjoying the heck out of it”.

N3. Carlton left the meeting distressed about Nielsen’s capriciousness.

03. When it appeared Carlton would be prevented from applying for a promotion to

AVC in Nielsen’ s new organizational structure, she complained to Dr. Charles

Cook, HCC General Counsel Miles LeBlanc, and Don Washington. Each of

the three men said that the exclusive and restricted outside job-posting would

be discriminatory.

P3. The AVC position was posted both internally and externally; however, Carlton

was not selected as a finalist, and was denied the opportunity for promotion.

Q3. In a January 5, 2007 meeting with Nielsen, while discussing her concerns about

her position and future with HCC, Nielsen again began making inappropriate

and unwelcomed remarks to Carlton. When she attempted to turn the subject to

her qualifications and informed him that she had produced millions for the

college foundation. He remarked that even though she had produced millions



24

for the college, she was too old and that he wanted to get an outsider for the

new AVC position.

R3. Nielsen rubbed her hand and said, “You’re a pretty young thing and more than

qualified...that was a poor choice of words, so go ahead and sue me”.

S3. The next night, January 6, 2007, at an HCC reception, Carlton’s husband was

forced by an injury to sit on the side of the room. While Carlton was standing

alone at a food table, Nielsen came up behind me and pressing the front of his

body against the back of her body, and began rubbing her arm. Carlton snapped

around to see Nielsen smiling, saying “I beg your pardon!” Nielsen seemingly

sobered up and backed away saying, “Oh, I’m sorry.”

T3. On January 31, 2007, Carlton learned from Reed that Nielsen had also made

acted inappropriately toward Reed and Harrington and had retaliated against

their refusal to receive his inappropriate conduct but freezing their career

opportunities.

U3. Carlton felt compelled by Neilsen’s unbridled violation of policy to follow

policy and provide written notice to HCCS Board Chair, Mr. Christopher

Oliver; she did so on February 5, 2007.

V3. From that moment forward Harrington, Reed and Carlton were each subjected

to retaliation and the knowledge to process in the deprivation of liberty and



25

property interest by the HCC board, its attorneys, its administration, and even

the HCC Police Department.

W3. Harrington, Reed, and Carlton were subjected to harassment in the nature of

attempts to conduct a skewed investigation by HCC’s outside counsel’s friends

in the apparent effort to discover what Harrington, Reed, and Carlton U. And

contain the truth so that it would not become public or the basis of any action

against Nielsen and his successors Spangler.

X3. Harrington was subjected to fabricated charges of threatening her secretary

with a subpoena to testify about Nielsen’s bad behavior on a date with the

secretary’s friend. The charge was expanded to claim falsely that Harrington

had violated the HCC contract policies. When that charge was revealed for

what it had been a false and spurious act of retaliation, defendants crafted a

third charge that Harrington had uninvited lady returned to her former office to

retrieve personal papers or work product scaring her former secretary in the

process.

Y3. Defendants are believed to have prevented Harrington from obtaining other

employment at another junior college represented by HCC’s counsel, and

terminated her employment with the college.

Z3. Harrington applied for unemployment compensation and defendants or various



26

of them challenged Harrington’s right under Texas law to receiving

compensation for being wrongfully terminated, and claimed that Harrington had

violated workplace rules . Harrington was awarded unemployment

compensation and HCC appealed the ruling by Texas Workforce Commission.

A4. During the recorded appeal hearing, HCC Human Resources director and

General Counsel both testified or commented in such a way as to inadvertently

tell the truth and benefit Harrington, causing HCC to withdrawal its challenge

to Harrington’s receipt of unemployment compensation –- and contain the

truth.

B4. Both Carlton and Reed were assigned to be supervised by Spangler’s newly

hired assistant Daniel Seymour.

C4. Seymour ratcheted up pressure on both Carlton and Reed, intentionally creating

a hostile work environment and denying both women due process when they

attempted to appeal his conduct.

D4. The work environment became so oppressive that both women were terrorized

by having their offices disturbed overnight. Reed’s trashcan was ripped and

torn with papers on her desk being disturbed, and the substantial collection of

Carlton’s desktop family pictures were placed facedown.

