1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Meenoo Chahbazi (No. 029568) 

ROBAINA & KRESIN PLLC 

5343 N. 16th Street, Suite 200 

Phoenix, Arizona 85016 

Telephone: (602) 682-6450 

Facsimile: (602) 682-6455 

mch@robainalaw.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff Vinita Bhatt 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Vinita Bhatt, an individual,

 Plaintiff, 

vs. 

State of Arizona, David Dunaway, and 

Daniel Czecholinski, 

 Defendants. 

No. 

COMPLAINT 

(Family and Medical Leave Act, 

Rehabilitation Act, Section 1981, 

Section 1983, Fourteenth 

Amendment) 

(Jury Trial Demanded) 

 Plaintiff, Vinita Bhatt, by and through her counsel undersigned, alleges as 

follows: 

1. This action is brought pursuant to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 

U.S.C. § 701 et seq. (“the Rehabilitation Act”), the Family Medical Leave Act, 29 

U.S.C. 29 U.S.C. §2601 et seq. (“the FMLA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Section 1983), the 

Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and the Civil Rights 

Act of 1866, Section 1981, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (“Section 1981”). 

PARTIES 

2. Plaintiff Vinita Bhatt is a South Asian female, a citizen of the United 

States, and a resident of Maricopa County, Arizona. Ms. Bhatt previously worked at the 

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) from May 2001 to February 29, 

2016. 

3. Defendant State of Arizona is a political body and state government that 

Case 2:17-cv-04807-JZB Document 1 Filed 12/29/17 Page 1 of 13
 - 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

receives and distributes federal financial assistance. 

4. Defendant David Dunaway is, and at all relevant times was, a resident of 

Maricopa County. Defendant Dunaway is the Groundwater Protection and Water Reuse 

Value Streams Manager at ADEQ. 

5. Defendant Daniel Czecholinski is, and at all relevant times was, a resident 

of Maricopa County. Mr. Czecholinski is the Drinking Water Value Stream Manager, 

Water Quality Division at ADEQ. 

JURISDICTION 

6. The Court has jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 

and 1343. 

7. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within 

the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. 

8. Venue is proper in the District of Arizona pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391. 

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 

9. Ms. Bhatt began her employment with ADEQ on or about May 26, 2001 

as an Environmental Health Specialist. 

10. On approximately September 12, 2005, Ms. Bhatt was appointed to the 

Position of Environmental Program Specialist in Waste Water. 

11. On approximately October 21, 2013, she was appointed to the position of 

Capacity Development Coordinator. 

12. Ms. Bhatt received praise for her performance from her former Supervisor 

Anthony Bode, from the vendors that she worked with, and other co-workers. She also 

received positive acknowledgments for her contributions and a number of certifications 

for her training and continued educational development. 

13. Supervisor Bode described that Ms. Bhatt “exhibits excellent work 

habits.” 

14. For twelve years, from 2001 to 2013, Ms. Bhatt consistently met or 

exceeded performance expectations. 

Case 2:17-cv-04807-JZB Document 1 Filed 12/29/17 Page 2 of 13
 - 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

15. By way of background, Ms. Bhatt’s husband died in April 2013, and Ms. 

Bhatt’s supervisor at that time was aware that she suffered from severe anxiety and 

depression after her husband’s death. 

16. Ms. Bhatt is a qualified individual with a disability who suffers from 

long-term depression, related chest pain, difficulty breathing, a heart condition, and 

other ongoing medical conditions, which affected her from April 2013 through 2017. 

17. Ms. Bhatt also has a son who has a chronic health condition under the 

FMLA. When her husband passed away, Ms. Bhatt had to assume full responsibility for 

caring for their son and supervising the treatment of his medical condition. 

18. As background evidence, ADEQ has acknowledged that it provided Ms. 

Bhatt with FMLA leave, including leave in June 2013 and on an ongoing basis. 

However, after granting her requests for leave, ADEQ discriminated against Ms. Bhatt 

by giving her a lower performance evaluation than she deserved on or about September 

6, 2013 and by placing her on a performance improvement plan from 2013 to 2014. 

19. Upon information and belief, ADEQ intensified a policy or practice of 

targeting employees on medical leave in 2013, and continuing. Ms. Bhatt’s co-worker 

who worked in a similar position in the same department with some of the same 

managers also asserted that he was subjected to discrimination by ADEQ because of his 

FMLA medical leave and because of his disability starting in 2013, and continuing. 

