UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

______________________________

JUSTINE SHEU and

GABRIELA GUI

No. ___________________

Plaintiffs, 

vs

DETROIT 90/90, a Michigan non-profit corporation, 

BOARD OF DIRECTORS of Detroit 90/90,

A.I. CENTRAL, LLC, a Michigan limited liability company

AXIOS INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Michigan corporation,

AXIOS, INCORPORATED, a Michigan corporation,

BOARD OF DIRECTORS of Axios Incorporated,

PUBLIC SCHOOL ACADEMIES OF DETROIT,

a public corporation and government agency, and, 

BOARD OF EDUCATION of the Public School Academies of

Detroit, a public body.

Jointly and Severally,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

The Plaintiffs sue the defendants for damages, injunctive and other relief as follows: 

PARTIES

1. The plaintiff Justine Sheu is an individual who resides in Wayne County, 

Michigan. 

2. The plaintiff Gabriela Gui is an individual who resides in Wayne County, 

Michigan. 

Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.1 Page 1 of 100
3. The defendant Detroit 90/90 is a non-profit corporation organized under the laws 

of the State of Michigan. The defendant’s principal place of business is in Wayne County, 

Michigan. The defendant is a management company responsible for managing the day to day 

operations of the UPrep Schools: University Prep Academy (elementary, middle and high 

schools) and University Prep Science and Math Academy (elementary, middle and high schools), 

which are public school academies (aka/charter schools) in the school districts operated by the 

Public School Academies of Detroit.

4. The defendant Board of Directors of Detroit 90/90 is comprised of the persons 

appointed or elected according to law who are authorized to manage and direct the affairs of 

Detroit 90/90. The Directors are sued in their official capacities.

5. The defendant A.I. Central, LLC is a corporation organized under the laws of the 

State of Michigan. The defendant’s principal place of business was in Kent County, Michigan. 

But the defendant also conducted business in Wayne County, Michigan. Per a PEO (professional 

employment organization) co-employment arrangement, A.I. Central, LLC was a co-employer,

first with New Urban Learning, and then with Detroit 90/90, of the teachers and other staff at the 

University Prep Academy School District and University Prep Science and Math School District 

during all times relevant to this Complaint. On December 31, 2011, A.I. Central, LLC merged 

with Axios International, Inc. and the surviving entity is Axios International, Inc.

6. Defendant Axios International, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of 

the State of Michigan. The defendant’s principal place of business is in Kent County, Michigan. 

By merger with A.I. Central, LCC, Axios International, Inc. assumed all of the liabilities of A.I. 

Central, LCC.

2

Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.2 Page 2 of 100
7. Axios Incorporated is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of 

Michigan. The defendant’s principal place of business is in Kent County, Michigan. In a 

document presented to Gabriela Gui on June 27, 2014, the title of the management company 

for UPSM is designated as “Detroit 90/90 - Axios, Inc. a Michigan corporation (f/k/a A.I. 

Central, L.L.C.)” To the extent that A.I. Central is now known as “Axios, Inc.” or has 

merged with Axios Incorporated, the plaintiffs also designate Axios Incorporated as a 

defendant which has assumed all of the liabilities of A.I. Central, LCC. [Defendants A.I. 

Central, LLC, Axios International, Inc., Axios Incorporated and “Axios, Inc.” are 

collectively referred within as “Axios.”)

8. The defendant Board of Directors of Axios Incorporated is comprised of the 

persons appointed or elected according to law who are authorized to manage and direct the 

affairs of Axios Incorporated. The Directors are sued in their official capacities.

9. The defendant the Public School Academies of Detroit (“PSAD”) is a public 

school district consisting of several public charter schools in Wayne County, Michigan organized 

under the Revised School Code, MCL § 380.501 et seq. 

10. The defendant School Board of the Public School Academies of Detroit is a 

public body organized under MCL 380.502 whose purpose is to organize and direct the charter 

schools operated by the Public School Academies of Detroit. The School Board members are 

sued in their official capacities.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

11. The plaintiffs make claims under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United 

States alleging deprivation of the right of due process, right of freedom of speech, right of 

3

Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.3 Page 3 of 100
freedom from illegal search and seizures, all under 42 USC § 1983, and, alleging private rights 

of action under 18 USCS § 2707, Federal Stored Wire and Electronic Communications Act, and 

under 18 USCS § 2520, Federal Wire and Electronic Communications Interception Act. 

Therefore, this Court has original subject matter jurisdiction under 28 USC 1331.

12. Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 

Michigan, under 28 USC 1391, because the defendants are subject to this Court’s personal 

jurisdiction and/or reside in this District. Also, a substantial part of the events or omissions 

giving rise to the claim occurred in this District.

13. Plaintiffs’ claims under state law are so related to their claims within original 

jurisdiction of this Court that their state law claims form part of the same case or controversy 

under Article III of the United States Constitution. Therefore, under 28 USCS 1367, this Court 

has supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ state law claims.

COMMON ALLEGATIONS

14. University Prep Science and Math High School (“UPSM”) and University Prep

High School (“UPA”) are two of the charter schools operated by the Public School Academies of 

Detroit. From July 2010 through the middle of school year 2011-2012, New Urban Learning 

was the management company responsible for day to day operations at UPA and at UPSM. A.I. 

Central LLC, a professional employment organization, acted with New Urban Learning as coemployers of the staff at those schools.

15. On October 15, 2009, New Urban Learning/A.I Central LLC (hereafter, “NUL”) 

hired plaintiff Gabriela Gui as the first principal of UPSM. 

16. Before signing an employment agreement, Dr. Gui told both Doug Ross (CEO of 

New Urban Learning) and Margaret Trimer-Hartley (then superintendent of the UPSM school 

4

Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.4 Page 4 of 100
district) that she would not take a position as principal of the new high school if she could not 

carry out the duties of principal for at least 4 years. Dr. Gui believed it would take at least 4 years 

to found a general admittance college prep school in an urban environment plagued by high 

drop-out rates and a history of underachievement. Doug Ross responded that New Urban 

Learning “will do better than the 4 years” and would give her a 5 year contract. All subsequent 

conversations between Dr. Gui and Doug Ross and Margaret Trimer-Hartley referred to a 5-year

contract. 

17. The Employment Agreement promised a term of employment from July 1, 2010 

to June 30, 2015. The Agreement also stated that Dr. Gui’s employment was “at will.” 

Employment Agreement 10/8/09, Ex. 1. Dr. Gui remained principal of UPSM from July 1, 

2010 through June 27, 2014 when she was discharged.

18. Before signing the Employment Agreement, Dr. Gui asked Margaret TrimerHartley why the Agreement stated she was an “at will” employee, when the parties had agreed to 

a 5-year term for her employment. Margaret Trimer-Hartley answered that the “at will” 

language meant nothing and that they had to put that in every employment contract. Based upon 

Trimer-Hartley’s assurance, Dr. Gui left her employment at Detroit Public Schools and became 

principal at UPSM. Ex. 1.

19. NUL was committed to site-based management at UPSM. The Employment 

Agreement provided: “University Prep Science & Math District embraces the North Central 

Regional Educational Laboratory’s definition of site-based management, and agrees to adhere to 

them [sic] for the term of your contract.” The Agreement also provided that Dr. Gui had 

authority to hire the school’s staff and make contractual commitments on behalf of UPSM for the 

2010-2011 school year. Ex. 2, Contract Addendum. In the field of education, site-based 

5

Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.5 Page 5 of 100
management means that people closest to the work, at the school level, have control over: a) 

instructional programs; 2) staffing (hiring and firing); and 3) budgets, including grants.

20. Dr. Gui left her previously employment of 15 years with Detroit Public Schools to 

become principal at UPSM based upon the promise of site-based management and a minimum 5-

year employment term.

21. NUL’s contract with Dr. Gui provided that she be accountable for the following:

• Meeting AYP [annual yearly progress] beginning with the second group of 11th graders to 

take the Michigan Merit Exam (MME) in 2013-14;

• Meeting Performance goals outlined by Grand Valley State University [the “authorizer” 

of the charter schools operated by The Public School Academies of Detroit]—outperform 

host district; outperform peer districts; outperform weighted average performance of all 

districts represented in the school;

• Graduating 90 percent of ninth graders after four years, and sending 90 percent on to 

college;

• Site-based management, including: hiring, evaluating and dismissing staff; managing the 

school’s budget; designing and implementing curriculum and instructional practices.

Contract Addendum, Ex. 2.

22. In the Contract Addendum, NUL agreed to purchase 5 years of service credit in 

the Michigan Public School Employee Retirement System (MPSERS) to compensate Gui for the 

five years of service credit she would lose during the term of her Employment Agreement. 

(Unlike DPS, NUL did not participate in MPSERS.) Ex. 2. 

23. On or about February 11, 2010, through a lump sum payment of $79.000.00 to 

Gui, NUL furnished the funds to purchase the pension service credit promised in the first 

Contract Addendum. In a second Contract Addendum, NUL memorialized the payment and 

stated, “Dr. Gui has a five year contact with UPSM.” There was no “employee at will” 

language in this Contract Addendum. Contract Addendum 2/11/10, Ex. 3. 

6

Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.6 Page 6 of 100
24. This Addendum of 2/11/10 stated that the additional remuneration “is also 

intended to serve as compensation for work leading up to the opening of UPSM High School in 

the fall of 2010.” Id. (Gui had actually performed many hours of work before July 1, 2010, 

when she was to start work per the Employment Agreement.)

25. From October 15, 2009, through March 27, 2012, Dr. Gui operated under the 

initial Employment Agreement and the two Contract Addendums with NUL. Ex. 1, 2, 3.

26. Among other remuneration and benefits, the Employment Agreement provided 

Dr. Gui with an annual salary of $115,000.00 with 3% raises annually for the life of the contract. 

She consistently earned the raises.

27. In the middle of the 2011-2012 school year, Detroit 90/90 replaced New Urban 

Learning as the management company responsible for day to day operations at UPSM and UPA. 

A.I. Central LLC (“Axios”), a professional employment organization, acted with Detroit 90/90 as 

co-employers of the staff at those schools.

28. On March 30, 2012, Detroit 90/90 /A.I Central LLC (hereafter, “Detroit 90/90 and 

Axios”) entered into an Employment Agreement with Dr. Gui as principal of UPSM. 

Employment Agreement 3/28/12, Ex. 4. This Employment Agreement was substantially 

identical to the previous contract, except that it contained a term of employment from July 1, 

2012 through June 30, 2015, and provided an annual salary of $122,450.00 for the 2012-2013 

school year with 3% raises annually for the life of the contract. This employment agreement just 

substituted Detroit 90/90 for New Urban Learning as the management company.

29. The Employment Agreement of 3/28/12 contained the same commitment by the 

employer to site-based management at UPSM as contained in the Employment Agreement of 

10/8/09.

7

Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.7 Page 7 of 100
30. While the other staff at the school had to renew their contracts annually, Dr. Gui 

only renewed her contract when the management company changed from NUL to Detroit 90/90 

and Axios. When Dr. Gui asked why she was receiving a second contract mid-term, Margaret 

Trimer-Hartley’s just stated that the management company had changed, and the contract needed 

to reflect that change.

31. By the end of school year 2012-2013, Dr. Gui and the staff she selected, including 

plaintiff Justine Sheu, had fulfilled all of the goals set by NUL in the initial Employment 

Agreement with Dr. Gui. With a glowing evaluation for the school year 2010-2011, the school 

superintendent rated Dr. Gui “highly effective” as principal, which is the highest rating attainable 

under state standards. There was no evaluation performed for school year 2011-2012. But the 

performance of the staff, under Dr. Gui’s direction, continued to improve as measured by the 

students’ graduation rates, ACT scores, annual evaluations from Excellent Schools Detroit, and 

rates of college admissions.

32. In 2013 and 2014, the data showed that UPSM’s academic results (ACT scores) 

exceed those of all but the magnet schools in Detroit Public Schools, exceeded those of UPA 

(which had been in existence for 11+ years), and exceeded those of several suburban schools. 

The National ACT average for African American students for 2012 was 17.0, and had not been 

higher than that in the previous 5 years. With an average composite ACT score of 17.1 in 2013 

and of 18.5 in 2014, UPSM exceeded the national average. The Excellent Schools of Detroit 

organization graded UPSM with an A+ for School Culture three years in a row. Parents, 

community members, partners, and visitors frequently expressed very positive comments about 

the school’s instructional program, culture, great relationships, and rich opportunities offered to 

students.

