-1- 

 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

DEV IYER, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

MARK W. EVERSON, COMMISSIONER, 

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, 

JOHN P. SNOW, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF 

THE TREASURY, 

 Defendants 

Case No.: 

DOCKET NO. 

 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

COMPLAINT 

Now comes the above named plaintiff, by and through his 

attorney, Gregory J. Spadea, Esquire, of Spadea and 

Associates,LLC, and for a cause of action against the defendant 

alleges and shows to the Court as follows: 

I. NATURE OF THE CASE 

(1) This complaint is filed by Mr. Dev Iyer, an asian 

indian employee, aged 51, of the Internal Revenue 

Service, from June 1991 to January 2002 at the 

Internal Revenue Service Pennsylvania District. He 

brings this action to obtain full and complete 

relief and to redress the unlawful employment 

practices described herein. 

(2) This action seeks declaratory, injunctive, 

compensatory and other equitable relief, including 

attorney fees and costs from discrimination in 

employment against the plaintiff, on account of his 

race, in violation of Section 717 of Title VII of 

the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 

Section 2000e-16; the Age Discrimination in 

Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C. et 

seq., the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 52 Stat. 

1060; 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201 et seq., as amended by the 

Equal Pay Act, 77 Stat. 56; 29 U.S.C. Section 

206(d). This action also alleges discrimination 

based and arising out of plaintiff’s religion, 

gender, national origin as also due to retaliation 

for filing prior EEO and EEO related complaints and 

causes of action and for defendant creating a 

hostile work environment. Additionally, an 

additional equal amount as liquidated wages is also 

sought under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Equal 

Pay Act. 

Case 2:04-cv-02259-AB Document 1 Filed 05/25/04 Page 1 of 8
-2- 

II. JURISDICTION 

(3) The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant 

to (i) Section 717(c) and Section 706 of the Title 

VII, 42 U.S.C. Section 200e-16(c) and Section 

2000e-5, and 28 U.S.C. Section 1343(4); (ii) the 

Age Discrimination in Employment act of 1967, as 

amended, 29 U.S.C. Section 621 et seq., and 

jurisdiction pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 621 et 

seq.; (iii) the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 

52 Stat. 1060; 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201 et seq., as 

amended by the Equal Pay Act, 77 Stat. 56; 29 

U.S.C. Sec. 206(d). 

III. VENUE 

(4) This action properly lies in the Eastern District 

of Pennsylvania pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 621

et seq., because the unlawful employment practice 

was committed in this judicial district and the 

plaintiff resides in this judicial district. 

IV. PARTIES 

(5) Plaintiff is a colored asian, indian, male citizen 

and resident of the United States. Plaintiff is of 

asian indian origin and of hindu religious faith. 

At the time of the claimed unlawful acts of the 

defendants, he was 46 years old. 

(6) Benjamin Franklin Rogers was the District Director 

of the erstwhile Pennsylvania District of the 

Internal Revenue Service (hereinafter referred to 

as IRS), which is an agency within the Department 

of Treasury. The IRS is an employer, engages in an 

industry affecting commerce, employs more than 

twenty (20) regular employees, and is a federal 

executive agency as defined in Section 105 of title 

5, United States Code.

(7) Eleanor Jacobs was the Chief of Quality Measurement 

Staff at IRS, a 5 USC 105 agency.

(8) Ann Marie “Molly” Smith was the branch chief in the 

Examination Division at IRS, a 5 USC 105 agency.

(9) John E. Boehm was the Chief of Examination Division 

at IRS Pennsylvania District, a 5 USC 105 agency.

Case 2:04-cv-02259-AB Document 1 Filed 05/25/04 Page 2 of 8
-3- 

(10) George B. Mullin was the Quality Measurement Staff, 

Branch Chief at the IRS, a 5 USC 105 agency.

(11) John Kaffenberg, Examination Manager Division, 

International and Economists, at the IRS, a 5 USC 

105 agency.

(12) Wayne Beyer was the Chief of Examination of the New 

Jersey District at IRS, a 5 U.S.C. 105 agency.

(13) Henry Singleton was the IRS’ Examination Division 

Manager in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

(14) Thomas Britt was the Examination Division Branch 

Chief, at IRS, a 5 USC 105 agency.

V. FACTS 

(15) Plaintiff was an Internal Revenue Agent at the IRS 

King of Prussia, Pennsylvania office from 1993 

through 1998. Plaintiff was supervised by manager 

William Bennett from 1993 through November 1998. 

