UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ANNETTE PERRY,

Plaintiff, 

v.

WAYNE COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT, 

Defendant.

PITT MCGEHEE PALMER & RIVERS P.C.

CARY S. McGEHEE (P42318)

cmcgehee@pittlawpc.com

Attorney for Plaintiff

117 W. Fourth Street, Suite 200

Royal Oak, Michigan 48067

(248) 398-9800

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND 

Plaintiff, Annette Perry, by and through his attorneys, Pitt McGehee Palmer 

& Rivers P.C., files the following Complaint against Defendant and states as 

follows:

JURISDICTIONAL ALLEGATIONS

1. Plaintiff is a resident of the State of Michigan.

2:15-cv-11658-GCS-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 05/08/15 Pg 1 of 13 Pg ID 1
2. Defendant Wayne County Community College District (hereinafter 

referred to as “WCCCD”), is a federally funded public university with its principal 

place of business in Wayne County, Michigan. 

3. The events giving rise to this action, including the alleged 

discriminatory actions, occurred in Wayne County, Michigan.

4. The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00, exclusive of interest, 

costs, and attorney fees.

5. On February 6, 2013, Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination with the 

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), Charge No. 471-2013-

01183, contending that Defendant discriminated against her because of her status as 

an individual with a disability, in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act 

(“ADA”) and failed to accommodate her in violation of the ADA.

6. After a thorough investigation, on April 1, 2014, the EEOC issued a

Determination finding that “there is reasonable cause to believe that Plaintiff’s 

allegations are true with respect to denial of a reasonable accommodation”, and that 

Plaintiff “was subjected to different terms and conditions of employment based on 

her protected class, and that Defendant maintains a leave policy that is in violation 

of the ADA”.

7. On July 10, 2014, the EEOC referred Plaintiff’s EEOC charge of 

discrimination with the U.S. Department of Justice.

2

2:15-cv-11658-GCS-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 05/08/15 Pg 2 of 13 Pg ID 2
8. On February 9, 2015, the U.S. Department of Justice issued to Plaintiff 

a Notice of Right to Sue.

9. Plaintiff timely filed her EEOC claim.

10. Plaintiff has filed her lawsuit within 90 days of the date she received 

her notice of right to sue.

11. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been 

fulfilled.

12. Jurisdiction is placed in this Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §12111, under 

the ADA.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

13. Plaintiff Perry was hired by Defendant in November of 1993, as a 

General Clerk. 

14. In or around 2000, Plaintiff became a Campus Student Advisor.

15. In August of 2009, Plaintiff was diagnosed with Multiple Myeloma and 

commenced a medical leave of absence.

16. On August 27, 2012, Plaintiff was released to return to work by her 

treating physician.

17. On August 27, 2012, Plaintiff made a written request for 

accommodation.

3

2:15-cv-11658-GCS-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 05/08/15 Pg 3 of 13 Pg ID 3
18. Defendant refused Plaintiff’s request for accommodation and on 

September 10, 2012, placed Plaintiff on a paid administrative leave effective August 

27, 2012.

19. On November 26, 2012, Plaintiff was required to return to work as a 

Campus Student Advisor by Defendant without accommodation.

20. Starting on August of 2012, Plaintiff opposed Defendant’s refusal to 

grant her request for accommodation under the ADA to no avail.

21. As a result of Defendant’s failure to accommodate Plaintiff and its 

actions in requiring her to work without accommodations, Plaintiff suffered workrelated stress for which she sought treatment by a psychologist and psychiatrist and 

experienced a recurrence of her cancer.

22. In July of 2013, Plaintiff was hospitalized for a week due to a 

recurrence of her cancer.

23. Plaintiff continued to work for Defendant without accommodation until 

September of 2013, at which point she could no longer physically or mentally work 

for Defendant without accommodation and she was forced on a medical retirement.

24. Had Defendant granted Plaintiff’s ADA request for accommodation, 

she would not have become disabled from working in September of 2013.

4

2:15-cv-11658-GCS-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 05/08/15 Pg 4 of 13 Pg ID 4
25. At the time that Plaintiff was forced to take a medical retirement, she 

was earning approximately $53,000 a year in salary, along with other valuable 

benefits of employment.

