Tebo’s demand for jury trial prior to DeBary requesting Summary Judgment

TEBO’S AMENDED COMPLAINT AND  DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL:

  1. This is a discrimination and retaliation action brought by Plaintiff TEBO, a woman and the former City Clerk for Defendant CITY, who was subject to disparate treatment, discrimination and retaliation based on her gender and because of her complaints of discrimination within the CITY and to the EEOC as to how female employees were treated.

RESPONSE OF THE CITY OF DEBARY AND LEO DANIEL PARROTT:

  1. Admitted that the Plaintiff, Stacy Tebo was the former City Clerk for the Defendant City. Further admitted that this is a discrimination retaliation claim against the City.   Otherwise denied.

 

 

TEBO’S AMENDED COMPLAINT AND  DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL:

  1. After Plaintiff TEBO had lodged verbal and written complaints, as well as after having filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC, Plaintiff was subjected to adverse actions in the form of a demotion and, ultimately, termination of her employment.

RESPONSE OF THE CITY OF DEBARY AND LEO DANIEL PARROTT:

  1. Denied

 

 

TEBO’S AMENDED COMPLAINT AND  DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL:

  1. Plaintiff brings her claims of discrimination and retaliation under: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.  2000e et seq (“Title VII”):42 U.S.C.  1983 (“Section 1983”) and the Florida Civil Rights Act 760.01 et seq, Florida Statutes (“FCRA”)

RESPONSE OF THE CITY OF DEBARY AND LEO DANIEL PARROTT:

  1. Admitted that Plaintiff brings through claims for discrimination under Title VII and the Florida Civil Rights Act. Denied that the claims have merit.

 

 

 

TEBO’S AMENDED COMPLAINT AND  DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL:

  1. Jurisdiction of the court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 42 U.S.C.  2000e 5 (F) (3).  This Court has supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.   1367(a) over Plaintiff’s state law claims.

RESPONSE OF THE CITY OF DEBARY AND LEO DANIEL PARROTT:

  1. Admitted

 

 

TEBO’S AMENDED COMPLAINT AND  DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL:

  1. Venue exists in the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Divisin, under 28 USC 1391 (b) as all events pertinent hereto occurred in Volusia County, FL

RESPONSE OF THE CITY OF DEBARY AND LEO DANIEL PARROTT:

  1. Admitted

 

 

 

TEBO’S AMENDED COMPLAINT AND  DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL:

  1. Plaintiff Stacy Tebo is a citizen of the United States and, at all material times, she was a resident of Volusia County, Florida.

RESPONSE OF THE CITY OF DEBARY AND LEO DANIEL PARROTT:

  1. On information and belief admitted.

 

 

 

TEBO’S AMENDED COMPLAINT AND  DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL:

  1. Plaintiff was employed by Defendants for approximately ten years until her termination of employment on April 17, 2015.

RESPONSE OF THE CITY OF DEBARY AND LEO DANIEL PARROTT:

  1. Admitted

 

 

 

 

TEBO’S AMENDED COMPLAINT AND  DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL:

  1. Defendant City of Debary is a municipality organized under the laws of the State of Florida and located in Volusia County, Florida.

RESPONSE OF THE CITY OF DEBARY AND LEO DANIEL PARROTT:

  1. Admitted

 

 

 

TEBO’S AMENDED COMPLAINT AND  DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL:

  1. Defendant Dan Parrott was at all material times the City Manager for Defendant City and the individual responsible for the employment actions against Plaintiff.

 

RESPONSE OF THE CITY OF DEBARY AND LEO DANIEL PARROTT:

  1. Admitted that Dan Parrott at all times material was the City Manager for the Defendant City and was involved in all employment actions involving the plaintiff.

 

 

TEBO’S AMENDED COMPLAINT AND  DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL:

  1. Plaintiff filed an administrative charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) (Charge No. 510201502305) and with the Florida Commission on Human Relations (FCHR) (FCHR No. 201501134), which was also reviewed by the United States Department of Justice.
  2. Plaintiff filed this lawsuit within (90) days of receipt of the Notice of Right to Sue on her charge of discrimination from the Department of Justice.
  3. Plaintiff filed the lawsuit more than one hundred eighty (180) days after her charges of discrimination were filed with the Florida Commission on Human Relations.
  4. Plaintiff has exhausted her administrative remidies on her claims brought under Title VII and the Florida Civil Human Rights Act.