8

Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.8 Page 8 of 100
33. The successes of UPSM were the result of a research-based instructional 

framework model implemented with fidelity and of the collective efficacy of a staff selected 

through the most rigorous hiring process Detroit 90/90 and Axios had ever experienced. 

34. In the winter of 2013, Dr. Gui needed a skilled individual to assist students 

(especially juniors) in preparing for the ACT test to be given in the spring of 2013. Dr. Gui hired 

plaintiff Justine Sheu as an independent contractor to serve as the school’s ACT prep instructor. 

Sheu’s main duties were to prepare the students for taking the ACT test. The goals that Dr. Gui 

set for Sheu for 2012-13 were that her instruction, test preparation, and motivational techniques 

yield a substantial increase in the final ACT scores of the students when compared with their 

practice test scores. 

35. By the end of school year 2012-2013, Ms. Sheu had fulfilled the goals set by Dr. 

Gui. Moreover, the parents, students, and staff were thrilled with Ms. Sheu’s performance. She 

facilitated a series of workshops for parents and worked with some school advisors to prepare the 

juniors for college-related events and activities. The students related to her exuberance and 

youthfulness; the parents highly valued the information she provided and were overjoyed that

their children spoke so positively and enthusiastically about Sheu’s classes. The staff of UPSM 

High School warmed up to the passion and breadth of college-knowledge Sheu possessed.

36. In the spring of 2013, anticipating the first senior class at UPSM High School 

during the 2013-2014 school year, Dr. Gui required a College and Career Readiness Advisor. 

The school’s Social Worker and the Advisors were already addressing the students’ traditional 

counseling needs. Therefore, Gui needed someone to: provide ACT Prep to students in grades 

10 and 11; help the seniors with college fairs, scholarships, applications, portfolios, and; work 

with students, parents, and staff to increase their college-knowledge and college readiness. 

9

Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.9 Page 9 of 100
37. With the approval of the then Superintendent, Margaret Trimer-Hartley and the 

Human Resources Department of Detroit 90/90, the position of College and Career Readiness 

Advisor was posted. From the 60 applications received, the UPSM HS Leadership Team 

decided that Ms. Justine Sheu was the best fit for the position. Ms. Sheu accepted the position in 

early summer of 2013, and arrangements were made for her to visit the HR Department for 

completing the hiring process.

38. In the summer of 2013, Mark Ornstein became the new CEO of Detroit 90/90. 

During his welcome reception he announced that he would not honor the commitment to sitebased management at any of the UPA or UPSM schools. He also alluded to unifying the 2 

districts.

39. In the summer of 2013, Ornstein interposed a mid-level bureaucracy of 

supervisors and directors, the “Central Office,” between him and the principals and staff at the 

schools. See chart, Ex. 5. In the summer of 2013, Ornstein began making decisions about 

staffing at the UPSM (taking people away and assigning people to the school without consulting 

the school's leadership team) and began making financial decisions for the school without 

disclosing how the school’s grant money was being spent. In early 2014, Ornstein directed the 

Central Office staff to begin the process of adopting a prescribed curriculum that conflicted 

totally with the approach to teaching of Dr. Gui and her staff.

40. In August 2013, Ornstein revealed his restructuring to the staff at UPSM, 

including the plaintiffs. Ornstein’s restructuring of the administration and negation of site-based 

management became a matter of public concern for the staff and parents at UPSM. As 

Ornstein’s plan unfolded, the staff and parents viewed Ornstein and the officials in the Central 

Office as a dictatorship. The staff and parents complained that: 

10

Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.10 Page 10 of 100
A. Dr. Gui and the school teams could no longer make hiring decisions; the CEO took staff 

persons away from the school against their will even though they were needed and 

funded by the school, and; the CEO assigned staff to the school without giving the school 

administration a chance to interview or meet this staff beforehand;

B. Individuals making important educational decisions (like Ornstein) had no background in 

education; the Central Office made impulsive decisions, sometimes disregarding school 

or district policies and practices but still held the school staff responsible for the 

consequences of those decisions;

C. By creating the Central Office, Ornstein had created an unnecessary level of bureaucrats 

who had to justify their existence by interfering in an educational process of already 

proven efficacy, and;

D. Other complaints.

41. Ornstein’s restructuring particularly impacted Gabriela Gui. Ornstein’s changes 

withdrew from Dr. Gui the ability to conduct site-based management, including: hiring, 

evaluating and dismissing staff; managing the school’s budget, and; implementing curriculum 

and instructional practices. Thus, Ornstein’s changes breached the promise of site-based 

management in Gui’s Employment Agreements. Furthermore, Ornstein’s changes jeopardized 

the successful learning environment that Dr. Gui and her hand-selected staff had created based 

upon a research-based instructional model.

42. Ornstein’s restructuring particularly impacted Justine Sheu. At a meeting with 

Ornstein on August 13, 2013, Sheu learned of the changes to her job. Ornstein appointed Venus 

Crosby as “Director of College Counseling.” Thus, Crosby replaced Dr. Gui as Justine Sheu’s 

supervisor. Crosby and Ornstein limited Sheu’s initiative and creativity in her job. They 

11

Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.11 Page 11 of 100
removed Sheu from her position at UPSM where she had developed the site-specific knowledge 

and deep relationships with students and parents necessary to perform her job, and reassigned her 

to the Central Office staff as a “College Success Advisor.” Moreover, she was assigned to serve 

both UPSM and UPA, thus doubling her case load. As a result of the change, Sheu was unable 

to enact some of the programs that were in place before the restructuring. 

43. Rather than allowing Sheu to use her innovative abilities, Crosby merely 

delegated tasks (mostly lower, ministerial tasks) to Sheu. Crosby stated her management style 

was to “check on people” and keep them in their place. That style did not match the 

collaborative and inclusive approach Gui had used. Both to Crosby and Ornstein, Gui and Sheu 

challenged Ornstein’s restructuring in general and Crosby’s changes in Sheu’s job 

responsibilities.

44. On August 13, 2013, Sheu first met with Venus Crosby. Crosby explained to 

Sheu her truncated job responsibilities. Crosby showed Sheu Crosby’s framework for college 

advising/ACT preparation that she would implement at UPSM HS. Sheu believed that Crosby’s 

framework would implement changes that would be detrimental to the students. Sheu expressed 

to Crosby her doubts about the efficacy of Crosby’s plans. Crosby was displeased with Sheu’s 

criticism. Crosby’s attitude and communications to Sheu made it clear that Crosby did not want 

Sheu’s input, that Sheu should stay in her place.

45. Gui and her Assistant Principal, Grady Jones, Jr., also met with Crosby several 

times in August, when Crosby came to UPSM. During Crosby’s first visit to the high school, 

without a thorough discussion or understanding of the instructional framework and program in 

place at UPSM HS, Venus Crosby dismissed the work of 3 years of UPSM staff, accused them 

12

Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.12 Page 12 of 100
of “taking shortcuts”, imposed her college readiness plan (that both Gui and Jones found 

superficial), and expressed sheer disrespect toward Sheu and her professional abilities.

46. Also in August 2103, Ornstein also removed Vera Smith as Parent Liason at 

UPSM and brought her to the Central Office. Smith’s removal was against Smith’s will, without 

the school leadership’s knowledge or approval, and was strongly disapproved by the school’s 

parent organization.

47. On August 16, 2013, Gui met with her administrative cabinet, Sheu, and the 

school’s senior advisors to discuss the district restructuring and the changes to Sheu’s and 

Smith’s positions. All persons present, including Gui and Sheu, strenuously objected to the 

general structural changes and the changes to Sheu’s and Smith’s positions.

48. On August 17, 2013, Gui emailed a letter to Ornstein criticizing the restructuring 

and the changes to Shue’s position, and, seeking the return of site-based management and the 

return of Sheu to her original position.

49. After Gui’s letter of August 17, 2013, Crosby hired two new college counsellors, 

Penny Wells to work out of UPSM and Carl Yiu to work out of UPA. While they were both 

certified college counsellors, unlike Sheu they had no experience in the job.

50. Parents of UPSM students began to inquire why Justine Sheu and Vera Smith 

were not at the school every day. Gui and Sheu met with parents and explained the changes 

wrought by the restructuring. Gui and Sheu explained how the changes negatively impacted the 

ability of Sheu and Smith to perform their jobs, and explained how the changes negatively

impacted the students. After these meetings, some parents told Sheu that they would contact 

Venus Crosby to address the issues.

13

Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.13 Page 13 of 100
51. In September of 2013, through a series of emails Gui continued to advocate for 

the return of Sheu’s and Smith’s services to the UPSM and expressed concerns about Venus 

Crosby’s capacity, leadership style, and actions. In response, Ornstein called a meeting at the 

Central Office. Ornstein, Crosby, Trimer-Hartley and Gui participated. Ornstein and TrimerHartley dismissed Gui’s concerns, insinuated that Gui had a personality problem, and directed 

Gui to cease voicing her opinions about what she believed about Central Office’s decisions.

52. On October 3, 2013, Ornstein held a meeting with Dr. Gui and her supervisor, 

Danielle Jackson, to discuss Ornstein’s concerns that Gui was not supporting his restructuring of 

the school district. Ornstein insisted that Gui support the restructuring in discussions with her 

school staff and parents. Ornstein memorialized the meeting in a memo dated October 9, 2013.

53. On October 10, 2013, Sheu could not come to work due to the sudden onset of 

illness (due to food poisoning) when she woke up that very morning. The onslaught of her 

symptoms, including nausea, vomiting, and fainting, was sudden and unanticipated. Early that 

morning, Venus Crosby called her and insinuated that Sheu had a hangover. 

54. On October 10, 2013, Crosby issued a written reprimand to Sheu concerning her 

absence entitled “Unacceptable Communication for Absences.” Ms. Crosby criticized Sheu for 

“failure to perform the required functions of your position by not communicating your absence in 

a timely manner, and/or providing adequate resources to reassign tasks.” This criticism was in 

referenced to Ms. Sheu’s absence from an ACT prep session on October 10, 2013.

55. Crosby’s reprimand was a form of retaliation for Sheu’s speech criticizing the 

restructuring of the school district, including Crosby’s redesign of the college advising/ACT 

preparation program.

56. Crosby did not place the reprimand in Sheu’s personnel file.

14

Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.14 Page 14 of 100
57. On or about July 14, 2014, Justine Sheu filed an unfair labor practice charge 

against Detroit 90/90 with the National Labor Relations Board claiming that her suspension and 

discharge was in retaliation for her concerted activities in violation of Section 8 of the National 

Labor Relations Act.

58. On or about September 18, 2014, Detroit 90/90 and Axios placed the reprimand in 

Shue’s personnel file. Detroit 90/90 and Axios placed the reprimand in Sheu’s personnel file as 

retaliation for her filing the unfair labor practice charge and to create further pretext for 

terminating her employment.

59. Ornstein’s restructuring also became a matter of great public concern among the 

parents of students at UPSM. The parent-teacher-student association (PTSA) at UPSM sent a 

letter to all parents alerting them to the structural changes. The PTSA expressed great concern 

that the restructuring was intended to benefit UPA (whose students had consistently performed at 

lower levels than UPSM students) at the expense of UPSM. The PTSA also expressed great 

concern about restructuring an already successful site-based management platform at UPSM.

60. On October 17, 2013, the PTSA and parents of UPSM held a meeting with 

Ornstein, Margaret Trimer-Harley (then Chief External Relations Officer in the Central Office),

and other Detroit 90/90 administrators. Before the meeting, teachers other than Justine Sheu 

passed out flyers to students giving parents of their students notice of the meeting and the 

anticipated topics for discussion: the detrimental changes caused by Ornstein’s restructuring and 

the changes to the positions of Sheu and Smith.

61. At the meeting of the PTSA on October 17, 2014, the parents were highly critical 

of Ornstein and his restructuring. The parents submitted a list of questions to Ornstein indicating 

their dissatisfaction with the restructuring. The parents highlighted the change in Justine Sheu’s 

15

Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.15 Page 15 of 100
and Vera Smith’s job responsibilities as the prime examples of their objections to the 

restructuring. The parents wanted Ornstein to restore Sheu and Smith to their original positions

and allow Dr. Gui to resume site-based management in its entirety. After the meeting, Ornstein 

expressed his belief that Gui was fueling the parents’ dissatisfaction with his restructuring of the 

district.