This co-worker also repeatedly asserted that he was given a lower performance 

evaluation than he deserved and placed on a performance improvement plan because of 

his FMLA medical leave and because of his medical condition in 2013 to 2014, and he 

asserted that the disability and FMLA discrimination against him continued through the 

years that followed. 

20. Despite receiving a discriminatory performance review on September 6, 

2013, and being given a PIP on or about December 2, 2013, Ms. Bhatt met the 

performance objectives of the PIP in 2013 and received a Meets Expectation on January 

16, 2014. 

Case 2:17-cv-04807-JZB Document 1 Filed 12/29/17 Page 3 of 13
 - 4 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

21. In September 2013, Ms. Bhatt was transferred to ADEQ’s Safe Drinking 

Water Unit. In approximately February 2014, Daniel Czecholinski became a Section 

Manager for the Safe Drinking Water Unit. Mr. Czecholinski and Ms. Bhatt’s direct 

supervisor, Steven Vevang, discriminated against Ms. Bhatt by holding her to higher 

standards than white male employees who did not have disabilities or FMLA leave, by 

giving her lower performance evaluations than she deserved, and by placing her on a 

Performance Improvement Plan. 

22. Ms. Bhatt’s co-worker at the time, who is also nonwhite, and who also 

worked under the same supervisors, similarly asserted that he was subjected to higher 

standards than white employees who did not have disabilities or FMLA leave and that 

he was discriminated based on his race by Mr. Czecholinski and Steven Vevang with 

respect to his pay and evaluations. 

23. Ms. Bhatt was also discriminated against with respect to pay, her job 

duties, and her performance reviews, based on her gender, female. 

24. Ms. Bhatt was also paid less than white or non-South Asian employees, 

male employees, and employees without disabilities or FMLA leave, who were similarly 

situated to her, performed similar work, and had similar job duties as her. 

25. After a “Career Path Mapping” in approximately the summer of 2015, 

and continuing through February 2016 when Ms. Bhatt’s employment ended, Ms. Bhatt 

was given lower pay than white or non-South Asian males in similar positions who did 

not have disabilities or FMLA leave. 

26. One or more South Asian female employees who also worked at ADEQ 

under Mr. Czecholinski additionally asserted that they were held to higher standards 

than white or non-South Asian employees and discriminated against based on their race 

and/or gender with respect to pay and evaluations. 

27. Mr. Czecholinski also expressed disapproval toward Ms. Bhatt’s use of 

FMLA. For example, Mr. Czecholinski regularly came to her cubicle to monitor her 

when she took FMLA leave. 

Case 2:17-cv-04807-JZB Document 1 Filed 12/29/17 Page 4 of 13
 - 5 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

28. Upon information and belief, Mr. Czecholinski pressured Mr. Vevang to 

give Ms. Bhatt a lower performance rating in March 2015 and to place her on a PIP. 

Mr. Vevang advised Ms. Bhatt that Mr. Czecholinski directed him not to give Ms. Bhatt 

positive comments regarding her performance at their one-on-meetings. Mr. Vevang 

also told Ms. Bhatt that Mr. Czecholinski advised that Ms. Bhatt needed to take less 

FMLA leave. 

29. David Dunaway became Ms. Bhatt’s supervisor on or about October 10, 

2015, and at that time, Ms. Bhatt also worked under Daniel Czecholinski, who 

continued to be her section manager. 

30. Mr. Dunaway subjected Ms. Bhatt to severe or pervasive harassment and 

discrimination. 

31. Mr. Dunaway subjected Ms. Bhatt to hostility during meetings and 

repeatedly raised his voice with her and stated, “DO YOU UNDERSTAND?” Mr. 

Dunaway scrutinized Ms. Bhatt and stereotyped her as unable to communicate and 

perform her job duties based on her race, national origin and accent, despite her 

successful communication with customers and co-workers in her experiences of working 

for ADEQ over a decade. 

32. Mr. Dunaway lodged false accusations against Ms. Bhatt and he 

misrepresented that she did not send emails about several arrivals and departures. 

