daniel snyder, osb no. 783856 law offices of daniel...

COMPLAINT Law Offices of Daniel Snyder

Attorneys At Law

1000 S.W. Broadway, Suite 2400

Portland, Oregon 97205 (503) 241-3617 Fax (503) 241-2249

Daniel Snyder, OSB No. 783856

[email protected]

Carl Post, OSB No. 061058

[email protected]

John Burgess, OSB No. 106498

[email protected]

LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL SNYDER


Portland, Oregon 97205

Telephone: (503) 241-3617

Facsimile: (503) 241-2249

Of Attorneys for the plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

PORTLAND DIVISION

RICH SNEATH,

Plaintiff,

v.

CLACKAMAS COUNTY,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:16-cv-1907

COMPLAINT

UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT ACTION

Title VII Discrimination, Retaliation and

supplemental state law claims

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. This action is an action for equitable relief and damages, including compensatory

damages, back pay, front pay, and attorneys’ fees and costs, brought under ORS 659A.030 and

42 U.S.C. § 2000e et. seq. to redress discrimination, harassment, and retaliation by Defendant

Case 3:16-cv-01907-MO Document 1 Filed 09/29/16 of 13


Attorneys At Law



against Plaintiff in terms and conditions of employment on the basis of religion and under 42

U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a), ORS 659A.199, ORS 659A.203, and ORS 659A.230, to redress

discrimination, harassment, and retaliation by Defendant against Plaintiff because Plaintiff

opposed discrimination and retaliation based upon his religion and filed complaints against

Defendant with BOLI, the EEOC, and a prior lawsuit against Defendant.

II. JURISDICTION

2. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court by 28 U.S.C. §1331, federal question

jurisdiction, and 28 U.S.C. §1343, civil rights jurisdiction.

3. Plaintiff requests this Court invoke its supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1367 with respect to all causes of action based on Oregon statutory provisions or

common law as the state claims arise from the same nucleus of operative facts as the federal

claims.

4. On August 21, 2015, Plaintiff filed a charge of employment discrimination and

retaliation with the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI), case number 38D-2015-

00774C, for discrimination, harassment, and retaliation because of Plaintiff’s religion; making

good faith reports of information Plaintiff believed was evidence of a violation of a state or

federal law, rule, or regulation; and for initiating and participating in the filing of BOLI and

EEOC complaints and a lawsuit against Clackamas County.

5. BOLI co-filed Plaintiff’s charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission (EEOC), charge number EEEMRG150821-12890.

6. On July 6, 2016, BOLI issued Plaintiff a right to sue letter for case number 38D-

2015-00774C.

7. Plaintiff has requested that the attorney general issue Plaintiff a right to sue letter



Attorneys At Law



for charge number EEEMRG150821-12890.

8. Venue is in the District of Oregon pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) because the

claim arose in this Judicial District.

III. PARTIES

9. Plaintiff Rich Sneath is a citizen of the United States. At all times material,

Plaintiff worked for defendant in Clackamas County, Oregon.

10. Defendant Clackamas County is a political subdivision of the State of Oregon.

The County, through the Clackamas County Sheriff’s Office, owns and operates correctional

facilities or jails in Clackamas County, Oregon.

11. At all times material, defendant has employed more than 100 people.

12. At all times relevant, defendant’s employees and supervisors as their conduct is

alleged herein were acting within the course and scope of their employment with the defendant.

IV. GENERAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

13. Since approximately September 2007, Mr. Sneath has been employed by

Clackamas County Sheriff’s Office as a deputy sheriff.

14. Mr. Sneath is Jewish.

15. Starting in or about December, 2011, Plaintiff’s co-workers and supervisors began

harassing and retaliating against Plaintiff, including but not limited to:

a. Posting threatening and derogatory comments on a group

Facebook page, members of which were other co-workers and supervisors. These

posts were made both on and off the clock. These posts included anti-Semitic

comments directed at Plaintiff such as “looks like Hitler missed one.”

b. Making similar comments as the Facebook comments verbally in



Attorneys At Law



the workplace.

16. On or about January 9, 2013, Mr. Sneath informed some co-workers of his

knowledge of the Facebook posts and workplace comments.

17. On or about January 22, 2013, Undersheriff Kirby, Mr. Sneath’s supervisor,

informed him that he was aware of the Facebook posts, but Defendant failed to take effective

remedial measures to address the Facebook posts and workplace comments.

18. On or about April 7, 2013, Mr. Sneath learned that a co-worker had made anti-

Semitic comments in the workplace directed at Mr. Sneath, including but not limited to:

a. “Hitler missed one”;

b. Saying “Happy Holocaust Appreciation Day” in reference to

Holocaust Remembrance Day;

c. Substituting the word “Jew” for “you” when referring to Mr.

