IN TilE UNITE)) STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR TilE DISTIUCT OF MARYLAND BALTlMORt: mVISJON

SABRINA BOND, Plnmtin:
UNITED STATFS OF AMERICA, Phlinli if-Intervenor,

Civil Ac!ion No. 04-CV~0269

v.
CITY OF BALTIMORE, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS;
CITY OF BAUIMORn, ~l ilL.
Defendants.

OROlm The United States' Motion 10 Intervene is GRANTED. The clerk is directed to file the
United Stales' Complaint in Intervention.

March H, 2004

- .._- ._---- /sl Andre M. Davi$
Ii. S. District Judge

IN THE UNrmO STATES lHSTRICT COURT FOR THE lHSTRICT Of' MARYLAND HAI.TIMORI': DIVISION

SABRINA ROND, Plaintiff,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, P1<1int iff-In!crVclIor,

Civil Action No. 04-CY-0269

v,

CITY OF BALTIMORE, DEPARTMENT
OF PUBLiC WORKS;
CITY OF BALTIMORE, Ql aL.
Dcfcnd<lnls_

CQMl'IAlI'(UNINTlcRVICNTJQN

PlnintlJf·lnterwllor, Uuited SIMes of America ("United Slates"), alleges:

1. This action is hrought on behalf of the United States 10 cl!fOrcc the provisions ofTitic VIJ

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.c. § 2000e, ot seq. ("Title VII"),

2.

This Conr! bas jurisdiction over the ;I('.llon under 42 USC § 2000c~5(f) and

28 l),S,C § 1345,

3. Defendant City ofBaitirnorc, Department of Public Works ("DPW") is a governmental

agency of the City of Baltimore. Defendant City of Baltimore ("City") is a political subdivision

or tile State of Maryland, created pursuant to Maryland taw.

4.

Defendants ar~ persons within the meaning of Seclion 701(<1) of Tille VII, 42 U.S.c.

§ 2000C(~I), and employers and/or agenls of employers within the meaning of Section 701 (b) of

Title VII, 42 \I,S,c' § 201l0c(h).

5.

Defendants have discriminated agmnst Sabrina nand, a Jemale formerly employed as a

earpcnter nt DPW, because ofhcr sex, female. in violation ofSecliotJ 703(a) of Tille VII, 42

USc. § 2000c-2(a), among other ways, by:

<l.

subjcctjng Ms. Bond to harassment b:lscd on her sex while she was employed at

DPW. which created an intimidating, hostile or offensivc work environment and

which adversely aHccted the terms, conditions und privileges of Ms. Bond's

employment; and

h.

failing or refusing to take appropriate action [0 remedy the effects of the

discriminntion against Ms. Bond even aOer she fikd severnl written complaints

(Jnd informed higher level m~lllagcmcnl of the harassment.

6.

Acts contrihuting to fhe hostile work environHlent included, hut were not limited to, her

~upcrvISor:

8.

exposing his genitalia;

b. displaying pumogr<lphy in the workplace;

c. simulating sexual acts <md iuforming Ms. Bond that these acts would be performed on her; and

d.

cOilltncnting Oll her menstrual cycle.

7.

Ads con,,;hnt;ng to the hostile work environillent ;ncluded, bnt were not limited 10, her

coworkers:

<-t.

displaying pornographic magazines and sexllal toys in the workplace; ami

b. making sexiwl and sexist comments to Ms. Bond.

8. The Equal EmploYlllent Opportunity Cormnission ("EEOC") received a litllclychargc of

2

discrimination filed by Ms.l3ond (Ciwrge No. 120~2003--02529) ill which she alleged, 1Jlts;r mia,

that the City of Bnhilllore, Department of Public Works discriminated against her ill violation of

Title VlI by subjecting her to a hostile \vork environment hased on her sex.

9.

Pursuant to Section 706 ol"Title V11, 42 USC. § 2000c-5, the EEOC investigated the

charge, found reasonable CatlSC to helieve that Ms. Bond's allegations of sexual harassment were

true, unsllccessfully attempted to achieve through conciliation <\ voluntary resolution of these

matters, and subsequently referred thc charge to the United States Department of .1IIslie(:.

Thereafter, the Uniled Slates Department of Justice isslIcd a notice ofrighHo-sllC on Charge No.

120-2003-0252910 Sahrina Bond b;lscd 011 it request by her counse!' IJaving reccived such

notice ofrighl-t(H;UC, plaintiff alleges, illLGJ JiJi!;l, violations of Title Vll in her complaint.

10. The Assistant AUomey General f()r the Civil Rights Division oflhe United Stales

l)cpal1l11cnt of Justice, by ddcgation from lhe Attorney GCllewi oflhc Ullited St;:tlcs. has

certified under Section 70(\(t)( I) of Tit!c VII, 42 USc. § 2000e-5(f)( I), that the above-captioned

case is t)r general public illlp0l1ancc. S~ atlachlH-ent hereto.

II. All conditions pn:c(xlent to the filing of this Complain\. in Intervention have becn

performed or have occurrcd.

WHE!{l~FORE, plaintiff-intervenor United States prays thal1his COUfl grant the

lollowing rdief:

(a) Enjoin the City o/" Baltimore and its Dcpm1mCn! of PHbhc Works from t~li!ing or

refusing to:

(i) provide sufficient reUlcthal rdieft() make whole Sabrina Bond for the loss

she has suffered as a result oflhe discrimination against her as alleged in

3

this complaint in intervention; (ii) modify the City's existing sexual harassmcnt policy to include clear,
meaningful and well"ptlblicizcd provisions describing responsibilities of all supervisors to report snd respond [0 complaints of sextml haraSSlIlent, and (0 establish an elletlivc mechanism for receiving and responding to complaints of sexnal harassment; (iii) provide adequate training to all DPW employees and officials responsible for making determinations regarding complaints of sexual harassment, with regard to workplace SCXHlll harassment prohibited by Title VIi; (iv) take other appropriate nondiscriminatory measures to overcome the dtCcts of discrimination,
(b) Award compensatory damages to Sabrina Bond for mental and/or physical injuries incurred as a result of the discrimination agaiIlsl her as aUeged in this Complaint
in Intervcntion, pursuant to and within the stCl!utOry limit<"ltions of Section 102 of
the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 (U;,C. § 19S1a. The United States pmys f()r SlIGh additiOlwl rdief as justice muy require, together with its costs and disbursements in this actioll.
4

JURYDEMANQ The United States hereby demands a trial by jury of all issues so triable pursuant to Rule
38 of the Fcdcfal Rules of Civil Procedure and Section 102 oelhc CivIl Rights Ad of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a.

R. ALEX ANDER ACOSTA Assistant AttonlCY Cielleral Civil Rights Division

By: CUl2.{);// _ DAVri1f~~

Chief

Employment Litigation Section

~::l.~ C-t.i/ \.~iilgh,(W;)...-D9".L..vr-ics;i:Q:..l.l-

_
",

/l.4~k~~

WILLIAM Il. FENTON

CLARE F. GELLER LESLIE M. GARDNER

Attorneys U.S. DcpartlllCllt of Justice

Civil Rights DivisiOil

Employment Litigation Section Room 4902, PI-In

950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20530

(202) 514-)168 (phone)

(202) 514-1005 (facsimile)

THOMAS M. DllllAGIO United Stales Attorney

5

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR TIm DISTRICT OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE DIVISION

SABRINA BOND, Plaintiff,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PlaintifT- Intervenor,
v.
CITY OF BALTIMORE, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS; CITY OF BALTIMORE, ct aI.,
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 04~CV-0269

