Free Complaint - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:07-cv-00336-MPT

Document 1

Filed 05/25/2007

Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE RONALD S. RILEY Plaintiff, v. THE DELAWARE RIVER AND BAY AUTHORITY Defendant, : : : : : : : : : :

C.A. No.

COMPLAINT 1. Plaintiff Ronald S. Riley is a United States citizen, a resident individual residing at

504 East Avenue, New Castle, DE 19702, and an employee of The Delaware River and Bay Authority. 2. The Delaware River and Bay Authority is a bi-state agency of the State of Delaware

and New Jersey. JURISDICTION 3. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and

1343(a)(3) and (4), 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The cause of action arises under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. §1981 Title 7 and Title 7 of the Civil Rights of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2005(e), et seq. The state law causes of action arise under the common law of the State of Delaware. This Court has jurisdiction over the State law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 which provides for supplemental jurisdiction. The claims arise in this judicial district. 4. At all relevant times herein, Plaintiff Ronald S. Riley has been employed

Case 1:07-cv-00336-MPT

Document 1

Filed 05/25/2007

Page 2 of 6

by the Defendant, The Delaware River and Bay Authority (hereinafter "DRBA") as an operations clerk. 5. At all relevant times herein, Plaintiff Ronald S. Riley (hereinafter "Riley" or "plaintiff

Riley") was employed by the Airport Safety Department as an Airports Operations Clerk with a paygrade of "P". At all relevant times herein plaintiff Riley's job performance has exceeded all requirements and/or expectations of the job performance. 6. As an Operations Clerk, plaintiff Riley was requested to perform a variety of

administrative duties including, but not limited to, answering phones, managing identification badge systems, providing clerical support for the airport operations staff, and to be the direct contact for all outside agencies with the airport. 7. Although plaintiff Riley has been given the job title of an operations clerk with a

paygrade of "P", plaintiff Riley functions at a much higher responsibility level. Despite the fact that the plaintiff Riley performs responsibilities above and beyond that of an operations clerk, the Defendant has failed to provide him with equal paygrade for the work that he performed to date. In addition, the Defendant has failed to promote plaintiff Riley for promotions despite the fact that he performs work and his job duties are in excess of that as defined by an operations clerk. 8. The Plaintiff attempted to file an internal complaint within DRBA with agents,

servants and employees of DRBA to address the fact that his compensation was not adequate for his job responsibilities. Despite the fact that plaintiff Riley filed an internal complaint, no action has been taken by DRBA to address the issues regarding his inadequate compensation for his job responsibilities. 9. Plaintiff filed a complaint (hereinafter "initial complaint") in this Court based upon

2

Case 1:07-cv-00336-MPT

Document 1

Filed 05/25/2007

Page 3 of 6

Defendant's discriminatory actions and conduct of the Plaintiff. See Ronald Riley v. DRBA, C.A. No. 05-746-KAJ. 10. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant DRBA, has failed to provide the Plaintiff with

adequate compensation in his prior complaint to compensate him for the work responsibilities he performs and/or failed to promote him despite the fact that he has applied promotions due to the fact that he is an African American male and that the Plaintiff has been subject to the discrimination by the Defendant DRBA and created a hostile work environment on the basis of his race in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1981 Title 7 and Title 7 of the Civil Rights of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2005(e), et seq. 11. Plaintiff filed a complaint with the EEOC for retaliation and hostile work

environment against DRBA after filing his initial complaint in this Court. 12. The EEOC issued a right to sue letter dated February 22, 2007 and received on

February 26, 2007 by the Plaintiff. (A copy of the right to sue letter is attached hereto as Exhibit "A"). 13. As a direct proximate and legal result of the discrimination by DRBA, the filing of

the complaint with the EEOC and the filing of the complaint in U.S. District Court, DRBA has created a hostile work environment and/or retaliated against Mr. Riley for which he is entitled to to compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, and other relief that this Court deems appropriate. The Defendant has engaged in a hostile work environment in retaliation to Mr. Riley after filing the initial complaint in the U.S. District Court as follows: (A) In June of 2006 the plaintiff wore dress shoes to work. Mr. Riley was informed by the airport manager for New Castle Operations Department, Alex Coles, that Mr. Riley could not wear those shoes to work anymore. Plaintiff contacted Andrew