(16) Plaintiff filed an EEO discrimination complaint 

against the Internal Revenue Service in November 

1998, for an illegal and improper involuntary 

reassignment to the IRS Problem Resolution Program 

in a clerical capacity in Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania. 

(17) In November 1998, plaintiff was involuntarily 

reassigned to the Problem Resolution Program (PRP) 

in the Quality Measurement Staff for a two-year 

detail in IRS, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 

(18) Plaintiff was supervised by George B. Mullin, 

Section Chief in IRS, Quality Measurement Staff in 

the Examination (audit) Division. 

(19) From November 1998 through September 1999, IRS 

management refused to assign plaintiff job related 

critical work that of Internal Revenue Agent 

Reviewer, even though such critical work was given 

to other Internal Revenue Agent Reviewers: Frank 

Meyers, Mark Teodoro, Vince Weltz, Diane Warcola, 

W. Bob Costa. 

Case 2:04-cv-02259-AB Document 1 Filed 05/25/04 Page 3 of 8
-4- 

(20) From November 1998 through September 1999, IRS 

management refused and failed to grant plaintiff 

administrative time-off to travel to the “detail” 

job (temporary assignment location), even though 

other IRS employees and managers Mary Taylor, 

Kathleen Schaeffer and Diane Heasley were routinely 

and as-a-matter-of-course received administrative 

time-off to travel to “detail” (temporary 

assignment) job. 

(21) In November 1998 IRS management denied plaintiff 

appropriate training for the technical aspects of 

the problem resolution program and the use of the 

problem resolution management information system 

(“PROMIS”) even though such training was routinely 

given to other employees. 

(22) On or around March 29, 1999, Group Manager George 

B. Mullin intentionally and deliberately failed to 

certify forms 9511A and 9512A necessary to apply 

for the position of supervisory tax examining 

assistant GS-592-12, vacancy announcement: MEL-MPL99-42S. 

(23) In May of 1999 plaintiff was denied a promotion to 

the position of Internal Revenue Agent (PSP 

Coordinator) GS-512-12, vacancy announcement 

number: 995202B, even though plaintiff had the 

highest evaluation ranking number. Three other 

employees with lower evaluation numbers were 

promoted and plaintiff was denied promotion. 

(24) IRS management failed to follow its own ranking 

procedures in the promotion package for 

announcement number 995202B for Internal Revenue 

Agent (PSP Coordinator) GS-512-12. 

(25) In or around May of 1999, plaintiff was not given a 

fair chance and opportunity to compete for a 

managerial position GS-512-11 Office Auditor 

position in the Quality Measurement Section. 

(26) Between October 1998 and September 1999, plaintiff 

was berated, humiliated, abused and exposed to a 

acidic hostile work environment that was created by 

the IRS and its staff and managers when branch 

chief Eleanor Jacobs made fun of plaintiff’s 

accent, religion and his looks by comparing his 

looks to that of “Saddam Hussein.” 

Case 2:04-cv-02259-AB Document 1 Filed 05/25/04 Page 4 of 8
-5- 

(27) Between October 1998 and September 1999, manager 

George B. Mullin created a hostile work environment 

by allowing and putting up a poster of Saddam 

Hussein at work place notice board with notations 

and comments connecting the poster to plaintiff and 

refusing to remove the poster. 

(28) Between October 1998 and September 1999, manager 

George b. Mullin created a hostile work environment 

by issuing a bogus memorandum on June 2, 1999, and 

when plaintiff refused to accept the memorandum, 

manager Mullin threatened plaintiff with racial 

epithets which included statements such as that 

plaintiff will end up running an “seven-eleven” 

store. 

(29) On June 7, 1999, manager George B. Mullin harassed 

and threatened plaintiff by stating that if 

plaintiff did not accept the IRS Oakland, 

California job offer, “we will get you, one way or 

another.” 

(30) From November 1998 through June 1999, plaintiff 

performed higher graded duties without appropriate 

compensation. 

(31) Plaintiff was illegally and improperly denied a IRS 

promotion opportunity to the position of Industry 

Economist, GS-0110-12/13, announcement number: 

99NJ084P even though plaintiff received a ranking 

of 43.57 as compared to selectee Kevin McKesey’s 

ranking of 39.86 and that IRS refused to select 

plaintiff when McKesey turned down the position 

even though plaintiff was next in the promotion 

certificate. 