CONSENT DECREE This action was brought by Sahrina Bond ("Ms. Bond" or "Plaintiff') against the City of Baltimore, Department ofPuhlic Works ("Department of Public Works" or "DPW"), Robert Moorc-El, Larry Slattery, Tom Sewell, Richard B~U1ks, and Roy Brown aUeging, inter alia, violations of Title VB of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 U.S.c. §§ 2000e, et seq, as amended ("Title VII"). In her Complaint, the Plaintiff also alleges violations of the Equal Protection
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, 42 U.S.c. § 1983, Article 24 of the Maryland Declaration
of Rights oCthe Maryland Constitution, and tort claims including negligent supervision and

retention, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. On February 24, 2004', the United States of America ("Plaintiff-Intervenor" or "United States") filed a motion to intervene. In its Complaint in Intervention, the United States alleges violations of Title VII by the City of Baltimore ("City") and its Department of Publie "'orks. On March 8, 2004, the Court granted the United States' motion to intervene and directed that its Complaint in Intervention be filed. Both the Plaintiff and the United States allege that Ms. Bond, a female fonnerly employed as a carpenter in the City'S Department of Public Works, was discriminated against because of her sex by being subjected to a sexually hostile work environment in violation of Title VII.
The parties, desiring to appropriately senle this action, agree to the jurisdiction of this Court over them and the subject matter of this action, and hereby waive the entry of findings of facl and conclusions of law. The parties accept this Consent Decree ("Decree") as final on the issues resolved in this Decree. This Decree, being entered with the consent of the parties, shall not constitute an admission, adjudication or finding on the merits of this action, and the City, the Department of Public Works, and all other defendants deny that any unlawful discrimination has oeeun'ed.
In resolution of this action, the parties hereby AGREE and the Court expressly APPROVES, ENTERS and ORDERS the following:
I, DEFINITIONS AND l'ARTIES 1. The parties to this Decree are Ms. Bond, the United States, the City, and the Department of Public Works. 2. The tenns "supervisor" and "administrator" include all employees of the City who
2

manage, supervise, or have authority to affect the hiring, firing, discipline, assignments, or pay rates of employees in the Department of Public Works, and all persons who establish policies or procedures for the Department of Public Works.
3. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is referred to hereinafter as "EEOC."
4. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, ct seq., is referred to hereinafter as "Title VII."
5. "Sexual harassment" is any aet that would be prohibited under Title Vll's prohibitions against gender discrimination such as unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, verbal, physical or other conduct of a sexual nature, or acts of animosity or hostility based on sex (whether or not sexual in nature), any of which creates or tends to create a hostile work environment based on sex for an employee in the Department of Public Works.
6. The tenl1 "Revised Sexual Harassment Policy" refers to the anti-harassment policy proposed by the City and its Department of Public Works and approved by the United States, or
approved by the Court pursuant to paragraph 14, infra, if these parties are unable 10 agree upon
revisions to the Sexual Harassment Policy and submit the dispute to the Court. 7. The tcnl1 "Final Revised Sexual Harassment Policy" refers to the Revised Sexual
Harassment Policy that either: (a) has been approved by the City, its Department of Public Works, and the United States, or approved by the Court if these parties are unable to agree upon revisions pursuant to
3

paragraph 14, infra, and the labor unions that represent employees covered by the antiharassment policy ("relevant labor unions") have not submitted an objection to it during the appropriate time period for submitting an objection to the Court pursuant to paragraph 15, inH:a; or (b) results after any objection(s) submitted pursuant to paragraph 15, infra, has been ruled on by the CoUti. 8. "Day" or "days" refers to calendar and not business days. 9. "Date of entry o[this Decree" refers to the date that the Court orders ently of the Decree.
II. PURPOSES OF THIS DECREE 10. The purposes of this Decree are to ensure that:

a.

employees in the Department of Public Works arc not subjected to sexual

harassment in violation of Title VII;

b. all complaints of sexual harassment made by Department of Public Works employees are investigated fairly and promptly, and that the City takcs appropriate remedial action when the City, through its responsible deciding officia1(s), dctermines that the complaints arc well-founded;

c.

the City adopts and maintains a clear, meaningful and well-publicized policy

prohibiting sexual harassment in the Department of Public Works;

d. the City maintains an Equal Employment Opportunity Officcr ("EEO Officer") for 4

the Department of Public Works who shall oversee the receipt and investigation of complaints of sexual harassment, and who has no dual rolc as legal counsel for the City regarding claims of employment discrimination;

c. the City provides adequate training to Department of Public Works employees who work in the maintenance department at the DPW's Patapsco Plant, and to all Department of Public Works' supervisors, administrators or officials rcsponsible for making determinations regarding complaints ofscxual harassment, with rcgard to workplace sexual harassment prohibited by Title VII, as provided for in Section VII, paragraphs 20-22 of this Decree; and

f

the City offers Ms. Bond appropriate individual relief.

III. SCOPE OF DECRm:

11. This Decrec resolves all legal and equitable claims arising out of the Complaint and the Complaint in Intervention filed in the above-captioned civil action and EEOC Charge

No. 120-2003-02529.

IV. SPECIFIC RELIEF 12. The City and thc Dcpmii11Cnt ofPubJie Works shall do the following: a. offer Ms. Bond a monetary award. The matter of monetary relief is resolved in a
separate agreement betwecn Ms. Bond and the City. b. if Ms. Bond applies for another position with the City, she shall be given hlir and
objective consideration. The City shall not subject Ms. Bond to discrimination

5

because of her sex, or retaliate against her.

c. the City and the Department ol'Public Works shall not provide negative employment references for Ms. Bond to any future prospective employer that inquires about her past employment in the Department of Public Works, nor shall it refer in any way to Ms. Bond's filing of complaints or charges of sexual harassment or this lawsuit when communicating with prospective employers seeking a reference for Ms. Bond. In order to ensure that Ms. Bond docs not receive negative employment references, the City and the Department of Public Works shall:

1.

remove from Ms. Bond's personnel files any and all documents that refer

to any internal complaints of sexual harassment made by Ms. Bond during

her employment with the City in the Department of Public Works, the

charge of discrimination tiled by Ms. Bond \\lith the EEOC (Charge No.

120·2003-02529), the United States' investigation of Ms. Bond's charge of

discrimination, and this lawsuit; and

II. instruct all of Ms. Bond's fanner supervisors who are incumbent City employees, including all those in the Department of Public Works, that they may not give out employment rcierences for Ms. Bond, but shall direct the inquiring entity(s) or pcrson(s) to the City's Department of Human Resources. If a reference is requested by a prospective employer, the City shall confirm the length of Ms. Bond's employment, the positions

6

sh~ held during her employment in the Depm1ment of Public Works, and her past salary history.
V. GEN~;RAL INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 13. The City, the Department of Public Works, and all employees, supervisors, agents, and individuals in active concert or participation with them are enjoined from: a. sUbjecting any employee in the Department of Public Works to sexual harassment; b. creating, facilitating, or tolerating sexual harassment or a hostile work
environment based on sex in the Department of Public Works. VI. REVISION AND ADOPTION OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT POLICIES AND
PROCEDUR~;S FOR Tim DEPAIUMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
14. Within forty-five (45) days aHer the date of the entry of this Decree, the City and its Department of Public Works shall, by ovemight mail or facsimile transmission, send to the United States, in care of its counsel, a proposal for a revised Sexual Harassment Policy that applies to employees in the Department of Public Works in order to bring the Sexual Harassment Policy into compliance with cUlTenllaw. Counsel for the United States shall review and submit comments on the Scxual Harassment Policy to the City and its Department of Public Works, in care of their counsel, within fiHecn (15) days of receipt of the Sexual Harassment Policy. If the City, the Department of Public Works, and the United States arc unable to agrec upon mutually acceptable and appropriate revisions to the Sexual Harassment Policy within sixty (60) days from the date of entry of this Decree, lhe dispute shall be submitted to the Court for resolution
7