3

Case 1:07-cv-00336-MPT

Document 1

Filed 05/25/2007

Page 4 of 6

Ritchie, the DRBA Human Resources Manager and Mr. Ritchie indicated that Plaintiff's shoes were appropriate for work; (B) In August of 2006 Mr. Riley returned to work after straining his foot at work and he wore sneakers pursuant to doctor's order. Mr. Riley was advised that he would be sent home without pay because he did not have the appropriate footwear on despite the fact that he had a doctor's note to wear his sneakers; (C) On October 11, 2006, Alex Coles sent the plaintiff to an empty room without any cause or justification and told him to stay in the room away from his regular work location; (D) On October 31, 2006, the Plaintiff spoke to Mr. Andrew Ritchie, an employee of DRBA, with regard to three (3) hours missing from his time that he worked. Mr. Ritchie advised the Plaintiff that Alex Coles went into the computer system and changed Mr. Riley's time removing three (3) hours from his pay. Mr. Riley alleges that Mr. Coles changed Mr. Riley's time from 0755 hours to 1100 hours despite the fact that the Plaintiff worked those hours; (E) On Friday, May 18, 2007 at 8:15 a.m. The plaintiff received a phone call from Alex Coles who indicated that Mr. Riley was in the cafeteria on this date and time for two (2) to three (3) hours talking to people in the cafeteria rather than performing my job responsibilities. Plaintiff explained to Mr. Coles that he was not in the cafeteria for this length of time. Mr. Coles made this call while he was on vacation in California and had no personal knowledge of the events on May 18, 2007; (F) On May 18, 2007 after Mr. Riley completed work and he went to see a fellow coworker, Mr. Riley received a call on his personal cell phone from Alex Coles who

4

Case 1:07-cv-00336-MPT

Document 1

Filed 05/25/2007

Page 5 of 6

requested to know why Mr. Riley was in the complex at that time. Mr. Riley explained that it was after his work day ended work at 1400 hours that he was speaking to fellow co-workers on his own time. 14. The Defendant's actions clearly violated established federal constitutional rights of

which any reasonable official would have known. 15. At all times material herein the individual Defendant participated in, authorized and

sanctioned constitutional and state law deprivations and illegally discriminated against plaintiff Riley due to his race. 16. The actions of the Defendant its agents or employees were deliberate, intentional,

willful, purposeful and knowing violations of federal and state law. 17. Defendant either knew or showed a negligent or reckless disregard for the matters and

whether their conduct violated federal, constitutional and state law rights. 18. Defendant's actions were wanton, malicious or taken with reckless indifference to

the federal, constitutional and state law rights. 19. The exercise of rights under the U.S. Constitution made a difference in all actions

adverse to plaintiff Riley. 20. The exercise of these rights was a motivating substantial and determinative factor in

all actions adverse to plaintiff Riley. 21. Defendant intentionally inflicted severe emotion distress upon plaintiff Riley when,

it, willfully and wantonly discriminated upon plaintiff Riley due to the fact that he is an African American male whereby intentionally and callously inflicting severe emotional distress upon plaintiff Riley. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests this Court enter an order as follows:

5

Case 1:07-cv-00336-MPT

Document 1

Filed 05/25/2007

Page 6 of 6

(1) (2)

enter judgment against the Defendant; enter judgment declaring the acts of the Defendants to be in violation of

plaintiff's constitutional, statutory and common law rights; (3) enter judgment against the Defendant for compensatory damages, including,

but not limited to, lost wages, back pay, benefits, future front pay, loss of earning capacity, past or future pension loss and other retirement benefits, emotional distress, humiliation, embarrassment and injury to reputation, retaliation, and hostile work environment ; (4) for punitive damages; (5) the suit; and, (6) require such and further relief as this Court deems just and equitable. PHILLIPS, GOLDMAN & SPENCE, P.A. award plaintiff costs, pre and post judgment interest, and attorneys' fees for enter judgment against Defendant

JAMES P. HALL, ESQUIRE (#3293) 1200 North Broom Street Wilmington, DE 19806 (302) 655-4200 Attorney for Plaintiff DATE:

L:\TLB\RILRO-3\complaint-District Ct.2.wpd

6

Case 1:07-cv-00336-MPT

Document 1-2

Filed 05/25/2007

Page 1 of 1

Case 1:07-cv-00336-MPT

Document 1-4

Filed 05/25/2007

Page 1 of 1

Case 1:07-cv-00336-MPT

Document 1-5

Filed 05/25/2007

Page 1 of 1