RESPONSE OF THE CITY OF DEBARY AND LEO DANIEL PARROTT:

  1. Admitted

 

 

 

TEBO’S AMENDED COMPLAINT AND  DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL:

  1. Plaintiff began her employment with the Defendant City as its City Clerk in 2005.

RESPONSE OF THE CITY OF DEBARY AND LEO DANIEL PARROTT:

  1. Admitted

 

TEBO’S AMENDED COMPLAINT AND  DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL:

  1. Over the last five years of her employment, she was subjected to ongoing, pervasive and offensive sexist remarks and discriminatory actions on account of her gender, female, by the then-City Manager, Defendant Parrott.

RESPONSE OF THE CITY OF DEBARY AND LEO DANIEL PARROTT:

  1. Denied

 

 

 

TEBO’S AMENDED COMPLAINT AND  DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL:

  1. Examples of Parrott’s discriminatory remarks and actions include, butare not limited to:
  2. Words to the effect of “women don’t think clearly because they are too emotional”;
  3. he did not want any more women working for the City;
  4. he said that there was “too much estrogen here”;
  5. he often referred to his assistant city manager and Plaintiff as “bitches”;
  6. he referred to the assistant city manager as “ the county whore”;
  7. when the City’s male Finance Director was retiring, the City Manager Parrott initially refused to hire any replacement since all of the applicants were women and he said he did not want any more women working there.
  8. Parrott also gave disproportionate pay araises to women; shortly before Plaintiff was fired, the City’s female staff got an average of 2.13% increase while the men received 12.54% increase.
  9. Parrott refused to properly investigate the complaints of a female employee regarding the sexual harassment and discrimination by her manager.

RESPONSE OF THE CITY OF DEBARY AND LEO DANIEL PARROTT:

  1. Denied

 

 

TEBO’S AMENDED COMPLAINT AND  DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL:

  1. Plaintiff Tebo received consistently favorable personnel reviews from Parrott until her last year of employment, after she was involved in a co-worker’s complaint of sexual harassment by her supervisor and she was listed as a witness in another co-worker’s sex discrimination complaint to the EEOC.

RESPONSE OF THE CITY OF DEBARY AND LEO DANIEL PARROTT:

  1. Admitted that Tebo received consistently favorable personnel reviews from Parrott until her last year of employment. Otherwise, denied.

 

 

TEBO’S AMENDED COMPLAINT AND  DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL:

  1. After Plaintiff complained about the pay disparity and sexist comments, Parrott took away some of her job duties.

RESPONSE OF THE CITY OF DEBARY AND LEO DANIEL PARROTT:

  1. Denied

 

 

 

 

TEBO’S AMENDED COMPLAINT AND  DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL:

  1. As she continued to complain and because she provided assistance to another female employee Parrott had fired, Plaintiff’s job title of City Clerk was taken away and given to the City Manager, a male.

RESPONSE OF THE CITY OF DEBARY AND LEO DANIEL PARROTT:

  1. Denied

 

 

 

TEBO’S AMENDED COMPLAINT AND  DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL:

  1. Subsequent to Plaintiff informing Parrott that she was filing a complaint with the EEOC, he suspended Plaintiff pending termination, which was for pretextual reasons.

RESPONSE OF THE CITY OF DEBARY AND LEO DANIEL PARROTT:

  1. Denied

 

 

 

TEBO’S AMENDED COMPLAINT AND  DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL:

  1. Due to her gender, female, and her complaints about sexual discrimination, Plaintiff has been subjected to different terms and conditions of employment than her male peers.

RESPONSE OF THE CITY OF DEBARY AND LEO DANIEL PARROTT:

  1. Denied

 

 

 

TEBO’S AMENDED COMPLAINT AND  DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL:

  1. Plaintiff was unfairly disciplined and terminated from her employment in retaliation fo her complaints about disparate treatment, for her opposition to the discriminatory treatment of others and for her participatin in another female employee’s charge of discrimination.