5

2:15-cv-11658-GCS-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 05/08/15 Pg 5 of 13 Pg ID 5
COUNT I

(Violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act –

Failure to Accommodate and Disability Discrimination)

26. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the General Allegations contained 

above.

27. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff was an employee and Defendant 

an employer within the meaning of the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 

42 U.S.C. §12111(4)(5).

28. At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff was a qualified individual 

with a disability pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §12111(8), who, with accommodation, could 

perform the essential functions of her position as a Campus Student Advisor.

29. Plaintiff was an individual with a disability within the meaning of 42 

U.S.C. §12102, in that she has a physical impairment that substantially limits one or 

more of her major life activities, who with accommodation could perform the 

essential functions of her job with Defendant, and/or Plaintiff had a record of such a 

disability and/or was regarded by Defendant as having such a disability.

30. Plaintiff’s disability is a Multiple Myeloma.

6

2:15-cv-11658-GCS-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 05/08/15 Pg 6 of 13 Pg ID 6
31. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant had a duty under the ADA to 

accommodate Plaintiff for purposes of employment unless the accommodation 

would impose an undue hardship. Defendant’s duty to accommodate Plaintiff 

includes, but is not limited to, transferring Plaintiff to an available position, 

providing Plaintiff with a reasonable time to recover, restructuring Plaintiff’s job, 

and/or altering Plaintiff’s work schedule. 

32. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant could have accommodated 

Plaintiff’s disability without suffering an undue hardship.

33. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant had a duty under the ADA not 

to discriminate against Plaintiff with respect to compensation or terms, conditions, 

or privileges of employment, because of a disability, because it regarded Plaintiff as 

disabled and/or because Plaintiff had a history of a disability.

34. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant had a duty not to retaliate 

against Plaintiff with respect to her employment, compensation or terms, conditions 

or privileges of employment, or to limit, segregate, or classify Plaintiff for 

employment in any way which deprived or tended to deprive Plaintiff of 

employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect the employment status of 

Plaintiff, in retaliation for her opposing a violation of the Act or for filing an EEOC 

charge.

7

2:15-cv-11658-GCS-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 05/08/15 Pg 7 of 13 Pg ID 7
35. Notwithstanding said duties as set forth above, Defendant 

discriminated against Plaintiff because of her disability and/or because it regarded 

Plaintiff as disabled and/or because Plaintiff had a history of a disability when it

failed to accommodate Plaintiff, and forced Plaintiff to take a medical retirement. 

36. As a direct and approximate result of Defendant’s disability 

discrimination and retaliation, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer lost

wages, and other economic advantages of employment; Plaintiff has and will 

continue to suffer mental anguish, humiliation, physical injury, embarrassment, and 

emotional distress resulting from the discriminatory conduct of the Defendant.

Accordingly, Plaintiff requests the following relief:

a. An Order of this Court allowing Plaintiff reinstatement to 

a position with Defendant within Plaintiff’s restrictions;

b. An Order of this Court awarding Plaintiff compensatory 

damages in an amount in excess of $75,000.00 she is 

found to be entitled to;

c. Punitive damages;

d. An Order of this Court awarding Plaintiff interest, costs, 

and attorney fees;

e. An Order of this Court awarding Plaintiff such other 

equitable relief as this Court deems just and equitable.

8

2:15-cv-11658-GCS-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 05/08/15 Pg 8 of 13 Pg ID 8
COUNT II

(Violation of the Michigan Persons with Disabilities Act –

Failure to Accommodate, Disability Discrimination and Retaliation)

37. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the General Allegations contained 

above.

38. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff was an employee and Defendant 

an employer within the meaning of the Michigan Persons with Disabilities Act 

(“PDCRA”), being MCLA §37.1201, et seq.

39. At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff was a qualified individual 

with a disability in accordance with the PDCRA in that Plaintiff is an individual with 

a disability, who, with accommodation, could perform the essential functions of her 

position as a Campus Student Advisor. 

40. Plaintiff was an individual with a disability in accordance with the 

PDCRA, in that she has a physical impairment that substantially limits one or more 

of her major life activities, who with accommodation could perform the essential 

functions of her job with Defendant, and/or Plaintiff had a record of such a disability 

and/or was regarded by Defendant as having such a disability. 