consistent with the provisions of paragraph 33, infra. The Sexual Harassment Policy approved by the City, the Department of Public Works, and the United States, or the Sexual Harassment Policy approved hy the Court if these parties are unable to agree upon revisions to the Sexual Harassment Policy and submit the dispute to the Court, shall be referred to hereinafter as the "Revised Sexual Harassment Policy."
15. Within seven (7) days after the United States has approved the Revised Sexual Harassment Policy, or any dispute between the City, its Department ofPuhlic Works, and the United States regarding revisions to the Sexual Harassment Policy is resolved by the Court, the City, through its Labor Commissioner, shall send, by certified mail, return receipt requested, a copy of the Revised Sexual Harassment Policy to each of the relevant labor unions along with a cover letter infonning each relevant labor union that, ifit has any ohjection(s) to the Revised Sexual Harassment Policy, it may present its objection(s) to the Court pursuant to this paragraph of the Decree. The cover letter shall be approved by the United States. The City shall, at the same time it sends the Revised Sexual Harassment Policy to each of the relevant lahor unions, and as part of the same mailing, notify each labor union in writing that if such union has any objection(s) to the Revised Sexual Harassment Policy, that objcction(s) must be submitted to the Court within (20) business days after that union's receipt of the Revised Sexual Harassment Policy from the City. The City shall infonn each relevant labor union thal any objection(s) that it has must be submitted to the Court in a document that sets forth with specificity the basis [or the objection. The City shall include in its notice to each of the rclevant lahor unions the address of the Clerk of Court to whom any objection(s) to the Revised Sexual Harassment Policy shall be
8

mailed, as well as instructions that the document with the objection(s) must reference the case name and docket number orthe above-captioned matter. The Clerk of Court shall send copies of any objcction(s) it receives to each of the parties, or make the objeetion(s) electronically accessible to each of the parties, upon reccipt of the objection(s).
a. If a \vritten objection(s) is submitted to the Clerk of Court by a relevant labor union(s), the parties shall have five (5) days aner receipt orthe objeetion(s) from the Clerk or Court to file responses with the Court. Ifa written objection(s) is submitted to the Court, the Court shall hold a fairness hearing on that objeetion(s) within thirty (30) days after the date on which all responses to the unions' objeetion(s) must be submitted to the Court All parties to this action shall have the right to participate in this fairness hearing. The policy which results from this hearing shall be considered the Final Revised Sexual Harassment Policy.
b. Ifnone of the relevant labor unions timely submits an objection(s) to the Revised Sexual Harassment Policy that has been sent to them by the City, the Revised Sexual Harassment Policy shall be considered the Final Revised Sexual Harassment Policy.
16. Within fifteen (15) days after the date the Final Revised Sexual Harassment Policy comes into existence by operation of the preceding paragraph, the City shall take all necessary actions to adopt the Final Revised Sexual Harassment Policy.
17. ·Within fiftcen (15) days aftcr adoption of the Final Revised Sexual Harassment Policy, the City and the Department of Pub he Works shall issue and distribute the Final Revised
9

Sexual Harassment Policy to all current Department of Public Works employees. 18. For all future employees in the Department of Public Works, the City and the
Departmcnt of Public Works shall issue and distribute the Final Revised Sexual Harassment Policy to employees within fifteen (15) days of an employee's hire.
19. The City and the Department of Public Works shall post the Final Revised Sexual Harassment Policy in prominent, conspicuous, centrally~located places commonly lIsed for posting notices (e.g., bulletin boards) in all Department of Public Works buildings and administrative offices. The Departmcnt of Public Works shall designate one supervisory employee at each facility of the Department who is responsible for taking reasonable action to ensure that these documents remain posted, that they are not defaced or altered in any fashion, and if they arc defaced or altered in any fashion, that they arc immediately replaced.
VII. TRAINING 20. Within ninety (90) days after adoption of the Final Reviscd Sexual Harassment Policy, the City and the Department of Public Works shall provide mandatory training regarding sexual harassment for all employees who work in the maintenance department at the DPW's Patapsco Plant. Within one hundred eighty (180) days after adoption of the Final Revised Sexual Harassment Policy, the City and the Department of Public Works shall provide mandatory training regarding sexual harassment to all Department of Public Works' supervisors, administrators or officials responsible for making dctenninations regarding complaints of sexual harassment made by Department of Public Works employees. This training shall be conducted by a person or entity of the City and the Department of Public Works' choosing, subject to the
10

approval of the United States, not to be unreasonably withheld. The City shall identify this person or entity to the United States no less than forty-five (45) days before the date of the mandatory training. The City and the Department of Public Works shull take all reasonable actions to ensure attendance by these employees at the training sessions. The United States reserves the right to require the City and the Department of Public Works to provide additional training to employees in the Department of Public Works should it determine that such training is warranted, or that the training provided fails to comply with the provisions of this Decree.
21. The City and the Department of Public Works shall include uunit on sexual harassment as part of its regular, ongoing in-service training of all Department of Public Works employees.
22. All employecs in the Department of Public Works shall be asked to sign and datc an acknowledgment of attendance for any and all training instituted pursuant to this Decree.
VIII. EVALUATION OF EMPLOYEES 23. Within thirty (30) days after the adoption of the Final Revised Sexual Harassment Policy, the Department of Public \Vorks shall adopt, as a criterion for evaluating the perfOlTIlanee of all employees who have supervisory or managerial authority over other employees in the Department of Public Works, a factor that takes into account those individuals' awareness of and compliance with BEO requirements and procedures, us well as the City and the Department of Public Works' sexual harassment policy.
11

IX. PROCEDURES FOR ACCEPTANCE AND INVESTIGATION OF COMPLAINTS OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT
24. Within thirty (30) days after the date of entry of this Decree, the City and the Department of Public Works shall inform employees in the Department ofPuhlic Works in writing of the name and contact infonnation of the current designated Department of Public Works EEO Officer, as well as the name and contact of an alternative City employee ("Alternative BED Officer") not employed in the same division or bureau as the designated Department of Public Works [EO Officer, who is authorized to receive and investigate complaints of sexual harassment by employees in the Department of Public Works (collectively, the "EEO Officers"). Within ten (10) days of the date upon which the City or the Department of Public Works designates a Department of Public Works EEO Officer and Alternative EEO Officer, the City and the Department ofPubJie Works shall provide the United States with written notice of the names, titles and qualifications of those individuals, and of any other person to whom the Department of Public Works EEO Officer (or Alternate EEO Officer) anticipates delegating responsibility for the receipt or investigation of complaints of sexual harassment under circumstances that would make such a delegation necessary and appropriate. With respect to any person to whom the Department of Public Works EEO Officer (or Alternate EEO Officer) delegates authority to receive and investigate a complaint, the City and the Department of Public Works also shall provide to the United States a summary of the designee's relevant background and training to receive and investigate complaints of sexual harassment prior to any receipt or investigation of a complaint by that designee.
12