(32) Plaintiff was denied promotion to Internal Revenue 

Agent (Employment Tax) GS-512-12 announcement 

number: 9952098B and Internal Revenue Agent, 

(Excise Tax) GS-512-11 as retaliation for filing 

EEO complaints and grievances. 

VI. EXHAUSTION 

(33) Plaintiff was given an administrative hearing by 

attorney-examiner Susan Arnold Flynn of the 

Philadelphia Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission resulting in denial of all of 

plaintiff’s claims. 

Case 2:04-cv-02259-AB Document 1 Filed 05/25/04 Page 5 of 8
-6- 

(34) Plaintiff appealed attorney-examiner Flynn’s 

decision to the Office of Federal Operations which 

resulted in a denial of all of plaintiff’s claims 

including Flynn’s illegal conflict-of-interest and 

improper liaison with IRS attorney David Jay 

Markman and a finding to this effect by the Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission Inspector 

General. 

(35) On April 24, 2004, plaintiff received right to file 

a civil action in a federal district court. 

VII. CLAIMS 

(36) Whether plaintiff was discriminated against because 

of his: age (date of birth: July 11, 1953); sex 

(male); race (asian); national origin (asian 

indian); color ( black); religion (hindu); or 

retaliation for prior EEO activity and creation of 

a hostile work environment. The factors for the 

court to consider: 

 In his assignments from November 1998 and 

continuing; 

 When he was not granted administrative time to 

travel while on “detail” beginning in November 

1998; 

 When he was denied training beginning in November 

1998; 

 When he was not selected for promotion to various 

positions : Supervisory Tax Examining Assistant, 

Planning and Special Programs Coordinator, 

Internal revenue Agent, Industry Economist, 

Employment Tax specialist, Office Audit Manager 

in the Quality Measurement Section, rotational 

assignment to Excise Tax Auditor; 

 When he was constantly and repeatedly harassed by 

IRS management ; 

 When he was not compensated at the higher level 

although he was performing higher graded duties; 

Case 2:04-cv-02259-AB Document 1 Filed 05/25/04 Page 6 of 8
-7- 

VIII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

(37) WHEREFORE, plaintiff respectfully requests that 

this court: 

(a) Enter a declaratory judgment, pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. Sections 2201 and 2202, that 

defendant’s failure to promote plaintiff 

to various positions as detailed in the 

claim and aforesaid pleading was unlawful 

discrimination against plaintiff on 

account of his race, age, sex, religion, 

national origin, color in violation of 

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 

1964, as amended and the Age 

Discrimination in Employment Act, as 

amended and all other federal laws; 

(b) Issue a mandatory injunction directing 

the defendant to promote the plaintiff 

retroactively to June 1999 as an Industry 

Economist GS-512-12/13, or an equivalent 

position at the appropriate step and 

grade level; 

(c) Enter a judgment against the defendant 

and in favor of plaintiff in the amount 

of back pay and front pay owed the 

plaintiff by virtue of the said 

retroactive promotion, together with 

prejudgment interest thereon at the 

applicable adjusted prime rates from the 

date on which such wages should have been 

paid, post-judgment interest, and all 

other benefits incident to the GS-12/13 

position, including, but not limited to, 

within grade step increases and 

appropriate adjustments to plaintiff’s 

retirement account; 

(d) Enter a judgment against the defendant 

and in favor of the plaintiff for out of 

pocket expenses and incidental financial 

losses incurred by plaintiff on account 

of defendant’s unlawful and racially 

discriminatory employment practices as 

aforesaid; 

(e) Enter a judgment against the defendant 

and in favor of the plaintiff in the 

Case 2:04-cv-02259-AB Document 1 Filed 05/25/04 Page 7 of 8
-8- 

amount of $300,000 for compensatory 

damages; 

(f) Enter a judgment for the plaintiff of the 

reasonable attorney fees and costs 

pursuant to Section 706(k) of Title VII, 

42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-5(k); and 

(g) Award plaintiff such further and 

additional relief as the Court may deem 

just and proper. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Dated this 27th day of May, 2004 

By: 

 GREGORY J. SPADEA, ESQ. 

 Attorney for Plaintiff 

 Attorney ID # 84882 

204 East Chester Pike 

P. O. Box 152 

Ridley Park, Pa. 19078. 

(610) 521-0600 (voice) 

(610) 521-4515 (fax) 

Case 2:04-cv-02259-AB Document 1 Filed 05/25/04 Page 8 of 8