62. Sometime after the PTSA meeting on October 17, 2013, Justine Sheu met with 

Ornstein, Margaret Trimer-Hartley and Venus Crosby. At this meeting, Ornstein and TrimerHartley expressed that there had been some “growing pains” about the district restructuring. 

They were referring to the complaints from parents and school staff. Trimer-Hartley told Sheu, 

“It would behoove you to stay out of politics.” Ornstein and Trimer-Hartley were under the 

impression that the school staff was working together with the parents to oppose the 

restructuring.

63. At the above meeting with Ornstein, Margaret Trimer-Hartley and Venus Crosby, 

Sheu was told that she would no longer do college advising but only ACT preparation. Ornstein 

wanted ACT scores raised by 2 points from the practice test scores.

64. Sometime after the above meeting with Ornstein, Margaret Trimer-Hartley and 

Venus Crosby, Sheu asked Ornstein for a meeting with just him to discuss her concerns about 

her removal from college counselling. (She believed that removing her from college advising 

would negatively impact the students at UPSM, because Penny Wells, the recently hired college 

counsellor, had no prior experience and needed help from someone experienced with preparing 

students for successful admission to college.)

65. On October 29, 2013, the PTSA and parents met with the school board (defendant 

PSAD), Ornstein and other Detroit 90/90 administrators. The parents expressed the same 

16

Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.16 Page 16 of 100
concerns they had expressed to Ornstein and the administrators on October 17, 2013. The 

parents again highlighted the changes to Justine Sheu’s and Vera Smith’s positions as prime 

examples of the detrimental effects of Ornstein’s restructuring.

66. In early November 2013, Justine Sheu met just with Mark Ornstein. She stated 

her concern that UPA did not have a good program for ACT preparation established. It would 

take some coordination between the UPA staff and Sheu before she could create and implement 

a cohesive program specifically for the UPA students. But she did not have the time to do that. 

Yet, she would be appraised based upon the ACT scores of both UPA and UPSM. She also 

advised Ornstein that the parents of UPSM students had concerns about her removal from 

college advising. Ornstein replied, “Let’s see how it works out and if it doesn’t work out, we can 

revisit it.”

67. On November 8, 2013, Sheu met with Trimer-Hartley, Venus Crosby, Dr. Gui,

and Aisha Scott, the interim UPA principal, to discuss the changes in Sheu’s position. Dr. Gui 

again asked for the return of Justine Sheu to UPSM for full-time ACT preparation and college 

advising. Timer-Hartley stated that this was the last time she would talk about Sheu’s position 

and that she wanted the complaints about Sheu’s position to stop.

68. During numerous instances, after the meetings of the parents with Ornstein and

PSAD and until he discharged her, Ornstein told Gui that she should be “controlling the parents”

and that it was her “fault” that they kept attending board meetings and expressing concerns.

69. In early April 2014, UPSM and UPA received the ACT scores for their students. 

The ACT scores for UPSM improved from 16.6 (practice test) to 18.5 (regular test 2014). The 

scores for UPA improved from 14.0 (practice test) to 16.5 (regular test 2014). Thus, even under 

17

Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.17 Page 17 of 100
the burden of a double case load, including students at UPA with historically lower performance 

levels, Sheu met the goals set by Ornstein.

70. In April or May 2014, Sheu met with the advisors for the junior class at UPSM to 

discuss the restructuring of the district and the changes to her position. The advisors were highly 

critical of the restructuring of the district and the changes to Sheu’s position. The advisors were 

unhappy with Venus Crosby’s directives and her lack of guidance. (Crosby had told Sheu not to 

talk to the junior advisors regarding assignments to students and about creating student 

portfolios.)

71. On May 16, 2014, Sheu delivered a presentation to UPA seniors entitled 

“Transitioning to College.” As part of her advice to the students:

A. She warned against assuming that, just because they did well in high school, they would 

automatically do well in college. She told an anecdote about when she received her first 

“D” grade in college. In a self-deprecating and joking manner, she expressed the 

overconfidence she had exhibited because of her Asian heritage (relying on the legendary 

intellectual prowess of Asian persons), and the shock of receiving the “D” grade.

B. Through a PowerPoint slide titled “Pressure to Engage in Unsafe Behavior”, Sheu

enumerated all the risks associated with drinking alcohol and smoking marijuana at 

college, and the overriding message was not to engage in unsafe behavior. 

Acknowledging that some students would nonetheless drink and smoke, she warned

against the serious dangers of (a) binge drinking, (b) sexual assault, and (c) smoking 

illegal substances. Using an anecdote about an athlete who had smoked a laced blunt and 

suffered long-term brain damage, she warned students never to consume anything they 

had not prepared themselves or had not witnessed being prepared, due to the risk of 

substances being laced.

C. She advised students not to join a fraternity or sorority their freshman year because, in 

addition to an enormous commitment of time and energy, they would likely “be getting 

their asses beat” every night. 

72. On May 19, 2014, Margaret Trimer-Hartley called Gui. Trimer-Hartley warned

that Sheu was being placed on leave pending an investigation. When Gui pressed for details and 

18

Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.18 Page 18 of 100
asked if an alternate solution would be possible, Trimer-Hartley expressed that Sheu was “gone”, 

that it was a “done deal.”

73. On May 19, 2014, Venus Crosby, Margaret Trimer-Hartley (of Detroit 90/90) and 

John Sanford (of Axios) met with Sheu and suspended Sheu from her job “pending 

investigation” claiming that on May 16, 2014, students and others had complained in writing 

that:

A. Her jokes about her Asian heritage were racially insensitive and offensive.

B. Her message to seniors “if you didn’t roll it, don’t smoke it” encouraged students 

to abuse substances.

C. Her use of “asses” was profane and inappropriate.

74. The expressed reasons for Sheu’s suspension were mere pretext. The real reason

the defendants suspended her was, because Sheu had spoken, and the defendants reasonably 

believed that Sheu had spoken, to school staff and parents of students (1) against Ornstein’s 

restructuring of the school district and (2) against the changes in her own position, both matters 

of public concern. 

75. There was no good cause for suspending Sheu.

76. On May 20, 2014, Sheu requested from John Sanford and Emily Bitzarakis 

(Detroit 90/90’s Director of Human Resources) copies of the alleged complaints about her 

presentation, a citation of policies violated, and clarification on the nature of the investigative 

process. She asked for a hearing to present her testimony. There was no response to this 

request. She never received a hearing before her discharge.

77. In fact, there was no investigation into the allegations against Sheu. There was no 

notice of a hearing and no opportunity for Sheu to examine the alleged complaints about her 

presentation and to be heard in her own defense before she was suspended. Sheu received no 

19

Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.19 Page 19 of 100
hearing on disputed issues of fact. The defendants suspended Sheu without good cause and 

without due process.

78. PSAD and its school board showed an interest in the suspension of Justine Sheu. 

Detroit 90/90, through its officers and directors, and Axios, through its officers and directors, 

consulted PSAD and its school board before suspending Sheu and obtained the approval of the 

latter entities before suspending Sheu. 

79. PSAD exercised coercive power over Detroit 90/90 and Axios or provided 

significant encouragement to Detroit 90/90 and Axios, either overt or covert, to suspend Justine 

Sheu so that the choice to suspend her was essentially the decision of PSAD.

80. Alternatively, PSAD and its school board jointly participated with Detroit 90/90 

and Axios, through their officers and directors, in the decision to suspend Justine Sheu’s

employment. There was a pervasive entwinement to the point of largely overlapping identity 

between Detroit 90/90 and Axios (both private entities) and the PSAD, a governmental entity.

81. On May 21, 2014, Sheu sent an email message to UPSM staff, parents, and 

students explaining the circumstances of her suspension. Sheu appealed for letters of support to 

Detroit 90/90 and Axios testifying to her professional character.

82. On May 21, 2014, and thereafter, numerous staff members, parents, and students

sent many letters of support lauding Sheu’s abilities and imploring Detroit 90/90 and Axios to 

retain Sheu in her employment.

83. On May 21, 2014, John Sanford of Axios and Emily Bitzarakis of Detroit 90/90 

sent a letter entitled “Notice of Investigation Resolution” to Justine Sheu. The letter terminated 

her employment. The letter claimed that the reason for her discharge was her presentation to 

students on May 16, 2014, her email to students of April 29, 2014, and her appeal to staff, 

20

Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.20 Page 20 of 100
parents, and students for support for her to retain her job: “[Y]our recent email outreach to 

students, parents, and others since Monday, including a file attachment named ‘Circumstances of 

Suspension’ ...shows a lack of judgment, professionalism and maturity.” Id., p. 2.

84. The defendants did not really terminate Sheu for her presentation to students on 

May 16, 2014, or her email to students of April 29, 2014. Those expressed reasons were mere 

pretext. The real reasons the defendants terminated her were, because:

(A) Sheu had spoken, and the defendants reasonably believed Sheu had spoken, to 

school staff and parents of students (1) against Ornstein’s restructuring of the school 

district and (2) against the changes in her own position, both matters of public concern, 

and; 

(B) Sheu had sought support to keep her job, a matter upon which staff, parents, and 

student had all expressed public concern. 

85. There was no investigation into the allegations against Sheu. There was no notice 

of a hearing and no opportunity for Sheu to examine the alleged complaints about her 

presentation and no opportunity for Sheu to be heard in her own defense before she was 

terminated. Sheu received no hearing on disputed issues of fact. The defendants terminated 

Sheu without good cause and without due process.

86. PSAD and its school board showed an interest in the termination from 

employment of Justine Sheu. Detroit 90/90 and Axios, through their officers and directors,

consulted PSAD and its school board before terminating Sheu and obtained the approval of the 

latter entities before terminating Sheu. 

21

Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.21 Page 21 of 100
87. PSAD exercised coercive power over Detroit 90/90 and Axios or provided 

significant encouragement to Detroit 90/90 and Axios, either overt or covert, to terminate Justine 

Sheu so that the choice to suspend her was essentially the decision of PSAD.

88. Alternatively, PSAD and its school board jointly participated with Detroit 90/90 

and Axios, through their officers and directors, in deciding to terminate Justine Sheu’s 

employment. There was a pervasive entwinement to the point of largely overlapping identity

between Detroit 90/90 and Axios, both private entities, and the PSAD, a governmental entity.

89. On May 21, 2014, Gui asked Ornstein what process was used to determine to 

discharge Sheu. Gui pointed out that, when students are accused of violating the Code of 

Conduct, the administration conducts a thorough factual investigation and a due process hearing 

before issuing of a recommendation to expel. Ornstein responded that “all that was done in 

Sheu’s case”, but did not offer any details. 

90. In response to another inquiry from Gui, John Sanford stated that, before 

determining consequences, it was unnecessary to talk to UPSM HS students, staff, and parents 

about their experiences with Sheu. Sanford also denied Gui the ability to review the alleged 

evidence against Sheu.

91. On May 21, 2014, Gui asked Ornstein whether she would have a job as principal 

of UPSM in the fall. Ornstein promised that she would retain her job, unless she chose to decline 

it.

92. On May 21, 2014, Ornstein asked Dr. Gui to introduce John Sanford of Axios and 

Emily Bitzarakis of Detroit 90/90 to the staff at meeting the next day to address the staff protest 

against Sheu’s discharge. Ornstein wanted Gui to show the staff that she supported the process 

and the decision to discharge Justine Sheu. Dr. Gui did not want to attend the meeting, because 

22

Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.22 Page 22 of 100
Ornstein had not answered her questions about what process was used, and, therefore, she could 

not approve the alleged process. She also did not want to be disingenuous with her staff, with 

whom she had built relationships of trust. Therefore, Gui told Ornstein and Emily Bitzarakis that 

she had a doctor’s appointment the next morning and would not be able to attend the meeting. 

(Although an appointment was not previously scheduled, Gui did see her family doctor the next 

morning for real, pre-existing health concerns). 

93. On the morning of May 22, 2014, Detroit 90/90 and Axios held a meeting with 

the staff of UPSM in order to silence the dissenting voices of the staff and parents who were 

extremely upset with the defendants’ suspension and termination of Justine Sheu. The parents 

and staff members were inundating the defendants with emails, letters, and telephone calls 

expressing their dismay. The meeting did not go well for the defendants. The staff was adamant 

in supporting Sheu. The staff questioned the process used to terminate Sheu. But Sanford and 

Bitzarakis were not able to address the staff’s concerns.