Sneath.

19. Despite reports of the discrimination and harassment towards Mr. Sneath,

Defendant failed to take remedial actions to allow Mr. Sneath to work in an environment free

from discrimination and harassment. Instead Mr. Sneath was threatened with discipline, up to

and including termination of employment, in retaliation.

20. On or about October 13, 2013, Mr. Sneath provided Clackamas County with a tort

claim notice for discrimination, harassment and retaliation because of his religion.

21. In October 2013, Mr. Sneath filed a BOLI complaint against Clackamas County

for discrimination, harassment, and retaliation because of his religion and because he was

subjected to discrimination, harassment and retaliation for making a good faith report of

information he believed was evidence of a violation of a state or federal law, rule, or regulation.



Attorneys At Law



The complaint was co-filed with the EEOC.

22. In June 2014, Mr. Sneath filed a lawsuit, USDC Case No. 3:14-cv-01 013-BR,

regarding discrimination and retaliation against him by Clackamas County.

23. Mr. Sneath was further discriminated against, retaliated against, and harassed by

defendant for filing the BOLI and EEOC complaints and his lawsuit.

24. In July 2014, Mr. Sneath filed complaints against Clackamas County with the

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Bureau of Labor and Industries for

discrimination and retaliation because Mr. Sneath made good faith reports of violations of the

law and because he filed complaints against defendant with the EEOC, BOLI, and in federal

court.

25. On October 31, 2014, Mr. Sneath amended his lawsuit to also include claims for

retaliation for filing his administrative complaints.

26. In December 2014, the parties agreed to settle all of Mr. Sneath’s claims against

Clackamas County through November 3, 2014. The County failed to comply with the terms of

the settlement agreement.

27. Regrettably, Mr. Sneath continues to experience discrimination, retaliation and

harassment because of his religion and retaliation for good faith reports of violations of the law

and for filing his administrative complaints and lawsuit against Clackamas County.

28. On or about October 25, 2014, Mr. Sneath applied for an open Sergeant position.

At first, there was one open position. Later a second position was announced and eventually a

third. Mr. Sneath’s application was for all three and for any additional positions that open over

the next two years.

29. On November 24, 2014, Mr. Sneath received an email saying that he passed the



Attorneys At Law



written test in the Sergeant selection process.

30. On December 29, 2014, Mr. Sneath was notified that he would not be moving into

the final group of applicants to be interviewed despite scoring higher in the oral board testing

process than at least four of the other candidates that moved forward and being a more qualified

candidate.

31. In December of 2014 Mr. Sneath was told that management did not want to work

with Mr. Sneath because of the lawsuit he filed and on January 4, 2015, Mr. Sneath emailed

Chief Deputy Layng and reported retaliation.

32. In January of 2015 was Sneath was again told that management did not want to

work with him because of the lawsuit.

33. On January 7, 2015, Mr. Sneath met with Chief Deputy Layng regarding the

retaliation in the selection process. Chief Deputy Layng asked who told Mr. Sneath about

Lieutenant Thies’s comments. Mr. Sneath did not have permission to share the identity of the

person who told him. Chief Deputy Layng asked Mr. Sneath to ask the person that had provided

Mr. Sneath this information if it was ok if Mr. Sneath passed his name along. The two continued

to discuss the prior lawsuit and Mr. Sneath’s concerns. After a while, Chief Deputy Layng told

Mr. Sneath that he was getting a red flag and a feeling that Mr. Sneath was going to sue the

county and he ordered Mr. Sneath to tell him who told Mr. Sneath about Thies’s comments. Mr.

Sneath requested union representation. Chief Deputy Layng told Mr. Sneath he was being

insubordinate by not answering his question despite the fact that Mr. Sneath’s job duties did not

require disclosure and there was no business necessity for Mr. Sneath to disclose the name

without the informant’s permission. Mr. Sneath responded that he would like time to check in

with his legal counsel/union representatives and confirm that this was a lawful order if the



Attorneys At Law



meeting was going to become disciplinary in nature. Mr. Sneath informed Chief Deputy Layng

that Mr. Sneath had a right to union representation and Chief Deputy Layng said that he did not,

which is in violation of Mr. Sneath’s Weingarten rights. Chief Deputy Layng told Mr. Sneath

that he had to “mend fences” prior to being selected for promotion and gave examples of other

employees that mended fences prior to promotion. Mr. Sneath pointed out the clear violation of

county policy related to this statement and that it was retaliation.

34. On January 7, 2015, at 7:22 PM, Chief Deputy Layng emailed Mr. Sneath and

told him that he must disclose the informant’s name. Mr. Sneath obtained permission from the

witness to disclose the name and Mr. Sneath provided the name to Chief Deputy Layng.

