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

Stephen Montoya (#011791)

Montoya, Jimenez & Pastor, P.A.

3200 North Central Avenue, Suite 2550

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

602-256-6718 (telephone)

602-256-6667 (fax)

stephen@montoyalawgroup.com

Attorney for Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jeffrey Green,

Plaintiff,

v.

City of Phoenix,

Defendant.

No. 

COMPLAINT

(Jury Trial Demanded)

For his Complaint against Defendant, Plaintiff alleges the following:

1. This is an action seeking to redress retaliation in the public workplace brought 

by Jeffrey Green against his employer, the City of Phoenix, under Title VII of 

the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e (as amended).

2. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(4), 

and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e.

3. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and 42 U.S.C. § 

2000e-5(f)(3).

4. Mr. Green is a citizen of the United States of America residing in Maricopa 

County, Arizona.

5. Defendant City of Phoenix (the “City”) is an Arizona municipal corporation 

which owns and operates the Police Department of the City of Phoenix.

6. The City has been engaged in an industry affecting commerce and has had at 

least fifteen employees for each working day in at least twenty calendar weeks 

Case 2:15-cv-02570-DJH Document 1 Filed 12/17/15 Page 1 of 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

-2-

this year or last year at all times material to this Complaint.

7. Mr. Green has been employed as a Police Officer by the City of Phoenix Police 

Department since September 1994. 

8. Mr. Green is currently a Sergeant with the Department.

9. Sergeant Green’s work performance at the Department has been satisfactory to 

excellent at all times material to this Complaint.

10. During the course of his employment with the City, Sergeant Green was

subjected to retaliation by his supervisors at the Phoenix Police Department for 

opposing discrimination in the workplace.

11. Specifically, on approximately December 11, 2009, Sergeant Green filed a 

Charge of Discrimination (EEOC Charge: 540-2010-00685) with the EEOC 

alleging that he had been subjected to discrimination based on his gender.

12. This Charge was resolved by means of a settlement agreement between Sergeant 

Green and the City in October 2011.

13. After Sergeant Green’s first EEOC Charge was resolved by means of 

settlement, the City retaliated against him for filing the first Charge of 

Discrimination by (among other things) falsely labeling him a “conspirator,”

subjecting him to increased surveillance, falsely accusing him of poor work 

performance, giving him an unjustified “unmet” as part of his official 

evaluation, and giving him unfavorable job assignments.

14. Moreover, part of Sergeant Green’s duties with the Department is to supervise a 

squad of police officers.

15. In April of 2012, the only woman officer on Sergeant Green’s squad came to 

him and complained that another Sergeant with the Department had grabbed her 

between the legs while off duty. 

16. The woman officer wanted to file a formal complaint about the incident, and 

Sergeant Green assisted her in doing so. 

17. A few months later, in approximately July 2012, Sergeant Green’s direct 

Case 2:15-cv-02570-DJH Document 1 Filed 12/17/15 Page 2 of 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

-3-

supervisor, a Lieutenant with the Department, told him that, “we need to get rid 

of [the woman officer] because she made the complaint [alleging sexual 

harassment].” 

18. Sergeant Green responded, “boss, you can’t say that, it’s retaliation.” 

19. The Lieutenant then proceeded to invent a few other reasons for “getting rid” of 

the complaining woman officer. 

20. A few weeks later, in approximately August of 2012, two officers accused the 

woman officer of posting inappropriate messages on their Facebook pages. 

21. Sergeant Green preliminarily investigated their complaint about the woman 

officer and thought it was trivial and unfounded. 

22. Nevertheless, Sergeant Green’s Lieutenant ordered him to discipline the woman 

officer for the incident. 

23. After Sergeant Green opposed the Lieutenant’s orders regarding the woman 

officer because he thought it was retaliatory, the City (among other things) 

falsely and retaliatorily accused him of insubordination, subjected him to 

increased surveillance, unjustified discipline for complaining outside of his 

chain of command, unfavorable job reassignments, placed him on administrative 

leave twice, and subjected him to two unnecessary fitness for duty evaluations.

24. The pattern of discrimination against Sergeant Green grew worse after Sergeant

Green filed a complaint with the City’s Equal Opportunity Department (“EOD”) 

alleging retaliation and two Charges of Discrimination against the Department 

with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). 