94. After the meeting on May 22, 2014, Ornstein was upset with Gui for not 

supporting the Central Office at the staff meeting. He planned to schedule another staff meeting 

for Gui to show her support for Sheu’s discharge. Gui again asked Ornstein to explain the 

process used to decide to terminate Sheu. After talking with John Sanford, Ornstein said the 

second meeting would not be necessary. But Ornstein stated to Gui, “You are the leader of the 

school. You need to communicate to staff. You should express that for Justine to be terminated 

there was a severe enough of an issue.”

95. Vera Smith had been in charge of the Parental Involvement Plan at UPSM but 

Ornstein removed her to the Central office in fall 2013. The PTSA had protested the removal of 

Vera Smith to the Central Office. Subsequently, the defendants allowed Smith to return to her 

23

Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.23 Page 23 of 100
post at UPSM. But following the discharge of Justine Sheu, the defendants also discharged Vera 

Smith from her employment as coordinator of parent relations at UPSM. The discharge of Vera 

Smith was without good cause. She was discharged in retaliation for her resistance to the 

restructuring of the school district by Ornstein.

96. On May 19, 2014, Detroit 90/90 and Axios confiscated from Sheu the laptop 

computer assigned to her while she was an employee at UPSM. 

97. On May 23, 2014, Director of IT Nicole Cummings, held a team meeting of the

IT staff. Cummings had possession of the laptop retrieved from Sheu. Cummings stated to the 

IT staff that she had found on Sheu’s laptop computer a document listing Sheu’s passwords to 

her online bank account and to her personal email account on the Gmail server, which is a 

separate server from the server for the Detroit 90/90 and Axios email system. 

98. At the meeting on May 23, 2014, Cummings stated that she had found on Sheu’s 

laptop photographs of Sheu in lingerie and had showed the photographs to her husband. 

99. At the meeting on May 23, 2014, Cummings then showed the same photographs 

of Sheu in lingerie to the others at the IT meeting. 

100. Ornstein’s personal assistant, Breanna Watson, then came into the meeting of the 

IT staff. Cummings indicated her intent to inspect the email messages in Sheu’s personal email 

account with Gmail. Despite the warning of Paris Cooks, an IT staff member, that intrusion into 

Sheu’s personal email account was illegal, Cummings opened up the account. Then, Breanna 

Watson encouraged Cummings to search the messages in Sheu’s personal email account for any 

messages from Dr. Gui or Grady Jones to Sheu. When Cummings stated she had found such 

messages, Watson instructed her to read them. Cummings then read aloud various messages in 

which Gui and Jones (1) had advised Sheu regarding her appeal to staff for support after her 

24

Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.24 Page 24 of 100
suspension and (2) had suggested possible responses to accusations Sheu had received from

Venus Crosby and Margaret Trimer-Hartley throughout the year. At the conclusion of 

Cummings’ reading, Breanna Watson (Ornstein’s personal assistant) exclaimed, “That’s what 

they are looking for.” Cummings printed out the messages and gave them to Watson.

101. Gui and Jones sent the email messages described above to Sheu using their 

personal email accounts, not the accounts provided by Detroit 90/90 and Axios. 

102. Cummings and Watson intentionally and without authorization accessed and 

intruded into Sheu’s private email account upon directions from Ornstein. As agents of the 

defendants Detroit 90/90, Axios, and PSAD, Cummings and Watson executed such intrusions in 

the course of their employment and within the scope of their employment with the defendants.

103. Justine Sheu did not authorize the defendants or their agents to use her personal 

email password to log into her personal Gmail account or to view her personal email messages or 

to disclose the contents of messages.

104. Justine Sheu did not waive her right to privacy or confidentiality with regard to 

messages in her personal Gmail account.

105. Gabriela Gui did not authorize the defendants or their agents to view the contents 

of her personal email messages to Justine Sheu stored within Sheu’s email account with Gmail.

106. Gabriela Gui did not waive her right to privacy or confidentiality with regard to 

personal email messages to Justine Sheu stored within Sheu’s email account with Gmail.

107. At the time that Cummings and Watson were directed to access Sheu’s private 

email messages and at the time they did access those messages, the defendants possessed no 

specific information about activity on Sheu’s personal internet account regarding 

communications with Gui or Jones concerning Sheu’s suspension or termination.

25

Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.25 Page 25 of 100
108. At the time that Cummings and Watson were directed to access Sheu’s private 

email messages and at the time they did access those messages, the defendants had no probable 

cause to believe that Sheu, Gui, and Jones had used their personal email accounts to 

communicate with each other concerning Sheu’s suspension or termination.

109. At the time that Cummings and Watson were directed to access Sheu’s private 

email messages and at the time they did access those messages, both Sheu and Gui had a 

reasonable expectation of privacy in their private email communications with each other, using 

their personal email accounts. 

110. Two weeks after the IT team meeting, Cummings told Paris Cooks that the 

Central Office did not trust him, because he had warned her that to access Sheu’s personal email 

was illegal. Cummings urged Cooks to reassure the Central Office that he would not reveal the 

exposition of Sheu’s personal email messages. Cooks refused to do that.

111. In early June 2014, the PTSA presented a set of written question to the defendants 

asking why they had terminated Justine Sheu and Vera Smith and asking who would perform 

their tasks. The PTSA also wanted information on the budget for Title I expenditures, because it 

would reveal whether the defendants planned to increase class sizes the next year. The 

defendants did not provide the information regarding Title I expenditures until July 2014.

112. On June 4, 2014, the UPSM staff held a meeting. It was a “Chalk Talk” regarding 

the staff’s strenuous objections to Ornstein’s restructuring, the dictatorship of the Central Office, 

Sheu’s discharge, the lack of due process involved, the need to form a union, and other issues. 

The Chalk Talk was followed by a staff survey on the issues discussed.

113. Following Sheu’s discharge, the PTSA and students at UPSM held petition drives 

and obtained hundreds of signatures in protest against her discharge.

26

Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.26 Page 26 of 100
114. On June 24, 2014, the PSAD board held a board meeting. After the meeting, Ed 

Parks, the chairman of the board, told three parents of children at UPSM, “I have an email from 

someone high upon in UPSM. It amounts to fucking insubordination. We are going to do 

something to handle this. You may not like the results.” Parks was referring to the email 

messages between Gui and Sheu, illegally intercepted, disclosed, and used by the defendants.

115. On June 27, 2014, the defendants discharged Gui, Jones, and Cooks from their 

employment at UPSM without good cause and without due process. Ornstein, Sanford, and 

Danielle Jackson personally discharged Gui. Ornstein stated the discharge “is not necessarily 

about performance; it’s that we are going in a different direction...The board feels it’s necessary 

to go in a different direction.” Gui asked Ornstein for the specific reasons he was discharging 

her and to describe the “different direction” in which he and the PSAD Board was taking the 

school. Ornstein refused to answer her questions.

116. The discharge of Dr. Gui was without good cause. Gui had fulfilled and exceed 

all goals set by her Employment Agreement. She was an outstanding principal valued and 

respected by the staff, parents, and students. She graduated 95% of the student at UPSM on time 

(within 4 years.) One hundred percent of the graduating students were accepted by colleges and 

universities. Those graduates generated $1.5 million in scholarships.

117. The defendants actually terminated Dr. Gui because:

(A) Dr. Gui had spoken, and the defendants believed Gui had spoken, to school staff and 

parents of students about the following matters of public concern-- (1) against 

Ornstein’s restructuring of the school district and nullification of site-based 

management (2) against the changes in the position of Justine Sheu and Vera Smith, 

and, (3) against the discharge of Justine Sheu and Vera Smith;

(B) Dr. Gui had refused to “control the parents” and suppress their right to protest 

Ornstein’s restructuring and his discharge of Sheu and Smith;

27

Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.27 Page 27 of 100
(C) Dr. Gui had supported the right of Justine Sheu to due process as a prerequisite 

before her suspension and termination;

(D) Dr. Gui had refused to aid and abet the defendants’ illegal discharge of Sheu by 

showing support for that discharge at the staff meeting on May 22, 2014.

118. There was no notice of a hearing and no opportunity for Dr. Gui to be heard in her 

own defense before she was terminated. Dr. Gui received no statement of reasons why she was 

discharged and no hearing on disputed issues of fact. The defendants terminated Dr. Gui without 

good cause and without due process.

119. PSAD and its school board showed an interest in the termination from 

employment of Gabriela Gui. Detroit 90/90 and Axios, through their officers and directors, 

consulted PSAD and its school board before terminating Gui and obtained the approval of the 

latter entities before terminating Gui. 

120. PSAD exercised coercive power over Detroit 90/90 and Axios or provided 

significant encouragement to Detroit 90/90 and Axios, either overt or covert, to terminate 

Gabriela Gui so that the choice to discharge her was essentially the decision of PSAD.

121. Alternatively, PSAD and its school board jointly participated with Detroit 90/90 

and Axios, through their officers and directors, in deciding to terminate Gabriela Gui’s 

employment. There was a pervasive entwinement to the point of largely overlapping identity 

between Detroit 90/90 and Axios, both private entities, and the PSAD, a governmental entity. 

122. After the discharge of Gabriela Gui, the defendants terminated the employment of 

all the remaining members of the administrative cabinet who served with Dr. Gui at UPSM. The 

defendants instituted these discharges all without cause in an effort to purge the school of any 

administrators who might be loyal to Dr. Gui or Ms. Sheu, or, who might oppose Ornstein’s 

restructuring. The defendants acted with the intent to silence any remaining dissent in opposition 

28

Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.28 Page 28 of 100
to Ornstein’s restructuring. While the defendants terminated the administrators, the intent of the 

defendants was to also send a message to the teachers that termination of employment would 

result from any further expressions of dissent. The defendants also terminated the employment 

of Paris Cooks, because he had objected to the intrusion into Ms. Sheu’s private email account 

and because he also opposed the restructuring.

COUNT I - 42 USC SECTION 1983

DEPRIVATION OF JUSTINE SHEU’S RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH

UNDER THE 1st AMENDMENTSHEU AS TO ALL DEFENDANTS

123. The plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 122 above.

124. The plaintiffs have the right to freedom of speech under the 1st and 14th

Amendments to the United States Constitution.

125. In the matters of the suspension and termination of Justine Sheu’s employment, 

the defendants acted under color of law and there was state action sufficient to afford Sheu the 

protections of the 1st Amendment for the following reasons:

A. PSAD and its school board, governmental entities, showed an interest in the 

suspension and termination from employment of Justine Sheu. Detroit 90/90 and 

Axios, through its officers and directors, consulted PSAD and its school board 

before terminating Sheu and obtained the approval of the latter entities before

suspending and terminating Sheu. 

B. PSAD exercised coercive power over Detroit 90/90 and Axios or provided 

significant encouragement to Detroit 90/90 and Axios, either overt or covert, to 

suspend and terminate Justine Sheu that the choice to suspend and terminate her 

was essentially the decision of PSAD.

C. Alternatively, PSAD and its school board jointly participated with Detroit 90/90 

and Axios, through its officers and directors, in the decision to suspend and 

terminate Justine Sheu’s employment. There was a pervasive entwinement to the 

point of largely overlapping identity between Detroit 90/90 and Axios (both 

private entities) and the PSAD, a governmental entity. 

126. Defendants suspended and terminated Justine Shue from employment, because 

29

Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.29 Page 29 of 100
(A) Sheu had spoken, and the defendants reasonably believed Sheu had spoken, to 

members of the Central Office, to school staff and parents of students (1) against 

Ornstein’s restructuring of the school district and (2) against the changes in her 

own position, both matters of public concern, and; 

B) Sheu had sought support to keep her job, a matter upon which staff, parents, and 

students had all expressed public concern.

127. The 1st Amendment protects a citizen’s right to criticize public officials and to 

seek redress of grievances against the government. The plaintiff’s speech criticizing the 

structuring of the school district, the changes to her position, and her suspension from 

employment were matters of public concern and, thus, were protected by the 1st Amendment.

128. The defendants violated the plaintiff’s 1st Amendment rights by taking adverse 

employment action against her.

129. These unconstitutional deprivations of plaintiff’s liberty interests implement or 

execute a policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision officially adopted and promulgated 

by PSAD. Alternatively, the constitutional deprivations resulted from the custom or decision of 

PSAD Board officials even though such custom did not receive formal approval through the 

Board's official decisionmaking channels. Thus, PSAD together with Detroit 90/90 and Axios

are liable jointly and severally under 42 USC Sections 1983 and 1988.