RESPONSE OF THE CITY OF DEBARY AND LEO DANIEL PARROTT:

  1. Denied

 

 

 

TEBO’S AMENDED COMPLAINT AND  DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL:

  1. Plaintiff was replaced by a male in the position of City Clerk.

RESPONSE OF THE CITY OF DEBARY AND LEO DANIEL PARROTT:

  1. Admitted that the current City Clerk is a male.

 

 

 

 

TEBO’S AMENDED COMPLAINT AND  DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL:

  1. Plaintiff engaged in an activity protected unter Title VII and the FCRA when:
  2. she complained of sexually discriminatory treatment of female employees
  3. she complained of the failure to properly investigate complaints of sexual harassment by an employee;
  4. she stood by another female employee wh had been fired as a result of her complaints about the sex discrimination by Parrott, and
  5. she filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC.

 

RESPONSE OF THE CITY OF DEBARY AND LEO DANIEL PARROTT:

  1. Denied

 

 

 

TEBO’S AMENDED COMPLAINT AND  DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL:

  1. Plaintiff suffered adverse employment actions in that she:
  2. received a lesser evaluation
  3. had her job title taken away,
  4. was suspended, and
  5. was fired

RESPONSE OF THE CITY OF DEBARY AND LEO DANIEL PARROTT:

  1. Denied

 

 

 

TEBO’S AMENDED COMPLAINT AND  DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL:

  1. A causal connection exists between the protected activity and the adverse employment actions.

RESPONSE OF THE CITY OF DEBARY AND LEO DANIEL PARROTT:

  1. Denied

 

 

 

TEBO’S AMENDED COMPLAINT AND  DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL:

  1. Plaintiff has suffered the loss of her job, pay and benefits, and has suffered stress, humiliation and great emotional distress due to these discriminatory and retaliatory actions.

RESPONSE OF THE CITY OF DEBARY AND LEO DANIEL PARROTT:

  1. Denied

 

 

 

TEBO’S AMENDED COMPLAINT AND  DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL:

  1. Defendant City engaged in discriminatory employment practices as described in this Complaint in paragraphs 2 through 24, which resulted in Plaintiff being subjected to unequal treatment, sexual discrimination and a sexually offensive and hostile work environment which violated her rights secured by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq

RESPONSE OF THE CITY OF DEBARY AND LEO DANIEL PARROTT:

  1. Denied. Further the Defendant City incorporates its responses to paragraphs 2 through 24 as set forth above.

 

 

TEBO’S AMENDED COMPLAINT AND  DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL:

  1. Wherefore, as to the First Claim for Relief, Plaintiff Stacy Tebo, respectfully requests this Court to enter a judgment awarding Plaintiff all such legal equitable and monetary relief as will effectuate the purpose of Title VII of the  Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.  2000e et seq, including but not limited  to.

(1)  Awarding appropriate back pay toPlaintiff

(2) Issuing a Declaratory Judgment that Defendant City’s practices are violative of Plaintiff’s rights under Title VII;

(3)  Enjoining Defendant City from continuing or maintaining the policy, practice and custom of denying female employees their rights secured by Title VII,

(4)  Ordering Defendant City to place Plaintiff in the positin which she wouldhavehad, absent Defendants’ unlawful discrimination;

(5) Restoring Plaintiff with credits of all other employee benefits she would have had received but for Defendant City’s unlawful discrimination

(6)  Awarding Plaintiff compensatory damages;

(7)  Granting Plaintiff costs and reasonable attorney’s fees; and

(8)  Granting any other relief the Court deems appropriate

RESPONSE OF THE CITY OF DEBARY AND LEO DANIEL PARROTT:

  1. Denied that the Plaintiff is entitled to judgment or relief in any form.

 

 

 

TEBO’S AMENDED COMPLAINT AND  DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL:

  1. Defendant City engaged in discriminatory employment practices as described in this Complaint in paragraphs 2 through 24, which resulted in Plaintiff being subjected to unequal treatment and retaliation, which violated her rights secured by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 42 U.S.C.   2000e et seq

RESPONSE OF THE CITY OF DEBARY AND LEO DANIEL PARROTT:

  1. Denied. Further the Defendant City incorporates its responses to paragraphs 2 through 24 as set forth above.

 

 

