UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

____________ 

MONICA J. ROGERS, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 

 Hon. 

vs. 

HENRY FORD HEALTH SYSTEM, 

a Michigan corporation, 

 Defendant. 

 / 

Gerald D. Wahl (P26511) 

Attorney for Plaintiff 

STERLING ATTORNEYS AT LAW, P.C. 

33 Bloomfield Hills Pkwy., Ste. 250 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 

(248) 644-1500 

gwahl@sterlingattorneys.com 

 / 

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

 NOW COMES Plaintiff, Monica J. Rogers, by and through her counsel 

Sterling Attorneys at Law, P.C. in order to complain against Defendant for the 

following reasons: 

JURISDICTIONAL ALLEGATIONS

1. Plaintiff is a resident of Orchard Lake, Oakland County, Michigan 

and at all times pertinent hereto is a citizen of the United States. 

Case 2:15-cv-12312-MOB-EAS ECF No. 1, PageID.1 Filed 06/25/15 Page 1 of 12
2 

2. Defendant is a hospital corporation organized and existing under 

the laws of the State of Michigan, and is an “employer” within the meaning of 

the statutes cited herein. 

3. Jurisdiction is vested in this Court pursuant to their being a federal 

question in Counts I-IV, jurisdiction as to Counts V-VIII is claimed as 

supplemental jurisdiction due to both counts arising under a common nucleus 

of operative facts with those articulated in the prior counts. 

COMMON ALLEGATIONS

4. Plaintiff is an African American female. 

5. Plaintiff began her employment with Defendant in October 1981. 

6. At all times pertinent hereto, Plaintiff performed all of her job 

functions positively as reflected by her longevity, assignments, actual 

performance, and performance reviews. 

7. Plaintiff became an OHRD Consultant in or around 2007 and 

remained in that position until October 20, 2014. 

8. Plaintiff has filed charges of discrimination against Defendant 

under Title VII with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 

(EEOC), and as to various claims, filed them within 300 days of the 

discriminatory act, and less than 90 days has elapsed since her receipt of a 

Right to Sue letter. 

Case 2:15-cv-12312-MOB-EAS ECF No. 1, PageID.2 Filed 06/25/15 Page 2 of 12
3 

9. Plaintiff initially filed, both internally and with the EEOC, charges 

of race discrimination against Defendant for Defendant’s failure to provide 

Plaintiff a promotion to the position of Sr. OHRD Consultant position at the 

same time she was assigned those duties. 

10. On March 25, 2013, Plaintiff filed a written complaint with 

Defendant’s Vice President-Human Resources Corporate Services, Derick 

Adams, outlining the reasons she felt she had been discriminated against, i.e. 

outlining race and age, after having complained verbally since December 2012. 

11. Plaintiff’s statements of discrimination informed Mr. Adams that 

white candidates, all of whom are younger, were promoted without having 

college degrees; Defendant’s management had told Plaintiff that the reason she 

had not been given the Sr. OHRD Consultant job title, pay grade, and 

authority was she lacked a college degree. 

12. Plaintiff pointed out both in her internal complaint and in 

conversation with her management for a period of months, white males, 

younger than Plaintiff, who had been given job titles and promotions without 

college degrees, in spite of job descriptions requiring college degrees. 

13. When complaining to the Director of Employee Relations and 

Diversity, Jan Harrington-Davis, that Plaintiff was a victim of age 

discrimination, Plaintiff was told that the reason she was not being provided 

the job title, pay grade, and authority she had earned, was because of her race. 

Case 2:15-cv-12312-MOB-EAS ECF No. 1, PageID.3 Filed 06/25/15 Page 3 of 12
4 

14. Plaintiff’s manager, Lori Jensen, commented to Plaintiff, in a 

direct display of age consciousness, on January 23, 2013, “I don’t know about 

you, but I feel that at our age we only have one good job left.” 

15. Ms. Jensen’s comment regarding her and Plaintiff’s age, was in the 

context of a conversation about Plaintiff receiving the Sr. ORHD job title. 

16. Defendant’s management, on numerous occasions, has referenced 

Plaintiff’s age, all of which was brought to the attention of Defendant in 

Plaintiff’s complaints of discrimination, along with Plaintiff’s statement of race 

discrimination. 

17. Plaintiff thereafter filed a Charge of Discrimination with the 

EEOC on July 3, 2013, stating that she was discriminated against in a failure 

to promote based on her race, and that she was subjected to different terms and 

conditions of employment in retaliation for her having made the complaints of 

race discrimination. 