130. Under 42 USC Sections 1983 and 1988, the defendants’ unconstitutional acts are 

the proximate cause of plaintiff’s damages, including, but not limited to: loss of salary and 

fringe, emotional distress, exemplary damages, expenses associated with seeking other 

employment, loss of earning capacity and ability to work, and the plaintiff will suffer these 

losses in the future. The plaintiff is also entitled to attorney’s fees and costs.

131. In depriving the plaintiff of her freedom of speech, all of the defendants acted 

with evil motive and intent. Their motive was to remove the plaintiff from her employment so 

30

Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.30 Page 30 of 100
that they could silence the dissent against the district restructuring. Therefore, the defendants are 

not entitled to qualified immunity and the plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages.

PLAINTIFF REQUESTS that this court enter judgment against Defendants in whatever 

sum to which she is deemed entitled, together with costs, interest, and attorney fees.

COUNT II - 42 USC SECTION 1983

DEPRIVATION OF GABRIELA GUI’S RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH 

UNDER THE 1st AMENDMENTGUI AS TO ALL DEFENDANTS

132. The plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 131 above.

133. The plaintiff Gabriela Gui has the right to freedom of speech under the 1st and 14th

Amendments to the United States Constitution.

134. In the matters of the termination of Gabriela Gui’s employment, the defendants 

acted under color of law and there was state action sufficient to afford Gui the protections of the 

1st Amendment for the following reasons:

A. PSAD and its school board, governmental entities, showed an interest in the 

termination from employment of Gabriela Gui. Detroit 90/90 and Axios, through 

their officers and directors, consulted PSAD and its school board before 

terminating Gui and obtained the approval of the latter entities before terminating 

Sheu. 

B. PSAD exercised coercive power over Detroit 90/90 and Axios or provided 

significant encouragement to Detroit 90/90 and Axios, either overt or covert, to

terminate Gabriela Gui that the choice to terminate her was essentially the 

decision of PSAD.

C. Alternatively, PSAD and its school board jointly participated with Detroit 90/90 

and Axios, through their officers and directors, in the decision to terminate 

Gabriela Gui’s employment. There was a pervasive entwinement to the point of 

largely overlapping identity between Detroit 90/90 and Axios (both private 

entities) and the PSAD, a governmental entity. 

135. Defendants s terminated Gabriela Gui from employment, because:

A. Dr. Gui had spoken, and the defendants believed Gui had spoken, to school staff 

and parents of students about the following matters of public concern-- (1) against 

Ornstein’s restructuring of the school district and nullification of site-based 

31

Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.31 Page 31 of 100
management (2) against the changes in the position of Justine Shue and Vera 

Smith, (3) against the suspension and discharge of Justine Sheu and the discharge 

of Vera Smith;

B. Dr. Gui had refused to “control the parents” and suppress their right to protest 

Ornstein’s restructuring and his discharge of Sheu and Smith;

C. Dr. Gui had supported the right of Justine Sheu to due process as a prerequisite 

before her suspension and termination;

D. Dr. Gui had refused to aid and abet the defendants’ illegal discharge of Sheu by 

showing support for that discharge at the staff meeting on May 22, 2014.

136. The 1st Amendment protects a citizen’s right to criticize public officials and to 

seek redress of grievances against the government. The plaintiff’s speech criticizing the 

structuring of the school district, the changes to employees’ positions, and terminations of 

employees from employment were matters of public concern and, thus, were protected by the 1st

Amendment.

137. The defendants violated the plaintiff’s 1st Amendment rights by taking adverse 

employment action against her.

138. These unconstitutional deprivations of plaintiff’s liberty interests implement or 

execute a policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision officially adopted and promulgated 

by PSAD. Alternatively, the constitutional deprivations resulted from the custom or decision of 

the PSAD Board officials even though such custom did not receive formal approval through the 

Board's official decisionmaking channels. Thus, PSAD together with Detroit 90/90 and Axios,

are liable jointly and severally under 42 USC Sections 1983 and 1988.

139. Under 42 USC Sections 1983 and 1988, the defendants’ unconstitutional acts are 

the proximate cause of plaintiff’s damages, including, but not limited to: loss of salary and 

fringe, emotional distress, exemplary damages, expenses associated with seeking other 

32

Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.32 Page 32 of 100
employment, loss of earning capacity and ability to work, and the plaintiff will suffer these 

losses in the future. The plaintiff is also entitled to attorney’s fees and costs.

140. In depriving the plaintiff of her freedom of speech, all of the defendants acted 

with evil motive and intent. Their motive was to remove the plaintiff from her employment so 

that they could silence the dissent against the district restructuring and the termination of 

employees. Therefore, the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity and the plaintiff is 

entitled to punitive damages.

PLAINTIFF REQUESTS that this court enter judgment against Defendants in whatever 

sum to which she is deemed entitled, together with costs, interest, and attorney fees.

COUNT III - 42 USC SECTION 1983

DEPRIVATION OF PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESSGABRIEL GUI AS TO ALL DEFENDANTS

141. The plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 140 above.

142. Through her Employment Agreement of 10/8/09 with Detroit 90/90 and Axios, 

Gabriela Gui has a property interest in her employment as principal of UPSM from July 1, 2010

through June 30, 2015, the term in that contract. The fixed term of employment in the 

Agreement negated the “employee at will” language. Ex. 1.

143. Before Gui left her prior position at DPS, she explained that she required at least a 

4-year contract with New Urban Learning. New Urban Learning’s CEO promised her a 5-year 

contract.

144. Before Gui signed the Employment Agreement, Margaret Trimer-Hartley 

explained that the “employee at will” language meant nothing and that they had to put that in 

every employment contract. 

33

Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.33 Page 33 of 100
145. In a Contract Addendum dated October 15, 2009, NUL agreed to purchase 5 years 

of service credit in the Michigan Public School Employee Retirement System (MPSERS) to

compensate Gui for the five years of service credit she would lose during the term of her 

Employment Agreement. Ex. 2. This Addendum confirmed the employer’s commitment to a 5-

year fixed term of employment. 

146. On or about February 11, 2010, through a lump sum payment of $79.000.00 to 

Gui, NUL furnished the benefit promised in the first Contract Addendum. In that document, 

NUL memorialized the payment and stated, “Dr. Gui has a five year contact with UPSM.” 

There was no “employee at will” language in this Contract Addendum. Ex. 3. 

147. This Addendum of 2/11/10 stated that the additional remuneration “is also 

intended to serve as compensation for work leading up to the opening of UPSM High School in 

the fall of 2010.” Id. (Gui had actually performed many hours of work before July 1, 2010, 

when she was to start work per the Employment Agreement.) Thus, even if Gui’s initial 

Employment Agreement had not been for a fixed term, the second Contract Addendum 

promising “Dr. Gui has a five year contact with UPSM”, and supported by additional 

consideration, would have amended the initial contract to create a fixed-term contract with a 

guarantee of discharge only for cause.

148. In the Employment Agreement of 3/28/12, Detroit 90/90 and Axios affirmed the 

commitment to a five-year term of employment. The fixed term of employment in the 

Agreement negated the “employee at will” language. Ex. 4.

149. Alternatively, the Employment Agreement of 3/28/12 had no effect on the terms 

of Gui’s employment which the initial Employment Agreement, and its modification by the 

subsequent two Addendums, still controlled for the following reasons:

34

Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.34 Page 34 of 100
A. The initial Employment Agreement and Addendums were with New Urban Learning/A.I. 

Central LLC as co-employers. The second Employment Agreement was with Detroit 

90/90/A.I. Central LLC as co-employers. One-half of the co-employer unit remained 

constant. 

B. The successor employer was the predecessor employer’s successor in fact. 

C. A majority of the successor’s employees were employed by the predecessor employer. 

D. The successor employer remained in the same business, with the same location in the 

same school district, producing the same service, with the same curriculum. 

E. There was no additional consideration to support the Employment Agreement of 3/28/12. 

Therefore, for all of the latter reasons, the successor employer was bound to the terms of the 

existing contract between Gui and New Urban Learning/A.I. Central LLC last modified by the 

Contract Addendum of 2/11/10.

150. On May 21, 2014, Gui asked Ornstein whether she would have a job as principal 

of UPSM in the fall (the final year of her five-year term). Ornstein promised that she would 

retain her job, unless she chose to decline it.

151. All of the above circumstances created an implied contract of just-cause 

employment and instilled in Gui a legitimate expectation of just-cause employment. Thus, 

plaintiff has a property interest in continued employment through June 30, 2015. She has a 

legitimate claim of entitlement to unpaid past and future salary and fringe benefits from the 

defendants through June 30, 2015.

152. After her discharge, Gui made a demand for payment of her salary, her opt-out 

payment for health insurance benefits, and the employer’s contribution to her 401K account for 

the 52 weeks of the 2014-15 school year. Detroit 90/90 and Axios refused Gui’s demand.

153. All of the defendants acted under color of law and engaged in state action for the 

following reasons:

35

Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.35 Page 35 of 100
A. PSAD and its school board, governmental entities, showed an interest in the 

termination from employment of Gabriela Gui. Detroit 90/90 and Axios, through 

their officers and directors, consulted PSAD and its school board before 

terminating Gui and obtained the approval of the latter entities before terminating 

Sheu. 

B. PSAD exercised coercive power over Detroit 90/90 and Axios or provided 

significant encouragement to Detroit 90/90 and Axios, either overt or covert, to 

terminate Gabriela Gui that the choice to terminate her was essentially the 

decision of PSAD.

C. Alternatively, PSAD and its school board jointly participated with Detroit 90/90 

and Axios, through their officers and directors, in the decision to terminate 

Gabriela Gui’s employment. There was a pervasive entwinement to the point of 

largely overlapping identity between Detroit 90/90 and Axios (both private 

entities) and the PSAD, a governmental entity. 

154. By failing to pay the plaintiff the compensation to which she is entitled, without 

good cause, all of the defendants, in conspiracy with each other, have deprived the plaintiff of 

property without due process of law under color of law in violation of the 5th and 14th 

Amendments to the United States Constitution.

155. By discharging Dr. Gui without notice of a hearing, without an opportunity to be 

heard, and without a statement of reasons why she was discharged, all of the defendants, in 

conspiracy with each other, have deprived the plaintiff of property without due process of law 

under color of law in violation of the 5th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution.

156. These unconstitutional deprivations of plaintiff’s liberty interests implemented or 

executed a policy statement, ordinance, regulation, or decision officially adopted and 

promulgated by the PSAD and its school Board. Alternatively, the constitutional deprivations 

resulted from the "custom" of Board officials even though such custom did not receive formal 

approval through the Board's official decisionmaking channels. Thus, PSAD, together with

Detroit 90/90 and Axios, are liable under 42 USC Sections 1983 and 1988.

36

Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.36 Page 36 of 100
157. Under 42 USC Sections 1983 and 1988, the defendants’ unconstitutional acts are 

the proximate cause of plaintiff’s damages, including, but not limited to: loss of salary and

fringe, emotional distress, exemplary damages, expenses associated with seeking other 

employment, loss of earning capacity and ability to work, the plaintiff suffered and will suffer 

these losses in the future. The plaintiff is also entitled to attorney’s fees and costs.

158. In depriving the plaintiff of procedural and substantive due process, all of the 

defendants acted with evil motive and intent. Their motive was to remove the plaintiff from her 

employment to silence dissent against the restructuring of the school district. Therefore, the 

defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity and the plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages.

PLAINTIFF REQUESTS that this court enter judgment against Defendants in whatever 

sum to which she is deemed entitled, together with costs, interest, and attorney fees.

COUNT IV- BREACH OF EXPRESS AND IMPLIED EMPLOYMENT CONTRACTGABRIEL GUI AS TO DETROIT 90/90 AND AXIOS

159. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 158.

160. While Plaintiff Gabriela Gui was employed by Detroit 90/90 and Axios, 

management made contractual promises and written and oral statements to Plaintiff that she had 

a contract for a 5-year term of employment and that it was defendants’ policy not to discharge 

plaintiff from employment as long as she performed her job.

161. Further, while plaintiff was employed by defendants, she was led to believe that

she would not be terminated except for good cause.

162. Plaintiff relied upon these contracts, policies, statements, and representations of 

defendants through their agents, servants, or employees. As a result, there was, by express words, 

implications, or operation of law, a contractual agreement between plaintiff and defendants by

which defendants were obligated to terminate plaintiff’s employment only for good cause.

37

Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.37 Page 37 of 100
163. As a result of defendants’ termination of plaintiff’s employment, defendants have

breached the contract described above.

