1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

NANCY ROSCHIVAL, CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-10182 

Plaintiff, HON. LAURIE J. MICHELSON

v

MELANY GAVULIC and

HURLEY MEDICAL CENTER,

Defendants.

LAW OFFICE OF GLEN N. LENHOFF

BY: GLEN N. LENHOFF (P32610)

MICHAEL E. FREIFELD (P48198)

328 South Saginaw Street

8th Floor, North Building

Flint, Michigan 48502

(810) 235-5660

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

AND JURY DEMAND

PARTIES AND JURISDICTION

NOW COMES Plaintiff, Nancy Roschival, by and through her attorney, the Law 

Office of Glen N. Lenhoff, and hereby complains of Defendants, Melany Gavulic and

Hurley Medical Center, as follows.

1. Plaintiff, Nancy Roschival (hereinafter Plaintiff), is a resident of the 

County of Genesee, State of Michigan.

2. Defendant, Melany Gavulic (hereinafter "Defendant Gavulic"), is a 

resident of the State of Michigan within the Eastern Judicial District of Michigan. 

3. Defendant Hurley Medical Center (hereinafter Defendant Hurley) is a 

2:15-cv-10182-LJM-EAS Doc # 4 Filed 01/23/15 Pg 1 of 6 Pg ID 9
2

publicly owned hospital which is a component of the City of Flint, Michigan.

4. Defendant Gavulic was the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Hurley 

Medical Center at all times pertinent to this lawsuit. Defendant is being sued in this 

case in her individual capacity.

5. In light of the foregoing, venue is proper in the United States District 

Court for the Eastern District of Michigan under 28 USC §1392(c).

6. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case based on federal 

question jurisdiction codified in 28 USC §1331, as well as 42 USC §1343 because this 

is a 42 USC §1983 case.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

7. Plaintiff is a Caucasian female.

8. In February 1995, Plaintiff became employed full-time with Defendant 

Hurley.

9. In December 2010, Plaintiff was in the position of Human Resources 

Service Center Advisor which was an exempt, classified services position with 

Defendant Hurley.

10. In November 2013, Plaintiff was in the position of Human Resource 

Coordinator I which was also an exempt, classified services position with Defendant

Hurley. Plaintiff remained in this position until her discharge in August 2014.

11. When Plaintiff entered the exempt, classified services positions with 

Defendant Hurley, Defendant Hurley promised Plaintiff that she would not be 

discharged without good cause.

2:15-cv-10182-LJM-EAS Doc # 4 Filed 01/23/15 Pg 2 of 6 Pg ID 10
3

12. Furthermore, Defendant Hurley’s written policies clearly indicate that 

Plaintiff was not an at-will employee, but was instead entitled to good cause job 

security.

13. As an exempt classified services employee, Plaintiff was not an at-will 

employee, but was instead a good cause employee.

14. In November 2013, Plaintiff was in the position of Human Resource 

Coordinator I, which was an exempt classified services position with Defendants. 

Plaintiff remained in this position until her discharge in August 2014.

15. Plaintiff, at all times pertinent hereto, was qualified for said position of 

Human Resource Coordinator I.

16. Plaintiff performed the said position in a diligent and skillful manner.

17. On July 31, 2014, Plaintiff was informed that her position was being 

eliminated by Defendants.

18. With respect to said alleged “lay-off”, Defendants failed to follow the 

policies and procedures concerning lay-offs outlined in Hurley Medical Center Exempt 

Employee Handbook which Defendants were required to follow.

19. According to Defendant Hurley’s Exempt Employee Handbook, which 

Defendant Gavulic was required to abide by and follow, Plaintiff’s African-American coworker, Jamal Dozier, should have been laid-off.

20. Plaintiff was terminated by Defendants on August 14, 2014.

21. A substantial causative factor in Defendants’ decision to discharge 

Plaintiff was Plaintiff’s race.

2:15-cv-10182-LJM-EAS Doc # 4 Filed 01/23/15 Pg 3 of 6 Pg ID 11
4

22. Plaintiff has suffered economic loss and emotional distress damages as a

result of her termination.

COUNT I. 42 USC §1983 CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT GAVULIC

WITH RESPECT TO PLAINTIFF’S TERMINATION

23. Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates by reference the preceding 

paragraphs.

24. Defendant Gavulic acted under color of law with respect to Plaintiff’s 

termination.

25. Defendant Gavulic terminated Plaintiff in substantial part because of 

Plaintiff’s race.

26. Thus, Defendant Gavulic violated Plaintiffs’ rights under the equal 

protection clause of the United States Constitution. 

27. Therefore, Plaintiff asserts a 42 USC §1983 racial discrimination claim 

against Defendant Gavulic.

COUNT II – WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT HURLEY 

BASED ON DEFENDANT HURLEY’S DISCHARGE OF PLAINTIFF WITHOUT GOOD 

CAUSE

28. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and incorporates by reference the preceding 

paragraphs.

29. Under Michigan law, Plaintiff was a good cause employee, rather than an 

at-will employee.

30. In fact, Plaintiff was discharged without good cause. 

31. Thus, Plaintiff hereby asserts a wrongful discharge claim.

2:15-cv-10182-LJM-EAS Doc # 4 Filed 01/23/15 Pg 4 of 6 Pg ID 12
5

COUNT III – WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT HURLEY 

BASED ON DEFENDANT HURLEY’S BREACH OF REPRESENTATIONS 

CONCERNING JOB SECURITY AND LAYOFF

32. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and incorporates by reference the preceding 

paragraphs.

33. Defendant Hurley made representations to Plaintiff regarding job security 

and layoffs.

34. Defendant Hurley failed to adhere to the said representations concerning 

job security and layoffs.

35. Under the Michigan Wrongful Discharge Doctrine, Defendant Hurley was 

obligated to adhere to the representations Defendant Hurley made concerning job 

security and layoffs.

36. Because Defendant Hurley violated its job security and layoff 

representations, Plaintiff hereby asserts a wrongful discharge claim against Defendant

Hurley.

COUNT IV – MICHIGAN ELLIOTT-LARSEN CIVIL RIGHTS ACT MCLA §37.2202 

RACE DISCRIMINATION CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANTS

37. Plaintiff hereby re-alleges and incorporates by reference the preceding 

paragraphs.

38. Plaintiff’s race was a substantial causative factor in Defendants’ decision 

to discharge Plaintiff.

39. Accordingly, Plaintiff hereby asserts an MCLA §37.2202 race 

discrimination discharge claim against Defendants.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for Judgment against Defendants for damages in 

2:15-cv-10182-LJM-EAS Doc # 4 Filed 01/23/15 Pg 5 of 6 Pg ID 13
6

such sum as the Jury deems just, together with costs and interest. The said damages 

should include all damages allowed by law, including compensatory damages, punitive 

damages and attorney fees under 42 USC §1988.

RELIANCE UPON JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff hereby demands a jury under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure.

s/Glen N. Lenhoff s/Michael E. Freifeld 

LAW OFFICE OF GLEN N. LENHOFF LAW OFFICE OF GLEN N. LENHOFF

328 South Saginaw Street, 8-North 328 South Saginaw Street, 8-North

Flint, Michigan 48502 Flint, Michigan 48502

(810) 235-5660 (810) 235-5660

lenhofflaw@usol.com lenhofflaw@usol.com

(P32610) (P48198)

Date: 01/23/2015 Date: 01/23/2015

2:15-cv-10182-LJM-EAS Doc # 4 Filed 01/23/15 Pg 6 of 6 Pg ID 14