Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/12201080/55/According-to-defendant-Pickler%E2%80%99s-written-correspondence
Timestamp: 2015-03-06 12:18:54
Document Index: 301016006

Matched Legal Cases: ['§1331', '§1343', '§1983', '§1343', '§1391', '§2201', 'Art. 8', '§4']

63. According to defendant Pickler’s written correspondence: for Brook Heike
Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See moreDownloadStandard viewFull view of .Add to collectionMark as finishedMarked as finished. UndoRemove from libraryLook up keyword or sectionLike thisShare on social networks3Activity×Share to your social networks.TweetEmbedTable Of Contents1. This is a civil action:6. Defendant Sue Guevara is an individual who resides within this7. Defendant Dave Heeke is an individual who resides within this8. Defendant Patricia Pickler is an individual who resides within this10. While at Romeo High School, plaintiff played on the girls’ basketball11. By all accounts, plaintiff was an outstanding athlete who was a12. During high school plaintiff earned numerous awards, including, but13. Based on her ability and achievements, several colleges and14. These schools who recruited plaintiff included several NCAA15. One of the schools which aggressively recruited plaintiff for its16. Defendant CMU and its representatives promised plaintiff that, if17. Then-CMU Head Coach Eileen Kleinfelter stated to plaintiff, at the18. Then-CMU Head Coach Eileen Kleinfelter and other19. On November 3, 2005, then Director of Athletics Herb Deromedi20. Defendant CMU, through its authorized representatives, made22. Plaintiff signed the Mid America Conference and National Letters of23. Plaintiff matriculated at defendant CMU in September, 2006 and24. At the time plaintiff became a member of the women’s basketball25. In the 2005/2006 season, the CMU women’s basketball team had26. At the beginning of the 2006/2007 season, defendant CMU27. On January 16, 2006, defendant Heeke had become the Athletics28. On April 18, 2007, defendant Heeke introduced defendant Guevara29. Prior to being hired by defendant CMU, defendant Guevara had30. Defendants Heeke and CMU did not investigate the reasons for31. Defendants Heeke and CMU did not adequately or properly33. During the 2007/2008 season, defendant Guevara repeatedly told34. Based on defendant Guevara’s comments to her both when they35. Throughout the 2007/2008 season, defendant Guevara continued36. Throughout the 2007/2008 season, defendant Guevara repeatedly37. Throughout the 2007/2008 season, defendant Guevara said to38. Defendant Guevara’s discriminatory and harassing and39. As part of her discriminatory and wrongful plan to get plaintiff to quit40. Plaintiff was so upset by this wrongful and discriminatory treatment41. Despite receiving the doctor’s note as to plaintiff’s illness,42. Immediately following this incident, plaintiff requested additional43. Plaintiff continued to suffer injury, including significant emotional44. Plaintiff continued to work hard, despite the wrongful discriminatory45. Plaintiff was selected as the first player off the bench and placed46. After the Northwestern University tournament, plaintiff spoke with47. Defendant Guevara directed her to Assistant Coach Kathy McGee,48. The CMU women’s basketball team won only 6 games and lost 2349. During the 2007/2008 women’s basketball season, defendant50. During the 2007/2008 women’s basketball season, defendant51. During the 2007/2008 women’s basketball season, defendant52. During the 2007/2008 women’s basketball season, defendant54. During the meeting on March 13, 2008, defendant Guevara did not55. Defendant Guevara thereafter told the women’s basketball team56. Even though plaintiff had been a member of the women’s57. Defendant Guevara deprived plaintiff and two other players on the58. Defendant Guevara further deprived plaintiff of her scholarship and59. On March 27, 2008, defendant Pickler advised plaintiff by written60. On April 7, 2008, plaintiff requested by written correspondence a61. On June 5, 2008, defendant Pickler advised plaintiff and defendant62. Defendant Pickler began to demonstrate her animus toward plaintiff63. According to defendant Pickler’s written correspondence:64. At no place in her correspondence does defendant Pickler indicate65. At no place in her correspondence does defendant Pickler indicate66. Defendant Pickler attached to the written correspondence she sent67. Also attached to defendant Pickler’s written correspondence was a68. For the first time ever (and more than a month after she wrongfully69. According to defendant Guevara’s April 24th70. According to defendant Guevara’s April 24th71. According to defendant Guevara’s April 24th72. According to defendant Guevara’s April 24th73. In defendant Guevara’s April 24th74. According to defendant Guevara’s April 24th75. According to defendant Guevara’s April 24th76. According to defendant Guevara’s April 24th77. At no place in defendant Guevara’s “statement” did she indicate78. On June 11, 2008, plaintiff appeared before what was termed an79. Prior to the June 11th meeting, plaintiff had asked some current80. According to defendant Pickler, the purpose of the June 11, 200881. However, instead of providing plaintiff notice and an opportunity to82. Throughout the entirety of the June 11th meeting, defendant Pickler83. Examples of defendant Pickler’s demonstrated animus against84. While defendant Guevara stated at the June 11, 2008 meeting that85. At the June 11th meeting, defendant Guevara confirmed that she86. At the June 11th