164. As a direct and proximate result of the termination and breach of contract, 

plaintiff has been placed in financial distress, has suffered loss of wages and benefits, earning 

capacity, and ability to work, and will suffer these losses in the future.

PLAINTIFF REQUESTS that this court enter judgment against defendants in whatever 

sum to which she is deemed entitled, together with costs, interest, and attorney fees.

COUNT V- DISCHARGE VIOLATING REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF JUSTCAUSE EMPLOYMENT

GABRIEL GUI AS TO DETROIT 90/90 AND AXIOS

165. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 164.

166. While plaintiff was employed by defendants Detroit 90/90 and Axios, defendants’ 

policies and procedures, which were reasonably related to employee discharge, instilled 

legitimate expectations of just-cause employment in Plaintiff.

167. Plaintiff reasonably relied on these policies and procedures and, as a result, 

legitimately expected that she could be involuntarily terminated only for just cause.

168. As a result of defendants’ termination of plaintiff’s employment, defendants

interfered with the legitimate expectation of just-cause employment that defendants had instilled 

in plaintiff.

169. As a direct and proximate result of defendants’ actions, plaintiff has suffered 

depression, emotional and physical distress, mental anguish, loss of reputation, humiliation and 

embarrassment, and the physical manifestations of these problems and will suffer these problems 

in the future.

38

Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.38 Page 38 of 100
170. As a further direct and proximate result of defendants’ breach of duty, plaintiff 

has been placed in financial distress; has suffered loss of wages and benefits, earning capacity, 

and ability to work; and will suffer these losses in the future.

PLAINTIFF REQUESTS that this court enter judgment against defendants in whatever 

sum to which she is deemed entitled, together with costs, interest, and attorney fees

COUNT VI - VIOLATION OF THE WIRE AND ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS 

INTERCEPTION ACT 18 USC 2510 ET SEQ.

SHEU AND GUI AS TO ALL DEFENDANTS

171. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 170.

172. On or about May 23, 2104, the defendants or agents of all of the defendants 

intercepted electronic communications between Sheu and Gui and between Sheu and Grady 

Jones, Jr. by acquiring the contents of electronic communications through the use of an 

electronic, mechanical or other device.

173. Sheu and Gui were parties to the intercepted electronic communications and also 

were persons against whom the interception was directed, and, thus are aggrieved persons under 

18 USC 2510(11).

174. On or about May 23, 2104, the defendants or agents of all of the defendants

intentionally intercepted, endeavored to intercept, or procured other persons to intercept or to 

endeavor to intercept the plaintiffs’ electronic communications.

175. On and after May 23, 2104, the defendants or agents of all of the defendants 

intentionally disclosed, or endeavored to disclose, to other persons the contents of electronic 

communications between the plaintiffs, knowing or having reason to know that the information 

was obtained through the interception of an electronic communications in violation of the Wire 

and Electronic Communications Interception Act 18 USC 2510 et seq.

39

Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.39 Page 39 of 100
176. On and after May 23, 2104, the defendants and agents of all of the defendants 

intentionally used, or endeavored to use, the contents of electronic communications between the 

plaintiffs, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the 

interception of electronic communications in violation of the Wire and Electronic 

Communications Interception Act 18 USC 2510 et seq.

177. The agents of the defendants committed the above acts upon instructions from the 

management, officers, trustees, or directors of the defendants. The agents committed the above 

acts in the course of and within the scope of their employment with the defendants.

178. Neither Sheu nor Gui consented to the defendants or their agents intercepting, 

disclosing, or using their electronic communications.

179. The defendants and agents of the defendants intercepted the communication of 

Sheu and Gui for the purpose of committing tortious acts in violation of the United States 

Constitution and the laws of the State of Michigan as stated in Counts I through V and Counts 

VIII through IX stated herein.

180. Under 18 USC 2520, the defendants are civilly liable to plaintiffs for appropriate 

relief, including: 

(1) such preliminary and other equitable or declaratory relief as may be appropriate;

(2) damages whichever is the greater of--

(A) the sum of the actual damages suffered by the plaintiff and any profits made by 

the violator as a result of the violation; or

(B) statutory damages of whichever is the greater of $ 100 a day for each day of 

violation or $10,000;

(3) punitive damages in appropriate cases; and

(4) a reasonable attorney’s fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred.

40

Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.40 Page 40 of 100
181. All of the defendants and their agents acted with evil motive and intent. Their 

motive was to remove Gui from her employment to silence dissent against the restructuring of 

the school district. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages.

182. A real and imminent danger of irreparable injury arises if a temporary restraining 

order, preliminary injunction, and permanent injunction are not issued to stop the defendants 

from further disseminating the private email messages between Sheu and Gui and between Sheu 

and Jones. Justice requires that the court grant the injunctive relief.

183. There exists no adequate remedy at law to halt the further dissemination of the 

private email messages.

PLAINTIFFS REQUEST that this court enter judgment against defendants in whatever sum to 

which they are deemed entitled together with costs, interest, and attorney fees, and issue a 

temporary restraining order, preliminary and permanent injunction.

COUNT VI - VIOLATION OF THE STORED WIRE AND ELECTRONIC 

COMMUNICATIONS AND TRANSACTIONAL RECORDS ACCESS ACT –

18 USC 2701 ET SEQ.

SHEU AND GUI AS TO ALL DEFENDANTS

184. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 183.

185. On or about May 23, 2104, the defendants or agents of all of the defendants 

intercepted electronic communications between Sheu and Gui and between Sheu and Grady 

Jones, Jr. by acquiring the contents of electronic communications through the use of an 

electronic, mechanical or other device.

186. Sheu and Gui were parties to the intercepted electronic communications and also 

were persons against whom the interception was directed, and, thus are aggrieved persons under 

18 USC 2510(11) and 18 USC 2707 (a).

41

Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.41 Page 41 of 100
187. On or about May 23, 2104, the defendants and agents of all of the defendants 

intentionally and without authorization accessed Sheu’s email account on the Gmail server, a 

facility through which an electronic communication service is provided. This conduct violated 

The Stored Wire and Electronic Communications and Transactional Records Access Act, 18 

USC 2701(a)(1).

188. The agents of the defendants committed the above acts upon instructions from the 

management, officers, trustees, or directors of the defendants. The agents committed the above 

acts in the course of and within the scope of their employment with the defendants.

189. Neither Sheu nor Gui consented to the defendants or their agents accessing Sheu’s 

email account on the Gmail server.

190. The defendants and their agents engaged in the violation of USC 2701(a)(1) with 

a knowing or intentional state of mind.

191. Under 18 USC 2707, the defendants are civilly liable to plaintiffs for appropriate 

relief, including: 

(1) such preliminary and other equitable or declaratory relief as may be appropriate;

(2) the sum of the actual damages suffered by the plaintiffs and any profits made by the 

violator as a result of the violation, but in no case shall a person entitled to recover 

receive less than the sum of $ 1,000;

(3) punitive damages because the violation of USC 2701(a)(1) is willful and intentional; 

and

(4) a reasonable attorney’s fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred.

192. All of the defendants and their agents acted willfully and intentionally, with evil 

motive and intent. Their motive was to remove Gui from her employment to silence dissent 

against the restructuring of the school district. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to punitive 

damages.

42

Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.42 Page 42 of 100
193. A real and imminent danger of irreparable injury arises if a temporary restraining 

order, preliminary injunction, and permanent injunction are not issued to stop the defendants 

from further disseminating the personal email messages between Sheu and Gui and between 

Sheu and Jones. Justice requires that the court grant the injunctive relief.

194. There exists no adequate remedy at law to halt the further dissemination the 

private email messages between Sheu and Gui and between Sheu and Jones. Justice requires that 

the court grant the injunctive relief.

PLAINTIFFS REQUEST that this court enter judgment against defendants in whatever sum to 

which they are deemed entitled together with costs, interest, and attorney fees, and issue a 

temporary restraining order, preliminary and permanent injunction.

COUNT VII-INVASION OF PRIVACY

INTRUSION IN PLAINTIFFS’ PRIVATE AFFAIRS

GUI AND SHEU AS TO ALL DEFENDANTS

195. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 194.

196. The email messages between Gui and Sheu and between Sheu and Grady Jones, 

Jr., intruded upon by defendants on or about May 23, 2014, were of a secret and private subject 

matter.

197. The plaintiffs had a right to keep that subject matter private.

198. To obtain email messages, the employers used a method that was objectionable to 

a reasonable person.

199. The intrusion by defendants was intentional or grossly negligent.

A real and imminent danger of irreparable injury arises if a temporary restraining order, 

preliminary injunction, and permanent injunction are not issued to stop the defendants from 

43

Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.43 Page 43 of 100
further disseminating the personal photographs of Justine Sheu and the personal email messages. 

Justice requires that the court grant the injunctive relief.

200. There exists no adequate remedy at law to halt the further dissemination of the 

personal photographs of Justine Sheu or the personal email messages.

PLAINTIFFS REQUEST that this court enter judgment against defendants in whatever sum to 

which they are deemed entitled together with costs, interest, and attorney fees, and issue a 

temporary restraining order, preliminary and permanent injunction.

COUNT VIII-INVASION OF PRIVACY-PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF EMBARRASSING

PRIVATE FACTS ABOUT PLAINTIFFSHEU AS TO ALL DEFENDANTS

201. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 200.

202. By displaying photographs of Sheu in lingerie to employees and to a relative of an 

employee, the defendants engaged in public disclosure of embarrassing private facts about Sheu.

203. The disclosed information is highly offensive to a reasonable person and of no 

legitimate concern to the public.

204. The public disclosure by defendants was intentional or grossly negligent.

205. A real and imminent danger of irreparable injury arises if a temporary restraining 

order, preliminary injunction, and permanent injunction are not issued to stop the defendants 

from further disseminating the personal photographs of Justine Sheu. Justice requires that the 

court grant the injunctive relief.

206. There exists no adequate remedy at law to halt the further dissemination of the 

personal photographs of Justine Sheu .

44

Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.44 Page 44 of 100
PLAINTIFF REQUESTS that this court enter judgment against defendants in whatever sum to 

which she is deemed entitled together with costs, interest, and attorney fees, and issue a 

temporary restraining order, preliminary and permanent injunction.

COUNT IX- UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE UNDER THE FOURTH 

AMENDMENT, 42 USC 1983

SHEU AND GUI AS TO ALL DEFENDANTS

207. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 206.

208. When they searched and seized email messages between Sheu and Gui and 

between Sheu and Grady Jones, Jr., the defendants acted under the color of state law for the 

following reasons:

A. PSAD and its school board, governmental entities, showed an interest in the

search and seizure of the email messages. Detroit 90/90 and Axios, through their 

officers and directors, consulted PSAD and its school board before searching and 

seizing the messages and obtained the approval of the latter entities before

searching and seizing the messages. 

B. PSAD exercised coercive power over Detroit 90/90 and Axios or provided 

significant encouragement to Detroit 90/90 and Axios, either overt or covert, to 

search and seize the messages that the choice to search and seize the messages 

was essentially the decision of PSAD.

C. Alternatively, PSAD and its school board jointly participated with Detroit 90/90 

and Axios, through their officers and directors, in the decision to search and seize 

the messages. There was a pervasive entwinement to the point of largely 

overlapping identity between Detroit 90/90 and Axios (both private entities) and 

the PSAD, a governmental entity.

209. The defendants deprived the plaintiffs of rights, privileges, or immunities secured 

by the Constitution, specifically the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizure, 

protected by Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

45

Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.45 Page 45 of 100
210. The plaintiffs had reasonable expectations of freedom from governmental 

intrusion into their personal email messages.

211. The defendants did not have probable cause to search the email messages.

212. The deprivation of the plaintiffs’ constitutional right to be free from unreasonable 

searches and seizures occurred without due process of law, because the defendants did not obtain 

a warrant or other judicial process before executing the search and seizure.

213. The agents of the defendants, while acting under color of state law, violated the 

plaintiffs’ constitutional rights, and a policy or policy of inaction of the Public School 

Academies of Detroit was the moving force behind the violation.

214. Thus, the defendants are liable under 42 USC Sections 1983 and 1988.

215. A real and imminent danger of irreparable injury arises if a temporary restraining 

order, preliminary injunction, and permanent injunction are not issued to stop the defendants 

from further disseminating the personal messages between Gui and Sheu. Justice requires that 

the court grant the injunctive relief.