TEBO’S AMENDED COMPLAINT AND  DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL:

  1. Wherefore, as to the Second Claim for Relief, Plaintiff Stacy Tebo respectfully requests this court to enter a judgment awarding Plaintiff all such legal equitable and monetary relief as will effectuate the purpose of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000 e et seq, including but not limited to:

(1).  Awarding appropriate back pay to Plaintiff;

(2)  Issuing a Declaratory Judgment that Defendant City’s practices are violative of Plaintiff’s rights under Title VII,

(3)  Enjoining Defendant City from continuing or maintaining the policy, practice and custom of denying female employees their rights secured by Title VII;

(4)  Ordering Defendant City to place Plaintiff in the position which she would have had, absent Defendants’ unlawful discrimination;

(5)  Restoring Plaintiff with credits of all other employee benefits she wouldhave received but for Defendant City’s unlawful discrimination;

(6)  Awarding Plaintiff compensatory damages;

(7)  Granting Plaintiff costs and reasonable attorney’s fees; and

(8) Granting any other relief the Court deems appropriate.

RESPONSE OF THE CITY OF DEBARY AND LEO DANIEL PARROTT:

  1. Denied that the plaintiff is entitled to judgment or relief in any form.

 

 

 

TEBO’S AMENDED COMPLAINT AND  DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL:

  1. Defendant City engaged in discriminatory employment practices as described in this complaint in paragraphs 2 through 24 which resulted in Plaintiff being subjected to unequal treatment, sexual discrimination and a sexually offensive and hostile work environment, which violated her rights secured by the FRCA, 760.01 et seq. Florida Statutes.

 

  1. Denied. Further the Defendant City incorporates its responses to paragraphs 2 thorough 24 as set forth above.

 

 

 

TEBO’S AMENDED COMPLAINT AND  DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL:

  1. Wherefore, as to the Third Claim for Relief, Plaintiff Stacy Tebo, respectfully requests this Court to enter a judgment awarding Plaintiff all such legal, equitable and monetary relief as will effectuate the purpose of the FCRA, 760.01 et seq, Florida

Statutes, including but not limited to:

(1).  Awarding appropriate back pay to Plaintiff;

(2)  Issuing a Declaratory Judgment that Defendant City’s practices are violative of Plaintiff’s rights under Title VII,

(3)  Enjoining Defendant City from continuing or maintaining the policy, practice and custom of denying female employees their rights secured by Title VII;

(4)  Ordering Defendant City to place Plaintiff in the position which she would have had, absent Defendants’ unlawful discrimination;

(5)  Restoring Plaintiff with credits of all other employee benefits she wouldhave received but for Defendant City’s unlawful discrimination;

(6)  Awarding Plaintiff compensatory damages;

(7)  Granting Plaintiff costs and reasonable attorney’s fees; and

(8) Granting any other relief the Court deems appropriate.

RESPONSE OF THE CITY OF DEBARY AND LEO DANIEL PARROTT:

  1. Denied that the Plaintiff is entitled to judgment or relief in any form

 

 

TEBO’S AMENDED COMPLAINT AND  DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL:

  1. Defendant City engaged in discriminatory employment practices as described in this Complaint in paragraphs 2 through 24, which resulted in Plaintiff being subjected to unequal treatment and retaliation which violated her rights secured by the FCRA 760.01 et seq, Florida Statutes.

 

  1. Denied. Further the Defendant City incorporates its responses to paragraphs2 through 24 as set forth above.

 

 

 

TEBO’S AMENDED COMPLAINT AND  DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL:

  1. Wherefore, as to the Fourth Claim for Relief, Plaintiff Stacy Tebo, respectfully requests this Court to enter a judgment awarding Plaintiff all such legal, equitable and monetary relief as will effectuate the purpose of the FCRA 760.01 et seq, Florida Statutes, including but not limited to:

(1).  Awarding appropriate back pay to Plaintiff;

(2)  Issuing a Declaratory Judgment that Defendant City’s practices are violative of Plaintiff’s rights under Title VII,

(3)  Enjoining Defendant City from continuing or maintaining the policy, practice and custom of denying female employees their rights secured by Title VII;

(4)  Ordering Defendant City to place Plaintiff in the position which she would have had, absent Defendants’ unlawful discrimination;

(5)  Restoring Plaintiff with credits of all other employee benefits she wouldhave received but for Defendant City’s unlawful discrimination;

(6)  Awarding Plaintiff compensatory damages;

(7)  Granting Plaintiff costs and reasonable attorney’s fees; and

(8) Granting any other relief the Court deems appropriate.