33. Mr. Dunaway’s emphasis on Ms. Bhatt’s absences in his February 28, 

2016, Memorandum also demonstrates his discrimination against Ms. Bhatt on the 

basis of disability. Ms. Bhatt had received approval for intermittent FMLA in April 

2015; however, Mr. Dunaway targeted Ms. Bhatt for her absences from April 2015 to 

February 2016 and criticized her for taking her intermittent FMLA leave on Fridays, 

“[r]egardless of leave type.” 

34. Mr. Dunaway scrutinized Ms. Bhatt’s work more harshly than that of 

White or non-South Asian, male employees who did not have disabilities or FMLA 

leave. 

Case 2:17-cv-04807-JZB Document 1 Filed 12/29/17 Page 5 of 13
 - 6 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

35. Mr. Dunaway and Mr. Czecholinski attempted to set Ms. Bhatt up for 

failure. Ms. Bhatt successfully completed all the goals in her July 2015 MAP. 

However, in approximately January 2016, when she was in the process of working on 

these goals and had almost completed them, Mr. Czecholinski and Mr. Dunaway forced 

Ms. Bhatt to assume new MAP goals and responsibilities, in addition to the goals set 

forth relating to her MAP in July 2015, which were already extensive. 

36. These new job responsibilities were yet another means of denying Ms. 

Bhatt equal employment opportunities and targeting Ms. Bhatt for termination. 

37. One or more additional South Asian female employees have also 

experienced discrimination while working under David Dunaway. 

38. On approximately December 17, 2015, Ms. Bhatt reported to Deputy 

Director Randall G. Matas that she was being subjected to harassment and 

discrimination by Supervisor David Dunaway. Based on this harassment and 

discrimination, she requested that Mr. Matas transfer her to another unit. Ms. Bhatt 

additionally requested that she receive a re-classification to Environmental Science 

Specialist (ESS) III, a position she had been denied because of the discrimination she 

had experienced. Ms. Bhatt followed up after the meeting by writing out her requests 

that ADEQ transfer and re-classify her position in a December 30, 2015 email. 

39. In a February 22, 2016 email, Ms. Bhatt reported to Mr. Czecholinski that 

she was being subjected to national origin discrimination and harassment by ADEQ and 

Mr. Dunaway. She pointed out that Mr. Dunaway repeatedly subjected her to demeaning 

treatment based on her national origin. She also indicated that Mr. Dunaway had 

assigned her new significant and time-consuming projects to set her up for failure. She 

further pointed out that based on her level of experience and job duties she should be 

classified as an ESS II or III and receive higher pay. 

40. Ms. Bhatt additionally submitted a complaint of discrimination based on 

national origin and sex to ADEQ on or about February 25, 2016. 

41. Unfortunately, instead of conducting a complete and unbiased 

Case 2:17-cv-04807-JZB Document 1 Filed 12/29/17 Page 6 of 13
 - 7 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

investigation of Ms. Bhatt’s complaint, including interviews of relevant witnesses, 

ADEQ only interviewed managers such as Steven Vevang and disregarded evidence of 

Mr. Dunaway’s hostility toward Ms. Bhatt. 

42. After Ms. Bhatt reported discrimination to ADEQ, including complaints 

In December 2015 and February 2016, ADEQ subjected her to reprisal and further 

discrimination by terminating her on February 29, 2016. 

43. After terminating Ms. Bhatt, ADEQ hired a white employee who is 

paid significantly more to do the same work as Ms. Bhatt. 

44. After terminating Ms. Bhatt based on discriminatory and retaliatory 

motives, she was replaced by a White, Grade 24 Employee who was paid a much higher 

salary than her. After repeatedly being denied re-classification, Ms. Bhatt was a Grade 

20 Employee who earned approximately $40,000/year. After terminating Ms. Bhatt, 

ADEQ hired a white employee for her Capacity Development Coordinator job. The 

new employee holds the same job previously held by Ms. Bhatt prior to her termination 

and performs the same job duties that Ms. Bhatt previously performed; however, the 

new employee is paid at a Grade 24 and earns approximately $70,000/year. The higher 

pay received by the white employee further supports Ms. Bhatt’s assertions that she was 

discriminated against, retaliated against, underpaid, and improperly denied 

reclassification to an ESS III. 

COUNT I 

(Interference with Rights under the FMLA) 

44. Plaintiff incorporates all previous allegations as though set forth fully 

herein. 

45. At all relevant times, Defendant was an employer within the meaning of 

the FMLA. 

46. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was an eligible employee within the 

meaning of the FMLA. 