216. There exists no adequate remedy at law to halt the further dissemination of the 

personal messages between Gui and Sheu.

PLAINTIFFS REQUEST that this court enter judgment against defendants in whatever sum to 

which she is deemed entitled together with costs, interest, and attorney fees, and issue a 

temporary restraining order, preliminary and permanent injunction.

COUNT X- VIOLATION OF MICHIGAN FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

SHEU AND GUI AS TO DEFENDANT PSAD AND ITS SCHOOL BOARD

217. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 216 above.

46

Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.46 Page 46 of 100
218. On July 9, 2014, Gabriela Gui through counsel submitted to PSAD a request for

Gui’s employment file and other documents under the Michigan Freedom of Information Act. 

Ex. 6.

219. On July 30, 2014, Justine Sheu through counsel submitted to PSAD a request for 

Sheu’s employment file and other documents under the Michigan Freedom of Information Act. 

Ex. 7.

220. PSAD and its School Board has never responded to either request.

221. Under the Michigan Freedom of Information Act, a public body shall either 

furnish the documents requested or respond in writing denying, in full or in part, the request for a 

public record within 5 business days after the public body receives the request. Alternatively, the 

public may issue a notice extending the time to respond by not more than 10 business days. A 

public body shall not issue more than 1 notice of extension for a particular request. MCL 

15.235(2). Failure to respond to a request p constitutes a public body's final determination to

deny the request. MCL 15.235(3).

222. PSAD and its School Board failed to respond to the plaintiffs’ request within the 

5-day period pursuant to MCL 15.235(2). That failure constitutes PSAD's final determination to 

deny the request, under MCL 15.235(3).

223. Under MCL 15.240(4), (6), this court has jurisdiction to compel the PSAD's 

disclosure of the documents requested by plaintiff and to award plaintiff’s reasonable attorney 

fees, costs and disbursements. 

224. PSAD and its School Board has arbitrarily and capriciously violated this act by 

their refusal or delay in disclosing or providing copies of the documents requested by plaintiffs. 

47

Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.47 Page 47 of 100
Accordingly, plaintiffs are entitled, in addition to any actual or compensatory damages, punitive 

damages in the amount of $500.00 and attorney fees and costs. MCL 15.240(7).

PLAINTIFFS REQUEST that this court enter an order of mandamus directing the defendants to 

furnish the requested documents and enter judgment against defendants in whatever sum to 

which they are deemed entitled, together with costs, interest, and attorney fees.

COUNT XI

VIOLATION OF BULLARD-PLAWECK EMPLOYEE RIGHT TO KNOW ACTGUI AS TO DEFENDANTS DETROIT 90/90, BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF DETROIT 

90/90, AXIOS, AND BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF AXIOS

225. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 224 above.

226. The defendants Detroit 90/90 and Axios have removed from Gui’s personnel file 

the “First trimester performance review”, dated December 1, 2010. Ex. 8.

227. By removing the “First trimester performance review” from Gui’s personnel file, 

the defendants Detroit 90/90 and Axios willfully and knowing withheld information from Gui’s 

personnel file.

228. The defendants have included in Gui’s personnel file a Teacher/Advisor 

Evaluation Rubric apparently used at University Preparatory Academy during the 2010-2011 

school year. Ex. 9. This Evaluation Rubric did not apply to Dr. Gui since it was apparently used 

at a school other than UPSM and was used just for evaluation of teachers, not for evaluation of 

principals. None of the signatures on the documents are Dr. Gui’s signature.

229. By including the above Teacher/Advisor Evaluation Rubric in Gui’s personnel 

file, the defendants Detroit 90/90 and Axios willfully and knowing placed false information in 

Gui’s personnel file.

230. The plaintiff has asked the defendants to correct her personnel file but they have 

refused.

48

Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.48 Page 48 of 100
231. Under the Bullard-Plawecki Employee Right to Know Act, MCL 423.451, et seq., 

Gui is entitled to have the false information expunged, and to statutory damages of $200.00 plus 

costs, reasonable attorney's fees, and actual damages.

PLAINTIFF REQUESTS that this court order defendants Detroit 90/90, Axios, and their boards 

of directors, to expunge the false information and include the correct information in her 

personnel file, and that this Court enter judgment against defendants Detroit 90/90 and Axios in 

whatever sum to which she is deemed entitled, together with costs, interest, and attorney fees.

COUNT XII

VIOLATION OF BULLARD-PLAWECK EMPLOYEE RIGHT TO KNOW ACTSHEU AS TO DEFENDANTS DETROIT 90/90, BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF DETROIT 

90/90, AXIOS, AND BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF AXIOS

232. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 231 above.

233. On October 10, 2013, Venus Crosby, Director of College Counselling for Detroit 

90/90 and Axios, gave a written reprimand to Sheu concerning “Unacceptable Communication 

for Absences.” Ms. Crosby criticized Sheu for “failure to perform the required functions of your 

position by not communicating your absence in a timely manner, and/or providing adequate 

resources to reassign tasks.” This criticism was in referenced to Ms. Sheu’s absence from an 

ACT prep session on October 10, 2013, due to the sudden onset of illness (due to food 

poisoning) when she woke up that very morning. The onslaught of her symptoms, including

nausea, vomiting, and fainting, was sudden and unanticipated.

234. But it was absurd for Ms. Crosby to reprimand Ms. Sheu for not reporting an 

absence before she knew she was sick. As soon as she was able to do so on the morning of 

October 10, 2013, Ms. Sheu reported to Substitute Services and to Crosby that she would be 

absent. 

49

Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.49 Page 49 of 100
235. Crosby also criticized Sheu for failing “to provide adequate resources to reassign 

tasks.” That criticism was also absurd. Sheu is neither a certified teacher nor a substitute 

teacher, and, therefore, had no authority, standing, or responsibility to create a detailed lesson 

plan for someone to implement in her absence. The teachers were responsible for creating unit 

and lesson plans prior to the beginning of their school year, and they created these unit plans 

prior to the understanding that Sheu’s ACT prep sessions would be occurring in their 

classrooms. The teachers should have implemented their lesson plans for October 10, 2013.

236. Crosby referred to two prior absences as exacerbating factors generating her 

reprimand. But Sheu gave Crosby and others ample advance notice of those absences which 

were due to a respiratory infection.

237. Sheu refused to sign Crosby’s written reprimand, because she believed it was 

patently unjust.

238. Crosby’s reprimand was a form of retaliation for Sheu’s speech criticizing the 

restructuring of the school district, including Crosby’s redesign of the college advising/ACT 

preparation program.

239. On October 23, 2013, Sheu drafted a written response to the October 10th

reprimand. Sheu intended to submit this response to Crosby at the end of the school year. Sheu 

wanted to wait to submit the response, because she sought to avoid the retaliation she anticipated 

from Crosby if Crosby received the response during the school year. 

240. On August 4, 2014, John Sanford provided a copy of Sheu’s entire personnel file 

to plaintiffs’ counsel. Crosby’s reprimand was not in the file.

241. On September 18, 2014, John Sanford sent a copy of Crosby’s reprimand to 

plaintiffs’ counsel. Sanford stated:

50

Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.50 Page 50 of 100
Ms. Sheu’s supervisor, Venus Crosby, recently provided me with a copy 

of the attached which was a follow-up to a conversation she had with Ms. Sheu in 

early October, 2013. After this document was provided, Ms. Sheu did have a 

follow-up meeting with Mrs. Crosby and Ms. Emily Bitzarakis (HR – Det. 90/90) 

regarding it at Ms. Sheu’s request.

While Ms. Sheu did not provide any written response to this 

documentation at that time and refused to sign it, after her separation we did find 

a two-and-a-half page draft response dated October 11, 2013 on her school 

laptop. As her response was never submitted, it is not part of her file.

242. The Bullard-Plawecki Employee Right to Know Act prohibits the defendant from 

placing the reprimand in Sheu’s personnel file. 

243. The defendants have refused to place Sheu’s response of October 23, 2013, in her 

personnel file.

244. By placing Crosby’s unjustified reprimand in Sheu’s personnel file, the 

defendants willfully and knowing placed false information in Sheu’s personnel file.

245. The defendants willfully and knowing withheld information from Sheu’s 

personnel file: her response to the reprimand.

246. Under the Bullard-Plawecki Employee Right to Know Act, MCL 423.505, 

423.511, Sheu is entitled to have the reprimand of October 10, 2013 expunged, and to statutory 

damages of $200.00 plus costs, reasonable attorney's fees, and actual damages.

247. In the alternative, under the Bullard-Plawecki Employee Right to Know Act, 

MCL 423.505, 423.511, Sheu is entitled to (1) have her response to the reprimand of October 10, 

2013 included when the information is divulged to a third party and as long as the reprimand of 

October 10, 2013 is a part of the file, and, (2) to $200.00 plus costs, reasonable attorney's fees, 

and actual damages.

PLAINTIFF REQUESTS that this court order defendants Detroit 90/90, Axios, and their boards 

of directors, to expunge the false information and include the correct information in her 

51

Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.51 Page 51 of 100
personnel file, and that this Court enter judgment against defendants Detroit 90/90 and Axios in 

whatever sum to which she is deemed entitled, together with costs, interest, and attorney fees.

COUNT XII-DECLARATORY JUDGMENT REGARDING CONTENTS OF

EMPLOYMENT FILEGUI AND SHEU AS TO DEFENDANTS DETROIT 90/90, BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF 

DETROIT 90/90, AXIOS, AND BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF AXIOS 

248. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 247 above.

249. Under the Bullard-Plawecki Employee Right to Know Act, and the First and 

Fourteen Amendments to the United States Constitution, there is an actual controversy as to the 

proper contents of the plaintiffs’ personnel files in the possession of Detroit 90/90 and Axios.

250. Under 28 USC § 2201 and Michigan Court Rule 2.605, the plaintiffs are entitled 

to a declaratory judgment of their rights to accurate, fair, and complete personnel files.

PLAINTIFFS REQUEST that this court enter a declaratory judgment as to the accurate, fair, and 

complete contents of the plaintiffs’ personnel files, together with costs, interest, and attorney 

fees.

COUNT XIII-CLAIM AND DELIVERYSHEU AS TO DEFENDANTS DETROIT 90/90, BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF DETROIT 

90/90, AXIOS, AND BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF AXIOS

251. Plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 250 above.

252. The Employee Handbook of Detroit 90/90 and Axios states, 

You may make occasional incidental use of electronic devices for personal use 

(less than 5%) during non-work time provided that you abide by all provisions in 

this policy....It must be understood that any personal information will be treated 

no differently from other information, which will be accessed, monitored, utilized 

and disclosed by the Employer to the extent permitted by applicable law. 

Accordingly, users cannot use electronic devices, including the computer systems,

E-mail, Internet or voice mail systems to send, receive, create, edit or store any

information that they wish to keep private.

52

Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.52 Page 52 of 100
253. But the Handbook does not state that an employee’s personal documents 

on the employer’s computer are the property of the employer.

254. During her tenure as an employee, the defendants issued to Sheu a laptop 

computer to use. Sheu did use less than 5% of the laptop’s memory for personal use.

255. During her employment, Sheu placed on the hard drive of her laptop certain 

personal financial documents, including income tax documents. Those documents remained 

Sheu’s personal property despite the employer’s policy regarding privacy of personal 

information.

256. When Sheu was discharged, she asked John Sanford of Axios if she could retrieve 

her personal documents from the laptop.

257. Initially, on May 22, 2014, John Sanford told Sheu that he would have the IT 

department look for the documents on her laptop. He explained that the employer had a regular 

process for this.

258. But then, later on May 22, 2014, Emily Bitzarakis, the Human Resources Director 

for Detroit 90/90, told Sheu:

I spoke with the IT department, and I’m sorry to report that that information is not 

retrievable. Because it is a company-issued device, it is assumed that any personal 

information accessed or saved on the device will be kept to a minimum and also 

backed up in another location, so we do not have a process by which we maintain 

a copy of any personal information or files for your access after the fact. I’m very 

sorry for the inconvenience.

259. Ms. Bitzarakis’ representation concerning an alleged company policy for not 

returning personal information to employees was false. Bitzaraki’s representation that the 

defendants had not maintained a copy of Sheu’s personal information was false. The defendants 

had maintained a copy of Sheu’s personal information from the laptop but withheld the 

information from her.

53

Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.53 Page 53 of 100
260. The defendants have failed and refused to return the plaintiff’s personal documents 

to the plaintiff. The defendants have unlawfully detained the plaintiff’s personal documents.