35. On January 8, 2015, Mr. Sneath received notice of intent to discipline Mr. Sneath.

36. On January 13, 2015, Mr. Sneath asked for a review of the selection results from

DES due defendant not following appropriate procedures and policies.

37. On January 21, 2015, the Sergeant selection was made for two positions and Mr.

Sneath was not selected.

38. On January 27, 2015, Mr. Sneath received a letter from the Department of

Employee Services Nancy Drury saying that she had completed the review and there were no

problems with the Sergeant selection process.

39. In February of 2015 Mr. Sneath was informed of new comments made by his co-

workers related to his Jewish affiliation. These comments were made while at work and by some

of the same bad actors involved in the original lawsuit. The comments brought up Mr. Sneath

being Jewish, and repeated some statements from the original investigation. Mr. Sneath reported

this conduct to his supervisor.

40. On February 4, 2015, Mr. Sneath was disciplined with a 40 hour unpaid



Attorneys At Law



suspension in retaliation for his opposition to unlawful activity and for his prior lawsuit and

administrative complaints. Mr. Sneath served the suspension on February 18, 19, 25, and 26,

2015. Additionally, Mr. Sneath was disciplined in violation of the settlement agreement reached

with the county.

41. In March of 2015 Mr. Sneath was informed that the Sergeant selection process

was not correctly conducted and selections were put on hold or withdrawn for the time being. .

42. On April 7, 2015 Chief Deputy Layng sent out an email saying that the Sergeant

selection was completed. Mr. Sneath was not selected.

43. On May 7, 2015 Mr. Sneath received his evaluation from the period of September

2013 to September 2014. Mr. Sneath’s performance review stated that he “meets standard”

instead of “exceeds standard” as his score would indicate. The low performance review was

retaliation.

44. On May 12, 2015, Mr. Layng sent an email saying there were actually three open

Sergeant positions. Mr. Sneath was not interviewed.

45. On June 11, 2015, Chief Deputy Layng emailed that the third Sergeant position

was filed. Mr. Sneath was not selected.

46. In December of 2015, management directed a nurse to file a complaint against

Mr. Sneath in retaliation for Mr. Sneath’s protected activity.

47. On February 10, 2016, Mr. Sneath received a performance review that stated Mr.

Sneath “Does Not Meet Expectations” The poor review was retaliation and made Mr. Sneath

ineligible to apply for new positions.

48. The county modified its selection process for the three Sergeant positions in a

way to exclude Mr. Sneath from being selected for the positions. Additionally, throughout the



Attorneys At Law



process Mr. Sneath was treated unfavorably and defendant failed to promote Mr. Sneath in

retaliation for his protected activity.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(ORS Chapter 659A.030)

49. Plaintiff re-alleges all relevant paragraphs as though fully restated herein.

50. In violation of ORS 659A.030, Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff because

of religion, Plaintiff was subjected to a hostile work environment because of his religion, and

Plaintiff was retaliated against for reporting violations of ORS 659A.030.

51. As a result, Plaintiff suffered damage and is entitled to the damages and other

relief set forth below.

52. Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that the conduct of the Defendant violated

ORS 659A.030.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(42 U.S.C. §2000e et. seq)


54. In violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., Defendant discriminated against

Plaintiff because of religion, Plaintiff was subjected to a hostile work environment because of his

religion, and Plaintiff was retaliated against for reporting violations of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.



56. As a result of Defendant’s unlawful employment actions, Plaintiff suffered and

continues to suffer humiliation, anxiety, distress, and impairment of his personal dignity and

right to be free from discrimination or interference with his statutory rights. Plaintiff has also



Attorneys At Law



suffered, and continues to suffer, economic damages, including, but not limited to, past and

future wages, past and future benefits, and other expenses.

57. Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that the conduct of the Defendant violated 42

U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(ORS 659A.203 – Whistleblower)


59. Plaintiff disclosed information that Plaintiff believed was a violation of federal or

state laws, rules, or regulations.

60. Defendant discriminated and retaliated against Plaintiffs because of the

disclosures made by Plaintiffs. Defendant’s actions violated ORS 659A.203.



62. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that defendant’s conduct violated ORS

659A.203.

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(ORS Chapter 659A.199 – Whistleblower)


64. Plaintiff reported to Defendant conduct that Plaintiff believed was evidence of a

violation of state or federal law, rule, or regulation.

65. Defendant discriminated and retaliated against Plaintiff because of the report

made by Plaintiff. Defendant’s actions violated ORS 659A.199.



Attorneys At Law






ORS 659A.199.

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) – Whistleblower)


69. Plaintiff opposed conduct that Plaintiff believed was evidence of a violation of 42

U.S.C. § 2000e, or because he made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in

an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this subchapter.