RESPONSE OF THE CITY OF DEBARY AND LEO DANIEL PARROTT:

  1. Denied that the Plaintiff is entitled tojudgment or relief in any form.

 

 

TEBO’S AMENDED COMPLAINT AND  DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL:

  1. Defendant Parrott engaged in the discriminatory employment practices as described in this Complaint in paragraph 2 through 24, which resulted in his intentional violation of Plaintiff’s clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of Plaintiff to be free of discrimination in the workplace based on her sex.

RESPONSE OF THE CITY OF DEBARY AND LEO DANIEL PARROTT:

  1. The Defendant Parrott denies the allegations in this paragraph and incorporates the responses to paragraphs 2 through 24 as set forth above.

 

 

TEBO’S AMENDED COMPLAINT AND  DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL:

  1. Defendant Leo Daniel Parrott was the supervisor of Plaintiff Stacy Tebo

RESPONSE OF THE CITY OF DEBARY AND LEO DANIEL PARROTT:

  1. Admitted

 

 

TEBO’S AMENDED COMPLAINT AND  DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL:

  1. At all material times, Defendant Parrott acted under color of laws, ordinances, regulations, customs, policies, and or usages of theDefendant City of Debary, Florida.

RESPONSE OF THE CITY OF DEBARY AND LEO DANIEL PARROTT:

  1. Admitted

 

 

TEBO’S AMENDED COMPLAINT AND  DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL:

  1. In the actions he took against Plaintiff, Parrott acted intentionally, recklessly, in bad faith with malicious purpose and in a manner exhibiting wanton and willful disregard of Plaintiff’s rights.

RESPONSE OF THE CITY OF DEBARY AND LEO DANIEL PARROTT:

  1. Denied.

 

 

TEBO’S AMENDED COMPLAINT AND  DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL:

  1. At all times material hereto, Parrott, as Cty Manager, was the official policymaker for Defendant City of Debary Florida.

RESPONSE OF THE CITY OF DEBARY AND LEO DANIEL PARROTT:

  1. Admitted that at all times material Parrott was the City Manager; Otherwise denied.

 

 

TEBO’S AMENDED COMPLAINT AND  DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL:

  1. As a result of Parrott’s action, plaintiff received different treatment than that received by others who were similarly situated male employees.

RESPONSE OF THE CITY OF DEBARY AND LEO DANIEL PARROTT:

  1. Denied

 

 

TEBO’S AMENDED COMPLAINT AND  DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL:

  1. Wherefore, as to the Fifth Claim for Relief, Plaintiff, Stacy tebo, respectfully requests this Court to enter a judgment awarding Plaintiff all such legal, equitable and monetary relief as will effectuate the purpose of 42 U.S/C. 1983, including but not limited to:

(1).  Awarding appropriate back pay to Plaintiff;

(2)  Issuing a Declaratory Judgment that Defendant City’s practices are violative of Plaintiff’s rights under Title VII,

(3)  Enjoining Defendant City from continuing or maintaining the policy, practice and custom of denying female employees their rights secured by Title VII;

(4)  Ordering Defendant City to place Plaintiff in the position which she would have had, absent Defendants’ unlawful discrimination;

(5)  Restoring Plaintiff with credits of all other employee benefits she wouldhave received but for Defendant City’s unlawful discrimination;

(6)  Awarding Plaintiff compensatory damages;

(7)  Granting Plaintiff costs and reasonable attorney’s fees; and

(8) Granting any other relief the Court deems appropriate.

 

RESPONSE OF THE CITY OF DEBARY AND LEO DANIEL PARROTT:

  1. Denied that the Plaintiff is entitled to judgment or relief in any form.

 

 

 

 

The only reason Ms. Tebo wants a Trial by Jury is so she can continue lying while shedding some tears….similar to what she did at our injunction.  She is amazing in story telling!

Karin for the blog

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a Reply