25. The DcpaJiment of Public Works EEO Officer and Alternative EEO Officer shall be designated as individuals capable of receiving complaints of sexual harassment from employees in the Department of Public Works, as set forth in the Final Revised Sexual Harassment Policy. These EEO Officers shall investigate aJl complaints of sexual harassment received by them directly from employees, or refened to them by supervisors or officials, as set forth in the Final Revised Sexual Harassment Policy, and shall recommend appropriate action pursuant to those policies. The EEO Officers shall maintain neutral roles and must remain free of conflicts of interest.
26. The City and the Department ofPuhlic Works shall issue quarterly repmis to the United States regarding any complaint of sexual harassmcnt made by an employee in the Department of Publie Works during the effective period of this Decree. In the repmi, the City and the Department of Public Works shall provide copies of the complaint, advise of the datc of receipt and nature of the complaint, and the findings and outcome of the investigation and any actions taken as a result of such findings. Absent extenuating circumstances, which must be explained in the rep0l1, all investigations of complaints of sexual harassment made by an employee in the Department of Puhlic Works must be completed within fifteen (15) business days afler the receipt of the complaint.
27. At least one of the EEO Officers shall be present at each training session required pursuant to paragraph 20, supra. At least one of the ERa Officers also shall be present at the presentatioll of the unit on sexual harassment during the in-service training required pursuant to paragraph 21, supra. The names and phone numhers of both EEO Officers shall be distributed in
13

writing to employees in the Department of Public Works during each of those training sessions. XI. TERMS CONCERNING PORNOGRAPHY IN DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS FACILITIES 28. The City and the Department of Public Works shall usc all reasonable and lawful
means to cnsure that there will be no displays or presentation of pornographic material, including but not limited to pictures, videos, magazines, tcievision, and computer~generated displays, in any Department of Public Works facility.
XII. PUBLICITY 29. Within fifteen (15) days after the adoption of the Final Revised Sexual Harassment Policy, the City and the Department of Public Works shall modify the Internct website of the Department of Public Works to include infornlation and links regarding the Final Revised Sexual Harassmcnt Policy. The Department o[Publie Works' home page shall include an item titled "Employment Discrimination Claims," and shall be linked to the web sites o[state, local and federal agencies authorized to receive complaints of sexual harassment under Title VII.
XIII. COMPLIANCE MONITORING 30. For a period of eighteen (18) months from the effective date of this Decree, the United States may request from the City and the Department of Public Works, at its discretion, reports containing a description of any sexual harassment complaints received from employees within the Department of Public Works, and copies of attendance sheets and any course materials used in connection with training required pursuant to this Decree.
14

31. During the ternl of this Decree, the City and the Depal1ment of Public Works shall retain all documents, in paper or electronic foml (including electronic mail), that come into their possession relating to complaints of sexual harassment from an employee or former employee in the Department of Public Works, and all documents relating to the training required pursuant to this Decrce.
32. The United States may review compliance with this Decree at any time. The City and the Department of Public Works shall provide copies of documents relevant to the City and the Department of Public Works' compliance with this Decree upon the request of the United States, including but not limited to the documents described in paragraph 31, supra, and the United States shall pay the reasonable costs of making such copics. If the United States believes that this Decree or any portion of it has been violated, it shall raise its concems with the City and the Department of Public Works pursuant to the dispute resolution procedure set forth in paragraph 33, infra.
XIV. DISPUTE RESOLUTION 33. The parties shall attempt to resolve informally any dispute that arises under this Decree. The City shall be given at least twenty-one (21) days to eure any alleged breach of this Decrce before the United States moves the Court for a resolution of the issue. If the breach has not bcen cured within this time, any pal1y can request relief from the Court in furtherance of this Consent Decree.
XV. MODIFICATION OF THE DECREE 34. With respect to the various lime frames for completion of activities set forth in this
15

Decree, those time frames may be modified upon mutual written consent orthe parties. The patiies may jointly agree to other modifications ofth15 Decree with the approval and entry of these modifications by the Court.
XVI. .JURlSDICTlON m' THE COURT
35. The Court shall maintain jurisdiction over this case throughout the duration of this Decree for purposes of resolving disputes between the parties with respect to the tenns or implementation of the Decree.
XVII. TERMINATION DATE
36. Without any further Order of this Court, this Decree shall terminate and this action shall bc dismissed at the end of eighteen (IS) months from the effective dale of the Decree.
XVIII. G~:NERAL PROVISIONS
37. The pmiies shall bear their own costs, expenses, and attomey's fees in this action including the costs of compliance or monitoring, except that the pa1iies shall retain the right to seck costs for any matter which, in the future, may arise from this Decree and require resolution by this Court.
38. All documents required to be delivered under this Decree to the United States shall be sent to the following address:
Chief, Employment Litigation Section United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, PHB Room 4040 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530
16

-y1f~rshe City ~!~alti~o~e and City of Baltimore Department of Public 'Yorks:

t . l.L."tU:1 S, J/'j(d-
/ " Dated: __ I ( ! Lf [)

{!; Y7;

(( 7
Vt'"

j ,;V;rC

7T '

/Datcd: ---'-1-'-1-''-7'-
Attorney for Sabrina Bond
c J ' Lolita .Ja
Dated: --'-=""-'--
For' the United States Department of Justice: R, ALEXANDER ACOSTA Assistant Attomcy General Civil Rights Division
By ~,-IQ~
DAVID], PALMER Chief CLARE GELLER LESLIE GARDNER SARA NILES Attomcys Employment Litigation Section
17

--, j

Civil Rights Division U.S. Depm1mcnt of Justice
Dated: II \D9 \o~
United States District Judge

IT IS SO ORDERED Dated: _ _ _ _ _ __

18

 
 0

FILED

...

IN THEUNITEDST~.iWtiWl~{.T
FORTHE DISTRIf..:I6~mRYLAND

BALnM°Rfc~7~?JN P 3: 52

SABRINA BOND 1128Hartford Town Drive Abingdale, Maryland 21009

Plaintiff,
vs.
CITY OF BALTIMORE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS; ROBERT MOORE-EL, individually and in his Official capacity as Supervisor of Grounds, LARRY SLADET ARY , individually and in his capacity as Plant Manager; TOM SEWELL, individually and in his capacity as the Maintenance Department Supervisor; RICHARD BANKS, Individually and in his capacity as Plant Manager; and ROY BROWN, individually and in his Capacity as Mechanic Supervisor

CaseNumber:
Judge: AMD0 4 CV2 6 9

Defendants.

COMPLAINT

COMES NOW Plaintiff, SabrinaBondby andthroughtheir counsel,on behalfof herself

andall othersimilarly situatedindividualsandstatesasfollows:

JURISDICTION

1 Thejurisdiction of this courtto hearthesemattersis properlyinvokedby Plaintiff

pursuanto 28 U.S.C.§1331ttogetherwith 42 V.S.C. § 1983t42 V.S.C. § 2000etArticles 24 of

theMarylandDeclarationof Rightstfalseimprisonmenttnegligenthiring andretentio~ and

intentionalinfliction of emotionaldistress. Specifi~y, this is a complaintstatingcausesof

actionunderTitle VII of the Civil RightsAc~ allegingdiscriminatorytreatmentof Plaintiff in

heremploymentwith Defendanton the basisof her gender,which is female.

2. Venueis properbaseduponthe fact thatthe Plaintiff residesandworks in BaltimoreCity. Defendantsareemployeesof the Governmentof the City of Baltimore,andthe conductthat givesriseto theclaimsallegedhereinoccurredon the premisesof a BaltimoreCity

governmentbuilding. PARTIES
3. Plaintiff SabrinaBond is a residentof BaltimoreCity, Maryland,andbeganher

employmentasa carpenterwith the City of Baltimore'sDepartmentpfPublic Works in July of

2000.

4.

At all timesrelevantherein,thePlaintiff's supervisorsa, ctingasagentsfor

DefendantCity of Baltimoregovernment,werestateactorswithin the meaningof 42 V.S.C. §

1983.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS

s.

Within thetime prescribedby law, Plaintiff filed with the EqualEmployment

OpportunityCommissiona complaintof discriminationandretaliationagainstCity of

Baltimore'sDepartmentof Public Worksandits agents.

6. Plaintiff hasexhaustedheradministrativeremedieswith City of Baltimorein that

suchchargesweresubjectto a final decisionby the EqualEmploymentOpportunityCommission

within ninetydaysof the filing of this Complaint.

2

FACTS

7. Plaintiff hasbeenemployedasa CarpenterI with the City of Baltimore's

Departmentof PublicWorks ("DPW"), ~t its PatupscoWaterPlantsinceJune2000,

8.

Shortlyafterbeginningherwork with theDPW, andthroughFebruary2003,

Plaintiff wasdiscriminatedagainston the basisof hergenderin the forln of beingsubjectedto

repeatedinstancesof intentionalsexualharassmenta,swell asbeingforcedto work in an

environmenthat becameincreasinglyhostileasa resultof the sameconduct.