70. Defendant’s actions violated 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3, are an unlawful employment

practice, and caused Plaintiff economic and noneconomic damages.



72. Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that the conduct of the Defendant violated 42

U.S.C. § 2000e-3.

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(ORS Chapter 659A.230 – Whistleblower)


74. Plaintiff initiated several BOLI and EEOC complaints and a lawsuit against

defendant.

75. Defendant discriminated and retaliated against Plaintiff because of the complaints

made by Plaintiff. Defendant’s actions violated ORS 659A.230.



Attorneys At Law






ORS 659A.230.

DAMAGES

78. Plaintiff is entitled to equitable relief, including, an injunction prohibiting further

discrimination and retaliation.

79. Plaintiff is entitled to an award for past lost wages and benefits and future lost

earnings, benefits, and lost earning capacity, and other compensatory damages for past and future

pecuniary losses. Plaintiff should be awarded economic damages in an amount determined fair

by a jury.

80. Plaintiff is entitled to non-economic damages sufficient to compensate Plaintiff

for emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other

nonpecuniary losses in an amount to be proved at trial. Plaintiff should be awarded non-

economic damages in an amount determined fair by a jury.

81. To the extent any amount awarded to Plaintiff is for damages occurring prior to

the entry of judgment, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of prejudgment interest at the legal rate

from the date the damage occurred until the date of judgment.

82. Pursuant to ORS Chapter 659A and ORS 20.107, the Plaintiff is entitled to

recover his reasonable attorney fees and costs, including expert witness fees.

83. Plaintiff is entitled to post judgment interest on all damages, costs, expenses, and

fees from the date of judgment until the date paid.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF



Attorneys At Law



Plaintiff prays for the following judgment against defendant:

1. A sum which will fully compensate Plaintiff for Plaintiff’s non-economic

damages in a sum that is just as determined by a jury;

2. A sum which will fully compensate Plaintiff for Plaintiff’s economic damages in

a sum that is just as determined by a jury;

3. Equitable relief, including but not limited to, injunctive relief;

4. Plaintiff’s costs and disbursements incurred herein;

5. Plaintiff’s attorney fees; and

6. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and equitable.

Plaintiff demands a trial by Jury.

Dated: September 29, 2016

Law Offices of Daniel Snyder

/s/ Carl Post

Daniel Snyder, OSB No. 783856

[email protected]


[email protected]


[email protected]

Telephone: (503) 241-3617

Facsimile: (503) 241-2249

Of Attorneys for Plaintiff


CIVIL COVER SHEET

(SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

(b)(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)

(c) (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) (If Known)

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)

PTF DEF PTF DEF(U.S. Government Not a Party) or

and(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)

IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only)CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES

PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY

PROPERTY RIGHTS

LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY PERSONAL PROPERTY

REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS FEDERAL TAX SUITSHabeas Corpus:

IMMIGRATIONOther:

V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)

(specify)

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION(Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity)

VII. REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT:

CLASS ACTION DEMAND $JURY DEMAND:

VIII. RELATED CASE(S) IF ANY (See instructions):

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

Sneath, Rich

Clackamas

See attached.

Clackamas County

42 U.S.C. § 2000e et. seq.

discrimination/retaliation based on religion and filing administrative complaints and prior lawsuit

500,000.00

09/29/2016 /s/ Carl Post

Case 3:16-cv-01907-MO Document 1-1 Filed 09/29/16 Page 1 of 2

Attachment to Civil Cover Sheet

The following attorneys will be representing the Plaintiffs.

Daniel Snyder, Oregon State Bar #78385

[email protected]


[email protected]


[email protected]

LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL SNYDER


Portland, Oregon 97205

Telephone: (503) 241-3617

Facsimile: (503) 241-2249


mailto:[email protected]



AO 440 (Rev. 04/08) Civil Summons

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTfor the

__________ District of __________

)))))

Plaintiffv. Civil Action No.

Defendant

Summons in a Civil Action

To: (Defendant’s name and address)

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it), you must serveon the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Theanswer or motion must be served on the plaintiff’s attorney, whose name and address are:

If you fail to do so, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You alsomust file your answer or motion with the court.

Name of clerk of court

Date:Deputy clerk’s signature

(Use 60 days if the defendant is the United States or a United States agency, or is an officer or employee of the United States allowed 60 days byRule 12(a)(3).)

District of Oregon

RICH SNEATH

Clackamas County3:16-cv-1907

Clackamas CountyClackamas County Counsel2051 Kaen RdOregon City OR 97045

21

Carl PostLaw Office of Daniel Snyder1000 SW Broadway, Suite 2400Portland, Oregon 97205


daniel snyder, osb no. 783856 law offices of daniel...

Documents