18. Defendant’s acts of retaliation between December 2012 and July 3, 

2013 were, amongst others, excluding Plaintiff from meetings, stopping one on 

one meetings with Plaintiff’s immediate manager, Barbara Bressack, and 

changing the OHRD Consulting job description to include all of the senior 

level tasks so Defendant would not have to promote her to a senior level 

consultant position, all of which had the effect of diminishing Plaintiff’s job 

opportunities and performance. 

Case 2:15-cv-12312-MOB-EAS ECF No. 1, PageID.4 Filed 06/25/15 Page 4 of 12
5 

19. Defendant, through Derick Adams, on September 11, 2013, placed 

Plaintiff on suspension through the issuance of an “Impaired Healthcare 

Worker” discipline, for a period of 10 days (it turned out to be 30), requiring a 

fitness for duty examination, and telling Plaintiff “people have concerns there 

are safety risks with you,” all on September 11, 2013. 

20. Defendant’s explanations are pretextual, as evidenced in part, that 

when requested to provide examples of behavior suggesting a “safety risk,” 

Mr. Adams did not have any, and said “you have been up and down,” citing 

Defendant’s zero tolerance for violence policy. 

21. Communications from Defendant’s management to employees of 

Defendant, in explanation of the suspension, were that Plaintiff had been 

terminated. 

22. Before returning her to employment, Defendant, through Jan 

Harrington-Davis and Derick Adams, called Plaintiff in for a meeting on 

October 2, 2013. 

23. At the meeting, Adams informed Plaintiff that he had been told 

that people were upset because Plaintiff had identified witnesses on the EEOC 

Charge and that they did not agree with the Charge. 

24. Mr. Adams continued to inform Plaintiff that she would be 

removed from her position, and she could either take a Business Partner 

Case 2:15-cv-12312-MOB-EAS ECF No. 1, PageID.5 Filed 06/25/15 Page 5 of 12
6 

position at a subsidiary at HAP, or obtain a severance in exchange for 

dropping all charges. 

25. Mr. Adams went on to ask Plaintiff how long she intended to work 

and that this would be a good opportunity to leave, Ms. Harrington-Davis 

voicing her agreement. 

26. On Tuesday, October 8, when Plaintiff told Mr. Adams she would 

take the HAP position, he expressed surprise. 

27. As a ramp-up to Plaintiff obtaining the new HAP position, she was 

denied access to computer files that would have assisted her in the HAP 

position. 

28. Defendant’s actions had the effect of communicating to people 

that Defendant’s management felt Plaintiff was prone to violence, unstable, 

masking its true reasons for its actions, i.e. race and age discrimination, and 

retaliation for having opposed discrimination. 

29. Plaintiff again filed an EEOC charge of discrimination and 

retaliation on September 24, 2013. 

30. The EEOC found probable cause to believe that Defendant had 

retaliated against Plaintiff. 

Case 2:15-cv-12312-MOB-EAS ECF No. 1, PageID.6 Filed 06/25/15 Page 6 of 12
7 

COUNT I 

42 USC 1981, ET SEQ. – RACE DISCRIMINATION 

31. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 4-30 of the 

Common Allegations as though fully restated herein.

32. Defendant has engaged in a practice and pattern of race 

discrimination in negatively deciding the terms and conditions of employment 

for people of color in its failure to promote, using different criteria for African 

Americans, and non-African Americans in its treatment of Plaintiff.

33. Defendant’s actions were in willful disregard of Plaintiff’s federally 

protected rights.

34. As a proximate result of defendants’ illegal acts as aforestated, the 

Plaintiff has suffered economic losses, both present and future, and an injury.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against the Defendant that 

is fair and equitable, consequential damages, unlimited punitive damages, 

costs, and attorneys’ fees. 

COUNT II 

42 USC 1981, ET SEQ. – RETALIATION

35. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 4-30 of the 

Common Allegations as though fully restated herein.

Case 2:15-cv-12312-MOB-EAS ECF No. 1, PageID.7 Filed 06/25/15 Page 7 of 12
8 

36. Beginning in December 2012 to present, Defendant has engaged in 

a pattern of retaliating against Plaintiff for opposing its racially discriminatory 

practices. 

37. Defendant’s actions were in willful disregard of Plaintiff’s federally 

protected rights.

38. As a proximate result of defendants’ illegal acts as aforestated, the 

Plaintiff has suffered economic losses, both present and future, and an injury.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against the Defendant that 

is fair and equitable, consequential damages, unlimited punitive damages, 

costs, and attorneys’ fees. 

COUNT III 

TITLE VII – RACE DISCRIMINATION

39. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 4-30 of the 

Common Allegations, and paragraphs 31-34 of Count I as though fully 

restated herein.