25. Defendant has tolerated a discriminatory work environment at the City of 

Phoenix for many years now, has routinely failed to investigate complaints of 

discriminatory harassment in the workplace, and has failed to adequately 

discipline employees guilty of engaging in discriminatory harassment.

26. Defendant’s conduct as described above was intentional, protracted, malicious, 

and deliberately indifferent to and in reckless disregard of Sergeant Green’s

Case 2:15-cv-02570-DJH Document 1 Filed 12/17/15 Page 3 of 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

-4-

federally protected rights under Title VII.

27. Defendant’s discriminatory treatment of Sergeant Green undermined his

otherwise excellent job performance and has caused him to suffer lost wages 

and other income.

28. Defendant’s discriminatory treatment of Sergeant Green also had a detrimental 

impact on his well-being and his physical and emotional health.

29. Based upon Defendant’s discriminatory conduct as summarized above, Sergeant

Green filed two Charges of Discrimination against the City of Phoenix with the 

EEOC on April 6, 2012 and November 27, 2012. See attached Exhibits A and 

B.

30. After Sergeant Green filed his Charges of Discrimination with the EEOC, he 

continued to be subjected to retaliation at work.

31. After the EEOC investigated Mr. Green’s Charges of Discrimination, it 

determined that Defendant had subjected him to a hostile work environment and 

retaliated against him after he complained about it, concluding that:

Charging Party alleged a female officer he supervised 

reported to him that she was sexually harassed by a fellow 

officer while at an off duty event. Charging Party alleged 

he assisted this officer with filing a formal EO complaint. 

Charging Party alleged a few months after filing the 

complaint his direct supervisor told him that they needed to 

get rid of this female officer because of her complaint 

against another officer. Charging Party alleged a few weeks 

later, two subordinate officers accused the female officer of 

posting inappropriate messages on their Facebook pages. 

Charging Party alleged he conducted a preliminary 

investigation into the matter and thought it was trivial and 

unfounded. Charging Party alleged his direct supervisor 

ordered him to discipline the female officer; however he 

questioned this action and believed it to be retaliatory. 

Charging Party alleged his direct supervisor accused him of 

being insubordinate, placed him on administrative leave, 

and subjected him to a fitness for duty evaluation.

I have considered all the evidence obtained during the 

investigation and find that there is reasonable cause to 

Case 2:15-cv-02570-DJH Document 1 Filed 12/17/15 Page 4 of 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

-5-

believe that Respondent violated Title VII when it placed 

Charging on administrative leave, and required him to 

undergo a fitness for duty examination in retaliation for his 

participation in a protected activity and opposition to 

actions he believed to be discriminatory.

See attached Exhibit C.

32. Sergeant Green has satisfied all of the requirements for initiating this action by 

exhausting his administrative remedies with the EEOC and either requesting or 

receiving Right to Sue Letters from the EEOC. See attached Exhibit D.

33. Pursuant to Rule 38 (b) of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Sergeant Green

hereby demands a trial by jury. 

WHEREFORE, Sergeant Green respectfully requests the Court to:

A. Issue a judgment declaring that the conduct of Defendant as 

described above violated Plaintiff’s rights under Title VII of the 

Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, as amended;

B. Issue preliminary and permanent injunctions against Defendant 

enjoining it from committing similar unlawful acts in the future;

C. Issue a judgment awarding Plaintiff nominal and compensatory

damages against Defendant in amounts to be determined by the 

finder-of-fact at trial;

D. Issue a judgment awarding Plaintiff reasonable costs and attorney 

fees against Defendant pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e and any other

applicable law; and

E. Issue a judgment awarding Plaintiff all other relief that is just and 

proper against Defendant under the circumstances.

Case 2:15-cv-02570-DJH Document 1 Filed 12/17/15 Page 5 of 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

-6-

Respectfully submitted this 17th day of December 2015.

MONTOYA, JIMENEZ & PASTOR, P.A.

s/ Stephen Montoya 

Stephen Montoya

3200 North Central Avenue, Suite 2550

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Attorney for Plaintiff 

I hereby certify that on December 17, 2015, I electronically transmitted the foregoing 

document to the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of 

a Notice of Electronic Filing.

s/ Stephen Montoya 

Case 2:15-cv-02570-DJH Document 1 Filed 12/17/15 Page 6 of 6