Case 2:17-cv-04807-JZB Document 1 Filed 12/29/17 Page 7 of 13
 - 8 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

47. At all relevant times, Plaintiff received FMLA to care for her son who has 

a medical condition that qualifies for leave under the FMLA. 

48. Defendant violated the FMLA by subjecting Ms. Bhatt to a lower 

evaluation than she deserved on December 30, 2015, lower pay, disciplinary action, and 

different terms and conditions of employment because she took FMLA leave. 

49. Defendant violated the FMLA by subjecting Ms. Bhatt to severe and 

pervasive harassment based on her FMLA leave. 

50. Defendant violated the FMLA by wrongfully terminating Ms. Bhatt based 

on her FMLA leave. 

COUNT II 

(Discrimination in violation of the FMLA) 

51. Plaintiff incorporates all previous allegations as though set forth fully 

herein. 

52. Defendant subjected Ms. Bhatt to a lower performance review than she 

deserved, lower pay, disciplinary action, and different terms and conditions of 

employment because she took FMLA leave and because she exercised her rights under 

the FMLA. 

53. Defendant violated the FMLA by subjecting Ms. Bhatt to severe and 

pervasive harassment based on her FMLA leave and because she exercised her rights 

under the FMLA. 

54. Defendant violated the FMLA by wrongfully terminating Ms. Bhatt based 

on her FMLA leave and because she exercised her rights under the FMLA. 

COUNT III 

(Disability Discrimination and Harassment in Violation of the Rehabilitation Act) 

55. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all previous allegations as though set 

forth fully herein. 

56. Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff in violation of the Rehabilitation 

Act by subjecting her to severe or pervasive harassment on the basis of her disability 

Case 2:17-cv-04807-JZB Document 1 Filed 12/29/17 Page 8 of 13
 - 9 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

and need for reasonable accommodations, and based on associational discrimination 

against her based on her son’s disability, which created a hostile work environment. 

57. Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff in violation of the Rehabilitation 

Act by subjecting her to a lower performance evaluation than she deserved, lower pay, 

disciplinary action, and different terms and conditions of employment based on her 

disability and need for reasonable accommodations, and as associational discrimination 

against her based on her son’s disability. 

58. Defendant subsequently discriminated against Plaintiff, in violation of the 

Rehabilitation Act, by wrongfully terminating her employment. 

59. As a result of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to 

suffer lost income, lost fringe benefits, mental anguish, emotional distress, pain and 

suffering, humiliation, inconvenience, harm to reputation and loss of enjoyment of life, 

and other monetary and non-monetary benefits due her. 

COUNT IV 

(Retaliation in Violation of the Rehabilitation Act) 

60. Plaintiff incorporates all previous allegations as though set forth fully 

herein. 

61. Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff, in violation of the Rehabilitation 

Act, because she engaged in protected activity by requesting reasonable 

accommodations for her medical conditions. 

62. Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff, in violation of the Rehabilitation 

Act, by subjecting her to severe or pervasive harassment because she requested 

reasonable accommodations for her medical conditions. 

63. Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff, in violation of the Rehabilitation 

Act, by subjecting her to a lower performance evaluation than she deserved, lower pay, 

and disciplinary action because she requested reasonable accommodations for her 

medical conditions. 

Case 2:17-cv-04807-JZB Document 1 Filed 12/29/17 Page 9 of 13
 - 10 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

64. As a result of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to 

suffer lost income, lost fringe benefits, mental anguish, emotional distress, pain and 

suffering, humiliation, inconvenience, harm to reputation and loss of enjoyment of life. 

COUNT V 

(Race Discrimination in Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Against Defendants David 

Dunaway and Daniel Czecholinski in their Personal Capacities) 

65. Plaintiff incorporates all previous allegations as though set forth fully 

herein. 

66. Plaintiff was subjected to severe or pervasive race harassment by Mr. 

Dunaway. 

67. Plaintiff was subjected to a lower performance evaluation than she 

deserved, less pay and disciplinary action based on her race by Mr. Dunaway and Mr. 

Czecholinski. 

68. Mr. Dunaway and Mr. Czecholinski treated Plaintiff less favorably than 

her white co-workers or non-South Asian co-workers with respect to the terms and 

conditions of her employment. 