meeting, defendant Guevara confirmed that she87. Despite the fact that defendant Guevara claimed to have deprived88. At the June 11th meeting, defendant Guevara admitted that she89. At the June 11th meeting, defendant Guevara admitted that she90. At the June 11th meeting, defendant Guevara admitted that other91. At the June 11th meeting, defendant Guevara admitted that other92. Plaintiff provided the Appeals Committee with the statistics for each93. These statistics directly contradicted the assertions which95. The statistics which plaintiff produced (Exhibit 10) demonstrated96. Defendant Guevara called no witnesses to support her statements97. Plaintiff produced at the hearing several witnesses to provide98. Plaintiff’s witnesses contradicted every single assertion which99. Defendant Guevara did not, and could not, produce any notes or100. Even Assistant Coach Bill Ferrara, defendant Guevara’s only101. Assistant Coach Ferrara confirmed at the June 11th meeting that102. There was no evidence produced at the June 11th103. Plaintiff made clear to the Appeals Committee that she believed104. Even in the face of this evidence, the Appeals Committee did not105. Instead, after a two-hour meeting at which plaintiff produced106. Contrary to defendant Pickler’s June 5, 2008 written107. Defendant Heeke and the Appeals Committee (of which defendant108. By this action, defendants continued to deny to plaintiff her right to109. Defendants’ dismissal of plaintiff from the women’s basketball team110. Defendants have treated similarly-situated student-athletes on the111. Defendants have treated similarly-situated student-athletes on the112. Defendants applied a different standard to plaintiff than to similarly-113. In the “Student-Athlete Handbook,“ it states under “CMU’s Policies114. At all times plaintiff advised defendant Guevara that her adverse115. Defendants failed to comply with the “CMU Policies and116. The actions of defendants about which plaintiff complains violated117. The incidents set forth in the preceding paragraphs are sadly just a118. Plaintiff has fundamental property rights and liberty interests in119. Plaintiff’s reputation and her opportunity to pursue future120. The policy to unlawfully harass and discriminate against plaintiff121. Defendants’ harassing and discriminatory and unconstitutional122. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 121 are123. Plaintiff by her race and color and gender is a member of the124. Plaintiff’s right to be free from unwelcome sexual harassment is125. Defendants’ deprivation of plaintiff’s scholarship and dismissal of126. Plaintiff was not afforded an unbiased, careful and deliberate127. Defendants made false charges and accusations against plaintiff128. Plaintiff was denied a meaningful opportunity to clear her name129. Defendants, through their actions, deprived plaintiff of her federally130. Defendants are each liable, because each acted in violation of131. Defendants Guevara, Heeke and Pickler and other agents,132. Defendants Guevara, Heeke and Pickler and other agents,134. At all material times hereto, plaintiff had clearly established rights to135. The policies and actions of defendants were based on136. Defendants’ actions constituted a deliberate denial, under color of137. As a direct and proximate result of defendants’ actions, plaintiff has138. Because of the nature of defendants’ actions, plaintiff does not139. Because defendants acted with an improper motive and intent, in140. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 139 are141. Plaintiff by her race and color and gender is a member of the142. Plaintiff’s right to be free from unwelcome sexual harassment is143. Plaintiff has the right to fair and equal treatment under the law, as144. Defendants have intentionally singled out and treated plaintiff less145. Defendants, through their actions, deprived plaintiff of her federally146. Defendants are each liable, because each acted in violation of147. Defendants Guevara, Heeke and Pickler and other agents,148. Defendants Guevara, Heeke and Pickler and other agents,150. At all material times hereto, plaintiff had clearly established rights to151. At all material times hereto, plaintiff had clearly established rights152. At all material times hereto, plaintiff had clearly established rights153. The policies and actions of defendants were based on154. Defendants’ actions constituted a deliberate denial, under color of155. As a direct and proximate result of defendants’ actions, plaintiff has156. Because of the nature of defendants’ actions, plaintiff does not157. Because defendants acted with an improper motive and intent, in158. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 157 are159. Plaintiff had a contract or an implied contract with defendant CMU160. Defendants’ failure and refusal to abide by the terms of that161. As a direct and proximate result of defendants’ breach of contract162. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 161 are163. Defendants have each made statements about plaintiff orally and in164. Defendants knew that the statements which they made were false165. Defendants published the remarks about plaintiff to third parties166. Defendants’ statements about plaintiff were not privileged167. Defendants’ statements about plaintiff amount to gross negligence168. Defendants made the false statements about plaintiff in order to169. Defendants were negligently and/or knowingly at fault in the170. Defendants' oral and written statements concerning plaintiff171. Defendants’ defamatory statements about plaintiff have seriously172. Defendants' defamatory statements about plaintiff have caused173. As a direct and proximate result of defendants’ defamation of174. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 173 are175. Plaintiff had a contract or advantageous business relationship or176. Defendants Guevara, Heeke and Pickler were aware of plaintiff’s177. Defendants Guevara, Heeke and Pickler for personal reasons and178. Defendants Guevara, Heeke and Pickler acted with malice in179. As a direct and proximate result of defendants’ tortious interference180. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 179 are181. Defendants’ conduct as set forth in the preceding paragraphs was182. Defendants’ conduct as set forth in the preceding paragraphs was183. Defendants were grossly negligent in engaging in the conduct184. Defendants’ conduct resulted in severe and serious emotional185. As a direct and proximate result of defendants’ intentional infliction186. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 185 are187. Defendant CMU is a place of public accommodation, a public188. Defendants Guevara, Heeke and Pickler are “persons,” as defined189. Defendants have violated the CRA by treating similarly-situated190. Defendants have violated the CRA by treating similarly-situated191. Defendants’ actions have resulted in discrimination against plaintiff192. Defendants’ actions have resulted in discrimination against plaintiff193. Defendants’ actions resulted in depriving plaintiff of her athletic194. Defendants’ actions resulted in depriving plaintiff of her athletic195. Defendants’ actions resulted in denying plaintiff the full and equal196. Defendants’ actions resulted in denying plaintiff the full and equal199. Defendants’ actions as described in the preceding paragraphs were200. As a direct and proximate result of defendants’ violation of the201. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 200 are202. Defendants CMU and Heeke both owed plaintiff a duty to use203. Before they hired defendant Guevara, defendants CMU and Heeke204. Before they hired defendant Guevara, defendants CMU and Heeke205. Defendants CMU and Heeke failed to investigate, or failed to206. Defendants CMU’s and Heeke’s actions in failing to investigate, or207. Defendants CMU and Heeke had actual knowledge, or should have208. As a direct and proximate result of defendants CMU’s and Heeke’s209. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 208 are210. Defendants CMU and Heeke both owed plaintiff a duty to use211. As defendant Guevara’s supervisors, defendants CMU and Heeke212. As defendant Guevara’s supervisors, defendants CMU and Heeke213. As defendant Guevara’s supervisors, defendants CMU and Heeke214. Defendants CMU’s and Heeke’s actions in failing to investigate, or215. Defendants CMU and Heeke had actual knowledge, or should have216. As a direct and proximate result of defendants CMU’s and Heeke’s0 of .Results for: No results containing your search query{{& result_text }}
P. 1Brook HeikeBrook HeikeRatings: (0)|Views: 266|Likes: 3Published by Reid MurtaughMore info:Categories:Types, School WorkPublished by: Reid Murtaugh on Feb 12, 2009Copyright:Attribution Non-commercialAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.download as PDF or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee moreSee lesshttps://www.scribd.com/doc/12201080/Brook-Heike10/17/2011 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTEASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGANBROOKE ELIZABETH HEIKE, ))Plaintiff, ) Case No.)v. ) HONORABLE)SUE GUEVARA, individually and )in her official capacity, DAVE HEEKE, )individually and in his official )capacity, PATRICIA PICKLER, )individually and in her official )capacity, and CENTRAL MICHIGAN )UNIVERSITY BOARD OF TRUSTEES, )a constitutional body corporate, )jointly and severally, ) JURY TRIAL REQUESTED)Defendants. )
________________________________________________________________ COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESAND FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Plaintiff Brooke Elizabeth Heike, by and through her attorneys, The VictorFirm, PLLC, hereby states for her complaint against defendants Sue Guevara,individually and in her official capacity, Dave Heeke, individually and in his officialcapacity, Patricia Pickler, individually and in her official capacity, and CentralMichigan University Board of Trustees, a constitutional body corporate, jointlyand severally, as follows:
1. This is a civil action:(a) Arising under the Constitution and laws of the United Statesand this Court has original federal jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331;
Case 1:09-cv-10427-TLL-CEB Document 1 Filed 02/03/2009 Page 1 of 46
(b) To redress the deprivation, under the color of law, of therights, privileges and immunities of plaintiff secured by the Constitution of theUnited States providing for equal rights of its citizens and of all persons of any jurisdiction in the United States, and this Court has original jurisdiction pursuantto 28 U.S.C. §1343(3); and(c) For declaratory judgment and injunctive relief pursuant to 42U.S.C. §1983. and this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1343(4).2. The principal events giving rise to the claims stated herein occurredin this Judicial District and venue is therefore proper in this District pursuant to 28U.S.C. §1391(b).3. This Court has authority to issue declaratory and injunctive reliefpursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2201 and 2202.