C) Theactsconstitutingthe sexualharassmenat gainstPlaintiff wereperpetratedby

bothPlaintiff's co-workersandsupervisorsa, mongwhom included,but wasnot limited to, her

immediatesupervisorRobertMoore-EI (hereinafterMoore-EI),co-workerNathanMcFadden

(hereinafterMcFadden),co-workerStanleyWatts(hereinafterWatts),co-workerK. Butler

(hereinafterButler), andMechanicShopSupervisorRoy Brown (hereinafterBrown).

10 Beginningin July 2000andcontinuingthroughMarch2003,someof the sexual

harassingstatementsmadeto Plaintiff included,but werenot limited to (Moore-EIand

McFadden).
1 "Can I touchyour hair."
2. "Can I seethose(pointingto plaintiffs chest)."
3. "Can I touch the hair on your chest." 4. "If you were a man I would flip you over and suck your dick." s, "Since you do not want me maybe your mother might." 6. "If we weretogetherI would beatyou up andpull your hair from the back."
11. In addition.someof the sexuallyharassingconductthatwasvisiteduponPlaintiff
included, but was not limited to.

3

1 StandingnearPlaintiff andrubbingthemselveson her. 2. TouchingPlaintiff's hair without permission. 3. Standingin Plaintiff's face,approximately5-8 inches,andtelling herthat she
will be"beatdown.!
4. Pulling downtheir pantsandshakingtheir penisesin front of Plaintiff and
othermaleandfemaleemployees. s. Pulling downtheir pants,while exposingtheir undergarlIlentst,o supposedly
tuck in a shirt.
6. Viewing internetpornographyon thejob andin thepresenceof Plaintiff.
7, Giving Plaintiff a steeldildo asa part of a DepartmentChristmasgift exchangefunction
8. Grabbing,fondling andhuggingothermenasif to imitatewhat theywould do to Plaintiff.
12 On severaloccasionsi,ncludingasearlyasAugust2000,Plaintiff filed no less than 15complaintswith the Managemenot f the Plant,in additionto registeringa numberof complaintsorally with her immediatesupervisorMoore-EI;theDepartmentmanagerT, om Sewelle(hereinafterSewelle);andthePlantManagers,Larry Slattery(hereinafterSlattery)and RichardBanks(hereinafterBanks). Further,in August2000,a formal meetingwasheldat the directionof the Office of Compliance,andwhich includedboth employeesandsenior managementr,egardingPlaintiff's sexualharassmenatllegation.
13. Shortlyafterthe initial incidentsin August2000,Plaintiff enduredphysical, emotionalandpsychologicaldistressfrom the harassingandabusiveconduct. Plaintiff was forcedto retreatto thelockerroomto avoidthe individualswho wereperpetratingtheseacts. In
4

someinstancesP, laintiff would beforcedto remainin the lockerroom for virtually the entire day.
14, DefendantMoor-EI took advantageof his positionasPlaintiff's supervisorby initiating lewd conversationaboutwomenin Plaintiff's presencea; ndallowing employeesto walk aroundin Plaintiff's presencewith their pantsunbuttonandtheir shirtsopen.
IS. DefendantMoore-EIadvisedPlaintiff not to discusswhatwasgoingon in the shop,becausesheneededthe helpof the"guys", especiallyduring Plaintiff's six- month probationaryperiod. Specifically.that if the Defendantsfelt that Plaintiff was'~uble" Plaintiff couldbefired for anyreasonduringthis six-monthperiod.
16. Plaintiff questionedDefendantNeal regardingthe truthfulnessconcerningthe sixmonthprobationaryperiodandDefendantNeal verified the informationandalsoadvised Plaintiff to "chill out."
17. As a result,Plaintiff did not complainasmuc~ but Defendantscontinuedwith the harassments;pecifically,someof the sexuallyharassingconductthatwasvisited uponPlaintiff
included, but was not limited to:
1 DefendantMoore-EI telling Plaintiff that if shewasa man,"I would flip you overandsuckyour dick."
2. Defendant Moore-EI continually attempting to touch Plaintiff's hair. 3, DefendantMoore-EIgrabbingtheassof theotherDefendant'sin Plaintiff's
presence. 4. Defendant McFadden continually asking Plaintiff for sex. 5. Defendantsbettingon who would getPlaintiff in bedfirst
5

6 Making sexistcommentsregardingotherfemaleco-workersin Plaintiff's presence.
7. Making seductivecommentsto Plaintiff regardingtheway Plaintiff dresses. 8. ContinuallypropositioningPlaintiffwith unwantedrequestsfor datesor sex
9. Beingquestionedby DefendantMcFaddenregardingwherethedildo hehad
givenher for Christmaswasandthathehopedthat shehadit at homeon top of thetelevisionwherePlaintiff's mancould seeit. 18. In 2001,it becameincreasinglydifficult for Plaintiff to reportto work. 19, In March 200I, Plaintiff placeda Letterof Harassmenitn themailbox of DefendantsSlattery,Moore-EIandSwelle,detailingan incidentwhereDefendantButler questionedPlaintiff regardingherbreasts.During a meetingto discussthis inciden4they questionedwhetherPlaintiff hadforwardedthe letterto anyoneoutsideof theplant. During this meeting,Plaintiff advisedDefendantsthatthe incidentmadehervery uncomfortablet,o thepoint that shefelt it necessaryto carry a "blade." 21 DefendantJacksonadvisedPlaintiff that shewasoverreacting. Plaintiff requesteda meetingwith DefendantSewellandadvisedhim that DefendantMoore-E}wasnot handlingthe situationandthatDefendantMoore-E}waspart of the problem. DefendantSewellassuredPlaintiff that hewould handlethe situation. 23 Shortlythereafter.Plaintiff wasadvisedthat shecouldnot carrya "blade." 24. By April 2001the situationhadnot improved,sothat Plaintiff stayedin the locker room more and more on a daily basis. During this time, Plaintiff's mother became ill and instead of genuinely inquiring
6

about her health, Defendant Moore-EI advised Plaintiff that when her mother got better, "asks her if shewants a real man since her daughter doesn't. Maybe shewould like a new car and a new lover."
26. Defendant Moore- EI continued attempting to touch Plaintiff's hair and to brush up his chest to Plaintiff's breast.
27. DespitePlaintiff's insistencethat shedid not want to go out with Defendant Brown, DefendantBrown continuouslyaskedPlaintiff if shewantedto go out.
28. During this time, Plaintiff's work areawasoff limits to everyoneexcept Plaintiff's maleco-workers.
29. In JlUle2001,DefendantSterlingquestionedPlaintiff whetherit wasthe 8th. WhenPlaintiff respondedby askingwhy hewasaskingif it wasthe 8th,DefendantSterling respondedthat Plaintiff comeson herperiodon the 8th,
30. In the Fall of2001, Plaintiff walkedinto the shopto retrievea tool and encounteredDefendantsMoore-El,Carlos,andMcFadden.Uponretrievingthetool, Plaintiff turnedto leavethe shopandsawDefendantMoore-Elpull downhis pantsandshakehis penisat her.
In October2001,P1aintifffell andhit herheadwhile on thetower. Uponseeing Plaintiff, DefendantMcFaddencommentedto the otherco-workersthat Plaintiff asdirty because shewasgiving a co-workerhead.
32. In 2002asa resultof the continuedharassmen4uponcompletionof assignments, Plaintiff spentthemajority of thetime insidethe lockerroom andwould only comeout of when Defendantsmadeher comeout.
In November2002,Plaintiff would beplacedunderthe supervisionof Defendant
7