40. Defendant’s actions were in willful disregard of Plaintiff’s federally 

protected rights.

41. As a proximate result of defendants’ illegal acts as aforestated, the 

Plaintiff has suffered economic losses, both present and future, and an injury.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against the Defendant that 

is fair and equitable, consequential damages, punitive damages in excess of 

Case 2:15-cv-12312-MOB-EAS ECF No. 1, PageID.8 Filed 06/25/15 Page 8 of 12
9 

$300,000 based on the number of employees Defendant has, costs, and 

attorneys’ fees.

COUNT IV 

TITLE VII -- RETALIATION 

42. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 4-30 of the 

Common Allegations, and paragraphs 35-36 of Count II as though fully 

restated herein.

43. Defendant’s actions were in willful disregard of Plaintiff’s federally 

protected rights.

44. As a proximate result of defendants’ illegal acts as aforestated, the 

Plaintiff has suffered economic losses, both present and future, and an injury.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against the Defendant that 

is fair and equitable, reinstatement to her former position, other equitable 

relief, consequential damages, punitive damages in excess of $300,000 based 

on the number of employees Defendant has, costs, and attorneys’ fees.

COUNT V 

RACE DISCRIMINATION –ELLIOTT-LARSEN CIVIL RIGHTS ACT 

45. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 4-30 of the 

Common Allegations, paragraphs 31-34 of Count I, and paragraphs 39-41 of 

Count III as though fully restated herein.

Case 2:15-cv-12312-MOB-EAS ECF No. 1, PageID.9 Filed 06/25/15 Page 9 of 12
10 

46. Defendant’s actions were in willful disregard of Plaintiff’s rights 

under the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act.

47. As a proximate result of defendants’ illegal acts as aforestated, the 

Plaintiff has suffered economic losses, both present and future, and an injury.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against the Defendant that 

is fair and equitable, consequential damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees. 

COUNT VI 

RETALIATION – ELLIOTT-LARSEN CIVIL RIGHTS ACT

48. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 4-30 of the 

Common Allegations, paragraphs 35-38 of Count II, and paragraphs 42-44 of 

Count IV as though fully restated herein.

49. Defendant’s actions were in willful disregard of Plaintiff’s rights to 

be free from retaliation under the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act.

50. As a proximate result of defendants’ illegal acts as aforestated, the 

Plaintiff has suffered economic losses, both present and future, and an injury.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against the Defendant that 

is fair and equitable, reinstatement to her former position, other equitable 

relief, consequential damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees. 

Case 2:15-cv-12312-MOB-EAS ECF No. 1, PageID.10 Filed 06/25/15 Page 10 of 12
11 

COUNT VII 

AGE DISCRIMINATION – ELLIOTT-LARSEN CIVIL RIGHTS ACT 

51. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference paragraphs 4-30 of the 

Common Allegations as though fully restated herein.

52. Plaintiff’s date of birth is April 10, 1953.

53. Through direct comments and decisions affecting younger 

employees, Defendant using different standards for promotion, i.e. Plaintiff 

being denied promotion for not fulfilling a job description based on college 

degree, and younger employees obtaining promotions, yet also not fulfilling 

job description requirements for a college degree, Defendant has engaged in a 

practice and pattern of age discrimination. 

54. Defendant repeatedly referenced Plaintiff’s age regarding 

suggestions of retirement, showing, at least, age consciousness, and direct 

evidence of age discrimination in that each conversation was in the context of 

seeking the promotion or retention of her position and stated by decisionmakers in the process.

55. As a proximate result of defendants’ illegal acts as aforestated, the 

Plaintiff has suffered economic losses, both present and future, and an injury.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against the Defendant that 

is fair and equitable, reinstatement to her former position, other equitable 

relief, consequential damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees. 

Case 2:15-cv-12312-MOB-EAS ECF No. 1, PageID.11 Filed 06/25/15 Page 11 of 12
12 

JURY DEMAND

 Plaintiff Monica J. Rogers, by her attorneys Sterling Attorneys at Law, 

P.C., requests a trial by jury. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 STERLING ATTORNEYS AT LAW, P.C. 

 By: /s/Gerald D. Wahl 

 Gerald D. Wahl (P26511) 

 Attorney for Plaintiff 

 33 Bloomfield Hills Pkwy., Ste. 250 

 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304 

 (248) 644-1500 

Dated: June 25, 2015 

Case 2:15-cv-12312-MOB-EAS ECF No. 1, PageID.12 Filed 06/25/15 Page 12 of 12