4. Plaintiff Brooke Elizabeth Heike is a female individual, who residesin Macomb County, Michigan, within this Judicial District. Plaintiff is ofCaucasian and Native American descent.5. Defendant Central Michigan University Board of Trustees is aconstitutional body corporate under the Michigan Constitution (1963), Art. 8, §§4-6, operating in Isabella County, Michigan, within this Judicial District., which hasgeneral supervision of its institution, Central Michigan University, a publicuniversity of higher education (hereinafter referred to as “CMU”). Uponinformation and belief, CMU receives federal funding.- 2 -
Case 1:09-cv-10427-TLL-CEB Document 1 Filed 02/03/2009 Page 2 of 46
6. Defendant Sue Guevara is an individual who resides within thisJudicial District and who is employed by defendant CMU as Head Coach of thewomen’s basketball program. Defendant Guevara is being sued individually andin her official capacity. By virtue of her position as Head Coach of the women’sbasketball program, defendant Guevara is a policy-making and decision-makingofficial for CMU.7. Defendant Dave Heeke is an individual who resides within thisJudicial District and who is employed by defendant CMU as its Athletics Director.Defendant Heeke is being sued individually and in his official capacity. AsAthletics Director, defendant Heeke is the chief administrator and executive ofthe Athletics Department of defendant CMU, and is a policy-making anddecision-making official for CMU. Defendant Heeke is responsible for the hiringand supervision of the Athletics Department’s head coaches, including defendantGuevara.8. Defendant Patricia Pickler is an individual who resides within thisJudicial District and who is employed by defendant CMU as Assistant Director,Office of Scholarships and Financial Aid. Defendant Pickler is being suedindividually and in her official capacity. In her position, defendant Pickler is apolicy-making and decision-making official for CMU.
9. Plaintiff Brooke Heike attended Romeo High School in Romeo,Michigan, from September, 2002 through June, 2006.- 3 -
Case 1:09-cv-10427-TLL-CEB Document 1 Filed 02/03/2009 Page 3 of 46
Activity (3)FiltersAdd to collectionReview Add NoteLikeShowingAllMost RecentReviewsAll NotesLikesYou've already reviewed this. Edit your review.Rating 0/5Post notePost reviewPost replyPost note and like1 hundred reads1 thousand readsmark_godbey liked thisLoad more
More From This UserBilly Gillispie ComplaintReid MurtaughHorse Racing TrademarkReid MurtaughNCAA Division III ManualReid MurtaughNCAA Division II ManualReid MurtaughNCAA Division I ManualReid MurtaughIndiana Athlete Agent RegistrationReid MurtaughIndiana Agent LegislationReid MurtaughNCAA Transfer GuideReid MurtaughIndiana Supplemental ReportReid MurtaughBarry Bonds Case Defendant's Motion in LimineReid MurtaughMike Leach Coaching ContractReid MurtaughMLBPA July 2008 StatementReid MurtaughMLBPA Release 2 9 2009Reid MurtaughMarlins Stadium MemoReid MurtaughComparing New StadiumsReid MurtaughMcnamee Reply BriefReid MurtaughClemens First Amended ComplaintReid MurtaughClemens Complaint and McNamee Notice of RemovalReid MurtaughProject30 Task Force ReportReid MurtaughNorth Haven Board of Education v. BellReid MurtaughNCAA v. Univ. of OklahomaReid MurtaughTicket Master Corp, V. com Inc.Reid MurtaughNational Broadcasting Co. v. USReid MurtaughSpeakers of Sport, Inc. v. ProServe, Inc.Reid Murtaugh