Moore-Elon dayswhenhernewsupervisorwasoff. During thesetimes,DefendantMoore-El continuedthe harassmenotf Plaintiff by rubbingup againstPlaintiff.
34 In December2002,Plaintiff stayedin the lockerroom somuchthat anothercoworker complainedandPlaintiff s supervisormadeher comeout.
In January2003,Plaintiff alongwith her femaleco-workers(JacksonandYoung) wereaboutto stepoff the elevatorwhenthey encounteredDefendantButler standingin front of theelevatordoorwith his pantsdownandno underwearon. At the sametime, therewerealso aboutsix othermaleco-workersstandingthereasif therewasnothingwrong with the situation. No attemptwasmadeby DefendantButler to pull up his pants.
36 Also in January2003,Plaintiff filed a complaintagainstDefendantMoore-EIfor viewing porn on the office computer.
37, In February2003,Plaintiff ultimatelywasforcedto seekmedicalattentiondueto thephysical,emotionalandpsychologicaldistressshesustaineda, ndcontinuesto experienceas a resultof the sexualharassmenatndabusiveactsthat sheenduredthroughouthertenurewith DPW. Plaintiff hassoughtmedicaldiagnosesfrom medicaldoctors,psychologistsandlicensed socialworkersto addressthetraumashesustained.
As a result,Plaintiff hasbeenprescribeda mentalhealthtreatmentplan,which consistsof obtainingregularcounselingsessionsfrom a professionalpsychologist,medicationto easean:xietiesa, ndinstructedto not returnto work until eitherhermentalstability improvesor theconditionsat herwork placeareremedied.Plaintiff hasnot returnedto work sinceFebruary, andcontinuesto seeherpsychologistandtakethe prescribedmedication.
39, ThetreatingphysiciansandprofessionalshasdiagnosedPlaintiff's distressas clearlylinked to the sexualharassmenat ndabusethat shehasenduredon herjob.
8

COUNT I VIOLA nON OF EOUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT. 42 U.S.C.6 1983AND ARTICLE 24 OF THE MARYLAND
DECLARATION OF RIGHTS OF THE MARYLAND CONSTITUTION 40, ThePlaintiff restatesr,ealleges,andincorporatesby referencethe avermentsset forth in paragraphs through39 asif fully setforth herein. 41 All the forgoingconducthereinallegedconstitutesviolationsof theequal protectionclauseof the FourteenthAmendmentof the United StatesConstitutio~ Articles 24 of theMarylandDeclarationof Rights,and42 V.S.C. § 1983. 42. Plaintiff haveno plain, adequateor completeremedyat law to redressthewrongs allegedhereinandthe injunctiverelief soughtin this actionis the only meansof securing completeandadequaterelief Plaintiff arenow sufferingandwill continueto sufferirreparable injury from the Defendants' discriminatoryactsandomissions. 43 Theseactionsandcircumstanceson the partof DPW evidenceandillustratea prevalent,continuousandpervasivepatternof condoningsexualharassmenat gainstthePlaintiff thatamountedto a custom,practiceandpolicy of the DPW, which in turn hascaused,and continuesto cause,plaintiff to sufferhumiliation, embarrassmenmt, entalanguis~painand suffering. 44. Defendant'sactionsresultedin their failure to properlyinvestigateandaddress Plaintiff's allegationsof sexualharassmenta,ndin effectacquiescedto the sexualharassment conduct. Themalfeasanceandnonfeasanceon thepartofPlaintifrs immediatesupervisor,the Departmentsupervisorandtheplantmanageramountedto anacceptedcustom,practiceand policy of the City of Ba1timore'sDPW. ThesupervisorsofDPW not only failed to takeany meaningfulremedialactio~ but wheresomecorrectivemeasuresweretake~ no follow-up actionwastakento ensurethattheharassingconducthadin fact ceased.
9

45 As a result;theactionsandinactionsof the supervisorsw, ho wereactingasagents for the City of Baltimore,amountedto a consciousfailure of the stateactorsto protectPlaintiff from intentionalconduct,andthe abusiveconditioncreatedby her fellow employeesand supervisorsa, nddemonstrateda deliberateindifferenceto Plaintiff's federalandstateprotected rights. In fact, in manyinstancest,he sexualharassmenot ccurredat thedirectionof supervisors andwith their expressconsent.TheDefendantsconductwassoseverethat it resultedin the deprivationof Plaintiff's liberties,therebyrestrictingPlaintiff's movementin theemployment area.
46 Further,in light of the repeatedcomplaintsfiled with the Plant'smanagement, andtheoral reportsgivento the seniormanagementD, PW seniormanagemenwt eresufficiently apprisedandon noticeof theabuseenduredby Plaintiff. As suc~ for thosesexuallyharassing incidentsthat occurredafter suchnoticewasgivendemonstrateas failure by DPW officials to protectthe Plaintifffrom furtherabuse.In this regard,the seniormanagement'sfailureto actis evidenceof a sexuallydiscrimL~atoryandhostilework environmentthatwascondonedat the level of stateagentsactingunderthecolor of law.
41. DefendantDPW did the actshereinallegedintentionallyandwith animproper andevil motiveamountingto maliceandin consciousdisregardof Plaintiff.
COUNT D INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 48 ThePlaintiffs restatesr.ealleges.andincorporatesby referencethe avennentsset forth in paragraphs1through47 asif fully setforth herein. 49. All theforegoingconducthereinallegedconstitutesintentionalinfliction of emotionaldistress. 50 Plaintiff have no plain, adequateor complete remedy at law to redressthe wrongs
10

allegedhereinandthe injunctiverelief soughtin this actionis theonly meansof securing completeandadequaterelief Plaintiffs arenow sufferingandwill continueto sufferirreparable injury from the Defendant'sdiscriminatoryactsandomissions.
Theseactionsandcircwnstanceson thepart ofDPW evidenceandillustrate intentionalor recklessconductthatwasextremeandoutrageousandbeyondall boundsof decencysoasto shockthe conscienceof all reasonablepeople,which wastheproximateand causein fact of plaintiff's severeemotionaldistress,hwniliation, embarrassmenmt, ental anguis~pain andsuffering.
52. DefendantDPW did the actshereinallegedintentionallyandwith an improper
andevil motiveamountingto maliceandin consciousdisregardof Plaintiff. COUNT III
NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION AND RETENTION ThePlaintiffs restatesr,ealleges,andincorporatesby referencethe avermentsset forth in paragraphsI through52 asif fully setforth herein. 54. All the foregoingconductshereinallegedconstitutesnegligentsupervisonand retention.
55. Plaintiff haveno plain, adequateor completeremedyat law to redressthewrongs
allegedhereinandthe injunctiverelief soughtin this actionis the only meansof securing completeandadequaterelief Plaintiffs arenow sufferingandwill continueto sufferirreparable injury from the Defendant'sdiscriminatoryactsandomissions.
56 Theseactionsandcircumstanceson thepartof DPW evidenceandillustratea prevalent,continuousandpervasivepatternof condoningsexualharassmenat gainstthe Plaintiff thatamountedto a custom,practiceandpolicy of the DPW, which in turn hascaused,and
11

continuesto cause,plaintiff to sufferhumiliatioficeombarrassmenmt, entalanguish,pain and

suffering. 57.

Defendant'sactionsresultedin their failure to properlyinvestigateandaddress

Plaintiff's allegationsof sexualharassmenta,ndin effectacquiescedto the sexualharassment

conduct. Themalfeasanceandnonfeasanceon thepartofPlaintifrs immediatesupervisor,the

Departmentsupervisorandtheplantmanageramountedto anacceptedcustom,practiceand

policy of theCity of Baltimore'sDPW. Thesupervisorsof DPW not only failed to takeany

meaningfulremedialaction,but wheresomecorrectivemeasuresweretaken,no follow-up

actionwastakento ensurethatthe harassingconducthadin fact ceased.