261. The plaintiff seeks possession of the personal documents which the defendants 

have unlawfully detained.

PLAINTIFF REQUESTS that this court enter a judgment and writ of possession for the 

plaintiffs’ personal documents on the defendants’ laptop computer, together with costs, interest, 

and attorney fees.

COUNT XIV- COMMON LAW CONVERSIONSHEU AS TO DETROIT 90/90 AND AXIOS

262. The plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 261 above.

263. The defendants came into possession of Sheu’s personal documents by retrieving 

the laptop computer they had permitted her to use.

264. The defendants intentionally and wrongfully exerted dominion over the Sheu’s

personal documents.

265. The defendants’ dominion over the plaintiff’s personal documents was in denial 

of or inconsistent with the plaintiff’s rights therein. As a direct result of the defendants’ 

conversion, the plaintiff has suffered damages, including serious mental anguish, stress, 

embarrassment, and humiliation. 

266. The plaintiff seeks economic and exemplary damages sustained by the unlawful 

conversion by the defendant.

PLAINTIFF REQUESTS that this court enter judgment against defendants in whatever sum to 

which she is deemed entitled, together with costs, interest, and attorney fees.

54

Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.54 Page 54 of 100
COUNT XV- STATUTORY LAW CONVERSIONSHEU AS TO DETROIT 90/90 AND AXIOS

267. The plaintiffs incorporate paragraphs 1 through 266 above.

268. The defendants came into possession of Sheu’s personal documents by retrieving 

the laptop computer they had permitted her to use.

269. The defendants intentionally and wrongfully exerted dominion over the Sheu’s 

personal documents.

270. The defendants’ dominion over the plaintiff’s personal documents was in denial 

of or inconsistent with the plaintiff’s rights therein. As a direct result of the defendants’ 

conversion, the plaintiff has suffered damages, including serious mental anguish, stress, 

embarrassment, and humiliation. 

271. The plaintiff seeks economic and exemplary damages sustained by the unlawful 

conversion by the defendant.

272. The defendant is liable for statutory conversion under MCL 600.2919a(1)(a).

273. The plaintiff is entitled to and seeks a judgment against the defendants 3 times the 

amount of actual damages sustained, plus costs and reasonable attorney fees.

PLAINTIFF REQUESTS that this court enter judgment against defendants in whatever sum to 

which she is deemed entitled, together with costs, interest, and attorney fees.

55

Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.55 Page 55 of 100
RELIEF REQUESTED

For these reasons, the plaintiffs ask:

A. That defendants be required to appear and answer the allegations of the Complaint;

B. That this Court award to plaintiffs, for violation of their constitutional and common law

actions for wrongful discharge: actual damages, including, but not limited to damages 

for loss of past and future salary and fringe benefits, emotional distress, exemplary 

damages, expenses associated with seeking other employment, plus punitive damages, 

interest and attorney’s fees and costs;

C. That this Court award to plaintiffs for violation their rights to privacy under state 

common law, federal statutes, and the Fourth Amendment: statutory and/or actual 

damages plus punitive damages, and a reasonable attorney’s fee and other litigation 

costs reasonably incurred;

D. That this Court award to plaintiff Justine Sheu 3 times the amount of actual damages 

sustained for the conversion of her personal documents, plus costs and reasonable 

attorney fees under MCL 600.2919a(1)(a);

E. That this Court issue a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and 

permanent injunction prohibiting the defendant from disclosing or disseminating the 

personal photographs of Justine Sheu and the personal email messages between Justine 

Sheu and Gabriela Gui and between Justine Shue and Grady Jones, Jr.;

F. That this Court award to each plaintiff actual or compensatory damages, punitive 

damages in the amount of $500.00, and reasonable attorney fees and costs under the 

Michigan Freedom of Information Act;

G. That this Court order the deletions, additions and corrections to the plaintiffs’ personnel 

files and award to the plaintiffs statutory and actual damages, plus reasonable attorney 

fees and costs, under the Bullard-Plawecki Employee Right to Know Act;

H. That this Court enter a declaratory judgment as to the accurate, fair, and complete 

contents of the plaintiffs’ personnel files;

I. That this Court enter a judgment and writ of possession for the return of Justine Sheu’s 

personal documents, and;

56

Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.56 Page 56 of 100
J. That this Court grant such other, further, and different relief as the Court may deem just 

and proper under the circumstances.

Respectfully submitted,

By /s/ Robert L. Levi

Robert L. Levi

Robert L. Levi, P.C.

6675 Edwood Ave.

West Bloomfield, MI 48324

robert@robertlevilaw.com

248-366-4412

State of Michigan Bar No. 42598

Date: October 30, 2014

57

Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.57 Page 57 of 100
JURY DEMAND

The plaintiff demands a jury to try this cause.

Respectfully submitted,

By /s/ Robert L. Levi

Robert L. Levi

Robert L. Levi, P.C.

6675 Edwood Ave.

West Bloomfield, MI 48324

robert@robertlevilaw.com

248-366-4412

State of Michigan Bar No. 42598

Date: October 30, 2014

58

Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.58 Page 58 of 100
EXHIBIT 1 

Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.59 Page 59 of 100
Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.60 Page 60 of 100
Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.61 Page 61 of 100
Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.62 Page 62 of 100
EXHIBIT 2 

Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.63 Page 63 of 100
Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.64 Page 64 of 100
Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.65 Page 65 of 100
EXHIBIT 3 

Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.66 Page 66 of 100
Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.67 Page 67 of 100
EXHIBIT 4 

Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.68 Page 68 of 100
Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.69 Page 69 of 100
Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.70 Page 70 of 100
Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.71 Page 71 of 100
Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.72 Page 72 of 100
EXHIBIT 5 

Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.73 Page 73 of 100
Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.74 Page 74 of 100
EXHIBIT 6 

Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.75 Page 75 of 100
Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.76 Page 76 of 100
Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.77 Page 77 of 100
14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.78 Page 78 
14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.79 Page 7
GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID
-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.
EXHIBIT 7 

Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.82 Page 82 of 100
Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.83 Page 83 of 100
Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.84 Page 84 of 100
14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.85 Page 85 
14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.86 Page 86 
-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID
-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID
EXHIBIT 8

Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.89 Page 89 of 100
 University Prep Science & Math Middle School 

 5100 John R., Detroit, Michigan 48202, T. 313.832.8400 F. 313.833.4816 www.uprepsm.com

To: Dr. Gabriela Gui

From: Margaret Trimer-Hartley

Re: First trimester performance review

Date: December 1, 2010

May this memo serve as your official first trimester performance review. It is a 

chance for both of us to reflect, rethink--if necessary--and recharge. 

It has been a pleasure to put together my thoughts, impressions and analysis of your 

performance since you officially started as Principal of UPSM High School July 1, 

2010. My review touches several areas of performance, but I focus most on content

(teaching AND learning), culture, communication and customer service—my top 

four priorities. 

You deserve a hearty CONGRATULATIONS, Gabriela. You have started a fabulous 

new general admissions science and math high school in the city of Detroit. You 

have managed the myriad start-up challenges with determination, grace and a cando, will-do, must-do attitude. Nothing you faced—from furniture and technology 

issues to enrollment and scheduling issues—proved insurmountable. You and your 

mighty team tackled it all, and I am beaming with pride.

Perhaps your greatest accomplishment so far is the culture you have established in 

your professional learning community. Your team asks the right questions, has the 

right debates and solves problems the way one would expect of master educators 

who are thoroughly committed to the kids AND to learning. You chose well. Your 

fidelity to our hiring protocol made a difference in the selection process. Now, the 

extremely high level of care, the support and the prodding you do gives them the 

courage and the desire to step outside their comfort zones and do the kinds of 

things necessary for student success. You team appears willing and ready to do just 

about ANYTHING you ask of them. I believe you have the best team possible serving 

with you and Grady as the founders, the pioneers of UPSM HS.

The culture and camaraderie among the staff are beginning to trickle down to the 

students. Developing meaningful, honest and productive relationships between 

teachers and students can be tricky—particularly at the high school level. 

Boundaries are critical, but so, too, are genuine, deep connections. Our kids know 

the difference between superficial and super special! The recent whole-school wrap 

session was one of a couple of turning points in the development of student-toteacher and student-to-student relationships. The warmth the students feel for you 

and the staff is palpable. I see it everyday in their interactions—the hugging, the 

 

Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.90 Page 90 of 100
endearing and affectionate “hello, mom” comments, even the way they step it up 

when you and/or Grady tie their ties and make them pull up their pants. And yet 

they are still terrified of you.  They know that you expect, demand and reinforce 

excellence—nothing less. 

I look forward to watching this dynamic continue to evolve in the next trimester.

Your attention to data and your fixation on results are precisely the traits you must 

have to move this group of kids forward fast. Using data, you have made important 

course corrections and adjustments this first trimester. Your move to mandatory 

study hall at a time when students were simply not completing and turning in work 

is just one example of how you used your site-based authority to make a smart 

policy decision in real time. You’re not over the homework hump with this group 

yet, but you clearly understand that getting students to do their work is absolutely 

critical, and your team must do “whatever it takes” to make it happen. Further, the 

analysis of which students are truly at risk that you and your team just completed 

this week as final grades were logged in, again, emphasizes that you are using data 

in a powerful way to drive real-time interventions and intense individualization. 

THAT is what we are all about. 

I look forward to an even more intense focus on individual student progress as we 

dissect the new data from Renaissance Learning.

Your communication with me, with your staff and with parents has developed 

nicely. Learning what information to relay to your various audiences when and how 

is no small task. You have figured out how and what to share with me. I feel great 

about the development of our dialog—difficult conversations and all—and I hope 

that you are comfortable with it, too. At the same time, I am working very hard to 

accept and appreciate that you solve problems at the local level so that they do not 

get to me. That is a gift, but it is a new way of operating for me. Thank you for your 

patience while I get used to not having my nose in every issue! 

Your staff is always in the loop thanks to your emails, your morning meetings and 

your constant presence in the hallways and classrooms. Information is power, and 

you understand that teachers need to feel looped in, engaged and in control.

Connecting with parents is the most difficult of our communication challenges. You 

have established multiple ways of reaching out and ensuring they are in the loop. 

I’m particularly delighted with the robo-calls and emails. Using the technology of 

the day to reach parents where they are (usually on their cell phones) is smart and 

efficient. Your weekly news briefs are also extremely helpful. The teacher Web sites 

are developing nicely and have been a lifesaver for so many students—my own 

included.

Establishing a parent resource center is a huge step in the development of a 

stronger parent connection, and I’m excited to see that happening. High school just 

Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.91 Page 91 of 100
feels different for us parents—colder, more formal and distant. For our highly 

emotional constituents who are accustomed to lots of hand-holding and bonding, it 

can be a difficult transition. A parent center can serve as more than just a place to 

check PowerSchool and monitor student progress. It can be a refuge where parents 

find each other, find their voice and find their way toward productive rather than 

reactive advocacy. I encourage you to invite the Detroit Parent Network (DPN) in to 

offer training and support, and I urge you to continue working with Mrs. Robinson 

(Dana’s mom) to develop our high school PTSA. Our polling data and the mountain 

of anecdotal evidence we have from other charters and DPN show that the more we 

nurture the whole family, the more likely we will be able to recruit and retain them.

The team approach to working with some of your more challenging parents also 

appears to be a successful strategy for you. You and Grady balance each other. Do 

not hesitate to bring me in when you need or want yet another style at the table. I 

believe that worked well with Pace Cooper’s family as well as Jamal Crews’ parents. 

Finally, we are looking forward to an extremely busy new year. We will be 

recruiting students AND staff for next year, filing for our Title I funding, creating our 

district-wide salary schedule and many, many other things. BUT all that, while 

important, is secondary to the job of moving every student forward as far and as fast 

as possible. 

Stay as focused and relentless as you have been this first trimester. And make sure 

you rest and restore yourself this winter break—or I will have to put you on an 

improvement plan in that area to ensure that you do not burn out!!

Thank you for choosing to lead UPSM High School. You are a gift to our system, and 

I am a very fortunate superintendent.

Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.92 Page 92 of 100
EXHIBIT 9

Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.93 Page 93 of 100
Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.94 Page 94 of 100
Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.95 Page 95 of 100
Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.96 Page 96 of 100
Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.97 Page 97 of 100
Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.98 Page 98 of 100
Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.99 Page 99 of 100
Case 2:14-cv-14177-GCS-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 10/30/14 PageID.100 Page 100 of 100