69. Mr. Czecholinski and Mr. Dunaway discriminated against Ms. Bhatt 

based on her race, South Asian, by forcing Ms. Bhatt to assume new MAP goals and 

responsibilities, in addition to the goals set forth relating to her MAP in July 2015, 

which were already extensive. These new job responsibilities were yet another means of 

denying Ms. Bhatt equal employment opportunities and targeting Ms. Bhatt for 

termination 

70. One or more other South Asian employees have also experienced race 

discrimination by Mr. Dunaway and Mr. Czecholinski. 

71. Mr. Czecholinski and Mr. Dunaway wrongfully terminated Ms. Bhatt 

based on her race. 

72. The discriminatory actions taken by Mr. Dunaway and Mr. Czecholinski 

Case 2:17-cv-04807-JZB Document 1 Filed 12/29/17 Page 10 of 13
 - 11 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

were intentional and purposeful, and constitute reckless and callous disregard of Ms. 

Bhatt’s rights and have directly and proximately caused her injury, including loss of 

economic opportunities and benefits, lost income, lost benefits, mental anguish, 

emotional distress, pain and suffering, humiliation, inconvenience, harm to reputation 

and loss of enjoyment of life. 

COUNT VI 

(Sex Discrimination in Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourteenth 

Amendment Against Defendants David Dunaway and Daniel Czecholinski In Their 

Personal Capacities) 

73. Plaintiff incorporates all previous allegations as though set forth fully 

herein. 

74. Plaintiff was subjected to a lower performance evaluation than she 

deserved, less pay, and disciplinary action based on her sex by Mr. Dunaway and Mr. 

Czecholinski. 

75. Mr. Dunaway and Mr. Czecholinski treated Plaintiff less favorably than 

her male co-workers with respect to the terms and conditions of her employment. 

76. Mr. Dunaway and Mr. Czecholinski acted under color of state law. 

77. Mr. Czecholinski and Mr. Dunaway discriminated against Ms. Bhatt 

based on her sex, female, by forcing Ms. Bhatt to assume new MAP goals and 

responsibilities, in addition to the goals set forth relating to her MAP in July 2015, 

which were already extensive. These new job responsibilities were yet another means of 

denying Ms. Bhatt equal employment opportunities and targeting Ms. Bhatt for 

termination 

78. One or more other female employees have also experienced sex 

discrimination by Mr. Dunaway and Mr. Czecholinski. 

79. Mr. Czecholinski and Mr. Dunaway wrongfully terminated Ms. Bhatt 

based on her sex. 

80. The actions taken by Mr. Dunaway and Mr. Czecholinski were intentional 

Case 2:17-cv-04807-JZB Document 1 Filed 12/29/17 Page 11 of 13
 - 12 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

and purposeful, and constitute reckless and callous disregard of Ms. Bhatt’s rights and 

have directly and proximately caused her injury, including loss of economic 

opportunities and benefits, lost income, lost benefits, mental anguish, emotional distress, 

pain and suffering, humiliation, inconvenience, harm to reputation and loss of 

enjoyment of life. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendant as follows: 

A. For an award of economic damages in an amount sufficient to make 

Plaintiff whole for past and future lost income and benefits and 

other economic losses suffered by Plaintiff resulting from 

Defendant’s conduct; 

B. For reinstatement; 

C. For front pay in lieu of reinstatement; 

D. For an award of compensation for past and future pecuniary losses 

resulting from the unlawful employment practices described above, 

including job search expenses, in amounts to be determined at trial; 

E. For an award of compensatory damages for mental anguish, 

emotional distress, pain and suffering, humiliation, inconvenience, 

harm to reputation, loss of enjoyment of life and other losses 

incurred by Plaintiff as a result of Defendant’s conduct; 

F. For an award of interest; 

G. For an award of attorneys’ fees and related expenses; 

H. For an award of Plaintiff’s costs of suit incurred herein; and, 

I. For an award of such other relief as the Court may deem just and 

proper. 

REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL 

1. Plaintiff demands a jury trial on all claims and issues set forth herein. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 29th day of December, 2017. 

Case 2:17-cv-04807-JZB Document 1 Filed 12/29/17 Page 12 of 13
 - 13 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 ROBAINA & KRESIN PLLC 

 By /s/Meenoo Chahbazi 

 Meenoo Chahbazi 

 Attorney for Plaintiff Vinita Bhatt 

Case 2:17-cv-04807-JZB Document 1 Filed 12/29/17 Page 13 of 13