58. As a result,theactionsandinactionsof the supervisorsw, ho wereactingasagents

for theCity of Baltimore,amountedto a consciousfailure of the stateactorsto protectPlaintiff

from intentionalconduct,andthe abusiveconditioncreatedby herfellow employeesand

supervisorsa, nddemonstrateda deliberateindifferenceto Plaintiff's federalandstateprotected

rights. In fact, in manyinstancest,he sexualharassmenot ccurredat the directionof supervisors

andwith their expressconsent

59. Further,in light of therepeatedcomplaintsfiled with the Plant'smanagement,

andtheoral reportsgivento the seniormanagementD, PW seniormanagemenwt eresufficiently

apprisedandon noticeof the abuseenduredby Plaintiff. As suc~ for thosesexuallyharassing

incidentsthatoccurredafter suchnoticewasgivendemonstratesa failure by DPW officials to

protectthe Plaintifffrom furtherabuse.In this regard,the seniormanagement'sfailure to actis

evidenceof a sexuallydiscriminatoryandhostilework environmenthatwascondonedat the

level of stateagentsactingunderthe color of law.

60, DefendantDPW did theactshereinallegedintentionallyandwith animproper

12

andevil motiveamountingto maliceandin consciousdisregardof Plaintiff. COUNT IV
(GENDER BASED DISCRIMINATION 42 V.S.C. 6 2000e-2)
61. ThePlaintiffs restatesr,ealleges,andincorporatesby referencetheavennentsset forth in paragraphs1through60 asif fully setforth herein.
62. Plaintiff is a memberof a protectedgroup,which is female,in accordancewith 42
V.S.C. § 2000e. 63. Discri~tion, in the form of harassmen~againstmembersof a protectedgroup
is prohibited by 42 V.S.C. § 2000e-2.
64 All the forgoingconducthereinallegedconstitutesviolationsof 42 V.S.C. § 2000e-3.
65 Theseactionsandcircumstancesevidenceandillustratea prevalen~continuous andpervasivepatternof condoningsexualharassmenat gainstthe Plaintiff thatamountedto a custom,practiceandpolicy of the DPW,which wereun-welcomedby Plaintiff andwasdone with thepurposeandeffectof substantiallyinterferingwith Plaintiff's employment.
66. Theseactionsandcircumstancesevidenceandillustratea prevalent,continuous andpervasivepatternof condoningsexualharassmenatgainstthe Plaintiff thatamountedto a custom.practiceandpolicy of the DPW, which wereun-welcomedby Plaintiff andwasdone with thepurposeandeffectof creatingan intimidating,hostileandoffensivework environment.
67 Defendant'sactionsresultedin their failureto properlyinvestigateandaddress Plaintiff's allegationsof sexualharassmen~andin effectacquiescedto the sexualharassment conduct. Themalfeasanceandnonfeasanceon thepartof Plaintiff's immediatesupervisor,the Departmentsupervisorandtheplant manageramountedto anacceptedcustomcporacticeand
13

policy of the City of Baltimore'sDPW Thesupervisorsof DPW not only failed to takeany meaningfulremedialaction,but wheresomecorrectivemeasuresweretaken,no follow-up actionwastakento ensurethattheharassingconducthadin fact ceased.
68. Suchpracticesconstitutea continuingviolation under42 V.S.C. § 2000e-2. DEMAND FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfullydemandthat this HonorableCourtprovidefor relief as follows:
Compensatorydamageswhich Plaintiff, hassustainedasa resultof the Defendants' illegal discriminatoryconductfor emotionaldistress,hwniliation, embarrassmenmt, ental anguish,painandsufferingin theamountof FifteenMillion Dollars ($15,000,000.00).
2. Punitivedamagesfor its willful andmaliciousviolation of FederalandStateCivil Rightslawsin theamountof FifteenMillion Dollars ($15,000,000.00).
3 A preliminaryandpennanentinjunction againstDefendantCity of Baltimore,its' supervisorsa, gents,employeesr,epresentativeasndall otherpersonsactingin concerton behalf to the City of Baltimore,from engagingin theheretoforementionedunlawful practices,patterns, policies and customs.
4 Declaratoryjudgmentsthatthepracticeshereincomplainedof areunlawful and violate of 42 U .S.C. § 1983,
5 All costincludedherein,includingall reasonableattorneyfees,pluspreandpost judgment interest.
6. Suchotherrelief asthis Honorablecourt deemsjust.
14

rLAINTIFF REQUEST TRIAL BY JURI Resp«tfully submitted,
MARTIN AND JAMES P.C.
~ ~odIfa ~.;.. ~
1717K Street N.W. Suite 600
Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 204-2253
Attorney for Plaintiff
15

 
 U.S. District Court District of Maryland (Baltimore) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:04-cv-00269-PWG

Bond v. City of Baltimore Department of Public Works et al Assigned to: Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm Cause: 42:1981 Sex Discrimination

Date Filed: 01/30/2004 Date Terminated: 10/25/2004 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 442 Civil Rights: Jobs Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff Sabrina Bond

represented by Lolita James Martin Martin and James 1717 K St NW Ste 600 Washington, DC 20036 12022042253 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Intervenor Plaintiff UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

represented by Clare F Geller United States Department of Justice Employment Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20530 12023531817 Fax: 12025141005 Email: clare.geller@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

David J Palmer United States Department of Justice Employment Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20530 12025143831 Fax: 12025141005 Email: david.palmer@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Leslie M Gardner United States Department of Justice Employment Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Ave NW

V. Defendant City of Baltimore Department of Public Works
Defendant Robert Moore-El individually and in his Official capacity as Supervisor of Grounds

Washington, DC 20530 12023073925 Fax: 12025141005 Email: leslie.gardner@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sara Lewenberg Niles US Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Employment Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Ave NW Phb Room 4036 Washington, DC 20530 12025142168 Fax: 12025141005 Email: sara.niles@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William B Fenton United States Department of Justice Employment Litigation Section 950 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20530 12025143168 Fax: 12025141005 Email: william.b.fenton@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gary Gilkey Baltimore City Law Department 100 N Holliday St Baltimore, MD 21202 14103963659 Fax: 14105767203 Email: gary.gilkey@baltimorecity.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ronald M Cherry Cherry and Jenifer PA 7825 York Rd

Defendant Larry Sladetary individually and in his capacity as Plant Manager Defendant Tom Sewell individually and in his capacity as the Maintenance Department Supervisor Defendant Richard Banks individually and in his capacity as Plant Manager
Defendant Roy Brown individually and in his capacity as Mechanic Supervisor Defendant City of Baltimore

Towson, MD 21204 14104944954 Fax: 14104944952 Email: rcherry@cherryjeniferlaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Eric B Myers Aetna Life Insurance Co 980 Jolly Rd U13N Blue Bell, PA 19422 12157756749 Fax: 18609074416 Email: myersE@aetna.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Eric B Myers (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gary Gilkey (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Ki Baltimore City Solicitors Office Department of Law Litigation City Hall 100 N Holliday St Baltimore, MD 21202 14105453438 Fax: 14105471025

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 01/30/2004
02/03/2004 02/03/2004 02/24/2004
02/24/2004
02/24/2004 02/24/2004 02/24/2004 02/25/2004 03/08/2004 03/08/2004 03/10/2004

#

Docket Text

1 COMPLAINT against Richard Banks, Roy Brown, City of Baltimore Department of Public Works, Robert Moore-El, Tom Sewell, Larry Sladetary ( Filing fee $ 150 receipt number 2295397) filed by Sabrina Bond; jury demand (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(ajh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/04/2004)

2 Summons Issued (20 days) as to Richard Banks, Roy Brown, City of Baltimore Department of Public Works, Robert Moore-El, Tom Sewell, Larry Sladetary (ajh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/04/2004)

3 Correspondence re: Warning Letter mailed to counsel (ajh, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 02/04/2004)

4 MOTION to Intervene by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Responses due by 3/12/2004 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order # 2 Memorandum in Support of Motion to Intervene)(Palmer, David) (Entered: 02/24/2004)