41. Plaintiff’s disability is a Multiple Myeloma.

9

2:15-cv-11658-GCS-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 05/08/15 Pg 9 of 13 Pg ID 9
42. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant had a duty under the PDCRA to 

accommodate Plaintiff for purposes of employment unless the accommodation 

would impose an undue hardship. Defendant’s duty to accommodate Plaintiff 

includes, but is not limited to, transferring Plaintiff to an available position, 

providing Plaintiff with a reasonable time to recover, restructuring Plaintiff’s job, 

and/or altering Plaintiff’s work schedule. 

43. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant could have accommodated 

Plaintiff’s disability without suffering an undue hardship.

44. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant had a duty under the PDCRA

not to discriminate against Plaintiff with respect to compensation or terms, 

conditions, or privileges of employment, because of a disability, because it regarded 

Plaintiff as disabled and/or because Plaintiff had a history of a disability.

45. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant had a duty not to retaliate 

against Plaintiff with respect to his employment, compensation or terms, conditions 

or privileges of employment, or to limit, segregate, or classify Plaintiff for 

employment in any way which deprived or tended to deprive Plaintiff of 

employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect the employment status of 

Plaintiff, in retaliation for her requesting accommodation, opposing a violation of 

the Act or for filing an EEOC charge.

10

2:15-cv-11658-GCS-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 05/08/15 Pg 10 of 13 Pg ID 10
46. Notwithstanding said duties as set forth above, Defendant 

discriminated and retaliated against Plaintiff because of her disability and/or because 

it regarded Plaintiff as disabled and/or because Plaintiff had a history of a disability, 

because she requested accommodation, opposed a violation of the Act, and filed a 

charge with the EEOC, when it refused to accommodate Plaintiff and forced her to 

take a medical retirement.

47. As a direct and approximate result of Defendant’s disability 

discrimination and retaliation, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer lost 

wages, and other economic advantages of employment; Plaintiff has and will 

continue to suffer mental anguish, humiliation, physical injury, embarrassment, and 

emotional distress resulting from the discriminatory conduct of the Defendant.

Accordingly, Plaintiff requests the following relief:

a. An Order of this Court allowing Plaintiff reinstatement to 

a position with Defendant within Plaintiff’s restrictions;

b. An Order of this Court awarding Plaintiff compensatory 

damages in an amount in excess of $75,000.00 he is found 

to be entitled to;

c. An Order of this Court awarding Plaintiff interest, costs, 

and attorney fees;

11

2:15-cv-11658-GCS-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 05/08/15 Pg 11 of 13 Pg ID 11
d. An Order of this Court awarding Plaintiff such other 

equitable relief as this Court deems just and equitable.

PITT McGEHEE PALMER & RIVERS P.C.

By: /s/Cary S. McGehee___________________

Cary S. McGehee (P42318)

Attorney for Plaintiff

117 W. Fourth Street, Ste. 200

Royal Oak, MI 48067

(248) 398-9800

cmcgehee@pittlawpc.com

DATE: May 8, 2015

12

2:15-cv-11658-GCS-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 05/08/15 Pg 12 of 13 Pg ID 12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ANNETTE PERRY

Plaintiff,

v.

WAYNE COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT

Defendant.

PITT MCGEHEE PALMER & RIVERSP.C.

CARY S. McGEHEE (P42318)

cmcgehee@pittlawpc.com

Attorney for Plaintiff

117 W. Fourth Street, Suite 200

Royal Oak, Michigan 48067

(248) 398-9800

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff herein demands a trial by jury of all issues to the within cause of 

action.

PITT McGEHEE PALMER &RIVERS P.C.

By: s/Cary S. McGehee___________________

Cary S. McGehee (P42318)

Attorney for Plaintiff

117 W. Fourth Street, Ste. 200

Royal Oak, MI 48067

(248) 398-9800

cmcgehee@pittlawpc.com

DATE: May 8, 2015

13

2:15-cv-11658-GCS-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 05/08/15 Pg 13 of 13 Pg ID 13