E4. When Reed and Carlton complained and asked for an investigation, HCC



27

police subtly covered up the events to suppress the investigation and caused

the women further alarm, HCC police refused to even properly follow up on

the HCC security camera tape.

F4. Carlton, and Reed were constructively discharged by being forced to resign

their positions.

G4. The Plaintiffs have been caused to suffer damages, economic, mental, with

physical manifestations.

H4. Harrington, the caregiver to her adult son who is incapacitated, is a prominent

publicist in the Southeast Texas area; as a result of defendants conduct

Harrington was deprived of the opportunity to obtain gainful employment in the

educational community as a publicist or public relations officer. She suffered

severe emotional anguish resulting in physical manifestations.

I4. Reed, as known by defendants, suffers from a blood pressure cardiovascular

problem which produces stress induced ischemic strokes. Even knowing such a

fact, defendants deliberately ratcheted up pressure on Reed producing stress

and anxiety causing the predictable result, an ischemic stroke. Specifically,

Daniel Seymour verbally assaulted and threatened Reed in her office on July 7,

2007, which resulted in blood pressure rising from what is normally 120/70 to

189/98 where it stayed until long after paramedics who had been summoned



28

spent 20 minutes with her in the ambulance, then took her to the hospital. After

arriving at her home that evening, Reed suffered an ischemic stroke.

J4. Carlton, experiencing hypertension and anxiety began a continuing course of

treatment by Dr. Gerald Harris who recommended for her health that she

resigned from HCC, even though she had found her work rewarding and

productive for years.

K4. The damages suffered by each plaintiff were proximately caused by defendants

acting under color of state law and in civil conspiracy with one another.

L4. Plaintiffs asked for a due process hearing before the Board of Trustees of the

HCC, and were denied a fair and meaningful hearing by the Board, with their

lawyer even being threatened by the fleeing (from the Plaintiffs and the public

in the Board room) Board President and HCC lawyer. All Plaintiffs’ lawyer had

done was to ask professionally that Plaintiffs’ request for a fair hearing be

granted.

V. CAUSES OF ACTION

A. Plaintiffs each have constitutionally protected liberty and property interests of

which they were deprived without due process of law, procedural and

substantive.

B. Plaintiffs’ were retaliated against for exercising protected speech.



29

C. The unconstitutional deprivations and unconstitutional retaliations by

defendants acting jointly and severally against each Plaintiff was by defendants,

individually as state actors and under the color of state law, and/or as delegated

policymakers of HCC, or acting with the ratification of HCC’s policymakers.

D. The defendants acted with the requisite scienter to inculpate each of them

under Title 42 USC §1983.

VI. PRAYER

A. Plaintiffs pray for a trial by jury, and upon trial, they each receive,

1. A Declaratory Judgment whereby the Court would declare that the

defendants have violated each Plaintiff’s constitutional rights;

2. A mandatory injunction whereby HCC would be mandatorily enjoined to

offer reinstatement to each Plaintiff to the same or similar position

which they last held;

3. A mandatory injunction whereby HCC would be ordered to refrain from

violating Plaintiff’s constitutional rights;

4. A judgement which would compensate them for actual damages from

each defendant;

5. A judgment which would punish each individual defendant by assessing

against them and each of them an award of exemplary damages;



30

6. Reasonable and necessary attorneys fees and costs in the prosecution of

this action pursuant to Title 42 USC § 1988, and/or under the “private

attorney general” principle of law; and

7. An assessment of all legal interest, both pre-judgment and post

judgment, and any other relief to which they may show themselves

entitled at law, or in equity.

Respectfully submitted ,

WATTS & ASSOCIATES

_____________________

Larry Watts

SBN 20981000, FID 7092

PO Box 2214

Missouri City, Texas 77459

Phone (281) 431 1500

Fax (281) 431 1298

[email protected]

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS


mailto:[email protected]


courthouse news servicefiles.courthousenews.com/2008/11/03/houstoncollege.pdf2008/11/03 · nielsen...

Documents