5 INTERVENOR COMPLAINT, filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Attachments: # (1) Certificate of Public Importance)(Palmer, David) (FILED IN ERROR) (Entered: 02/24/2004)

6 NOTICE of Appearance by Clare F Geller on behalf of UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Geller, Clare) (Entered: 02/24/2004)

7 NOTICE of Appearance by William B Fenton on behalf of UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Fenton, William) (Entered: 02/24/2004)

8 NOTICE of Appearance by Leslie M Gardner on behalf of UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Gardner, Leslie) (Entered: 02/24/2004)

9 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Geller, Clare) (Entered: 02/25/2004)

10 ORDER granting 4 Motion of USA to Intervene. Signed by Judge Andre M Davis on 3/8/04. (jnl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/08/2004)

11 INTERVENOR COMPLAINT , filed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Attachments: # 1)(jnl, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/08/2004)

12 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 1 Complaint, by City of Baltimore. Responses due by 3/29/2004 (Ki, John) (Entered: 03/10/2004)

03/10/2004 03/10/2004 03/16/2004 03/22/2004
03/22/2004 03/23/2004
03/24/2004 03/25/2004 03/31/2004 03/31/2004 03/31/2004 03/31/2004 03/31/2004

13 NOTICE by City of Baltimore of Service of Motion for Extension (Ki, John) (Entered: 03/10/2004)
14 ORDER granting 12 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. Signed by Judge Andre M Davis on March 10, 2004. (Judge Davis) (Entered: 03/10/2004)
15 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Waiver of Service of Summons and Complaint in Intervention (Geller, Clare) (Entered: 03/16/2004)
16 NOTICE of Appearance by Sara Rachel Lewenberg on behalf of UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (Lewenberg, Sara) Additional attachment(s) added on 3/23/2004 (eg, Deputy Clerk). (Entered: 03/22/2004)
17 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA re 16 Notice of Appearance of Sara Lewenberg (Lewenberg, Sara) (FILED IN ERROR) (Entered: 03/22/2004)
The Link to DOCUMENT #17 has been reset and the docket text has been modified to indicate that it was filed in error. The document has been refiled as an attachment to DOCUMENT #16. (eg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 03/23/2004)
18 NOTICE of Appearance by Gary Gilkey on behalf of City of Baltimore, City of Baltimore Department of Public Works (Gilkey, Gary) (Entered: 03/24/2004)
19 WAIVER OF SERVICE Returned Executed by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. City of Baltimore waiver sent on 03/15/04. (Geller, Clare) (Entered: 03/25/2004)
20 ANSWER to Complaint by Richard Banks, Roy Brown.(Myers, Eric) (Entered: 03/31/2004)
21 ANSWER to Complaint by Robert Moore-El.(Cherry, Ronald) (Entered: 03/31/2004)
22 MOTION to Dismiss by Robert Moore-El. Responses due by 4/19/2004 (Attachments: # 1 # 2)(Cherry, Ronald) (Entered: 03/31/2004)
23 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Richard Banks, Roy Brown of Answer and Affirmative Defenses (Myers, Eric) (Entered: 03/31/2004)
24 MOTION to Dismiss And Memorandum of Law by City of Baltimore, City of Baltimore Department of Public Works. Responses due by 4/19/2004 (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Memorandum of Law# 2 Text of Proposed Order Order# 3 Exhibit Exhibit A to Memo# 4 Exhibit Exhibit B to Memo)(Gilkey, Gary) (Entered: 03/31/2004)

03/31/2004 04/16/2004 04/16/2004 04/17/2004 05/13/2004 05/13/2004 06/24/2004 06/29/2004 07/21/2004 07/23/2004 07/23/2004 09/27/2004 10/01/2004

25 ANSWER to Complaint by City of Baltimore, City of Baltimore Department of Public Works.(Gilkey, Gary) (Entered: 03/31/2004)
26 MOTION for Extension of Time within which to file opposition of defendant's Motion to Dismiss by Sabrina Bond. (eg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/16/2004)
27 Correspondence from Clerk re: "ECF" Warning Letter to counsel. (eg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 04/16/2004)
28 PAPERLESS ORDER granting 26 Motion for Extension of Time. Signed by Judge Andre M Davis on April 17, 2004. (Judge Davis) (Entered: 04/17/2004)
29 MOTION for Extension of Time Response due by 6/14/2004 by Sabrina Bond. Responses due by 6/1/2004 (Martin, Lolita) (Entered: 05/13/2004)
30 PAPERLESS ORDER granting 29 Motion for Extension of Time. Signed by Judge Andre M Davis on May 13, 2004. (Judge Davis) (Entered: 05/13/2004)
31 Joint REQUEST for Extension of Time to File Response to Motion to Dismiss (Cherry, Ronald) (Entered: 06/24/2004)
32 MARGINAL ORDER re 31 Request for Extension of Time to File filed by Robert Moore-El. Response due July 15, 2004. Signed by Judge Andre M Davis on June 29, 2004. (Judge Davis) (Entered: 06/29/2004)
33 Settlement Conference - requesting (Lewenberg, Sara) (Entered: 07/21/2004)
34 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm for Settlement. Signed by Judge Andre M Davis on 7/23/04. (eg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/23/2004)
35 ORDER SCHEDULING Settlement Conference. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 7/23/04. (eg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 07/23/2004)
36 Correspondence re: Request to Participate in Settlement Conference by Telephone (Myers, Eric) (Entered: 09/27/2004)
37 PAPERLESS ORDER re 36 Miscellaneous Correspondence requesting that Mr. Banks be permitted to participate in settlement by telephone is DENIED. This is not acceptable. Local Rule 607.3 requires his attendance unless excused for good cause shown. Your letter fails to establish good cause, why he cannot attend in person. It is conclusory. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 10/1/04.(Grimm, Paul)(jnf) (Entered: 10/01/2004)

10/04/2004 10/05/2004
10/13/2004 10/21/2004 10/22/2004 10/25/2004
10/27/2004 11/08/2004 11/08/2004 11/23/2004 12/03/2004
12/03/2004

38 Correspondence re: Request to Participate in Settlement Conference by Telephone (Myers, Eric) (Entered: 10/04/2004)
39 PAPERLESS ORDER re 38 Miscellaneous Correspondence requesting permission to participate in settlement by telephone, APPROVED, provided Mr. Banks is available by telephone if needed and is fully conversant with the issues in the case. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 10/5/04.(Grimm, Paul)(jnf) (Entered: 10/05/2004)
Settlement Conference held before Judge Paul W. Grimm. (eg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/14/2004)
Settlement Conference held before Judge Paul W. Grimm. Case settled- Please terminate referral. (eg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/22/2004)
Judge Paul W. Grimm no longer assigned to case. (eg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/22/2004)
40 SETTLEMENT ORDER DISMISSING case with each party to bear its own costs otherwise agreed without prejudice to the right of a party to move for good cause to reopen this action if settlement is not consummated. Signed by Judge Andre M Davis on 10/25/04. (eg, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 10/25/2004)
41 Joint MOTION to Reopen Case by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Responses due by 11/15/2004 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Geller, Clare) (Entered: 10/27/2004)
42 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Consent Decree by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Geller, Clare) (Entered: 11/08/2004)
43 NOTICE by UNITED STATES OF AMERICA General Consent to Proceed Before Magistrate Judge (Geller, Clare) (Entered: 11/08/2004)
44 ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm for all proceedings and entry of judgment. Signed by Judge Andre M Davis on 11/23/04. (slf, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 11/23/2004)
45 ORDER DISMISSING case with each party to bear its own costs otherwise agreed without prejudice to the right of a party to move for good cause within 30 days to reopen this action if settlement is not consummated. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 12/3/04. (slf, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/03/2004)
46 CONSENT DECREE ORDER. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 12/3/04. (slf, Deputy Clerk) (Entered: 12/03/2004)