FAQFAQ   SearchSearch  MemberlistMemberlistRegisterRegister  ProfileProfile   Log in[ Log in ]  Flint Talk RSSFlint Talk RSS

»Home »Open Chat »Political Talk  Â»Flint Journal »Political Jokes »The Bob Leonard Show  

Flint Michigan online news magazine. We have lively web forums


FlintTalk.com Forum Index > Political Talk

Topic: More Police Whistle blower allegations
Goto page 1, 2  Next
  Author    Post Post new topic Reply to topic
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

Flint police captain files lawsuit against chief, city following reassignment

Dominic Adams | dadams5@mlive.com
Print Email Dominic Adams | dadams5@mlive.com By Dominic Adams | dadams5@mlive.com

on October 28, 2016 at 11:00 AM, updated October 28, 2016 at 11:05 AM
FLINT, MI – A Flint police captain has filed a lawsuit against the city and police Chief Tim Johnson following a reassignment.

Former public information officer and patrol Capt. Leigh Golden filed the lawsuit Oct. 21 in Genesee Circuit Court.

Golden claims she was discriminated against because she is a woman, transferred out of her patrol position, verbally abused and retaliated against when she reported illegal activity.


Johnson and the city have not yet filed a response in the case. Neither Johnson nor city spokeswoman Kristin Moore could be reached for comment.

The lawsuit claims Golden observed that Johnson treated herself and other female employees much harsher than male employees and she complained to Johnson and other about the treatment.

After Johnson was appointed chief in February, Golden said in the lawsuit she became aware that Johnson and other male employees were engaged in acts and behavior that Golden thought was a violation of law, rule or regulation.

Because of those violations, Golden reported the activities of Johnson to a public body, the lawsuit said. She also participated in a subsequent investigation.

The lawsuit does not specify what law or regulation Golden suspected of being violated and also does not say what public body Golden participated in an investigation with.

Attorney Dean Yeotis is representing Golden and said Golden complained to the city's human resources department about Johnson's discrimination. Yeotis declined further comment.

However, the lawsuit claims Johnson and the city were angered by Golden's participation.

Johnson allegedly retaliated against Golden by removing her as a patrol captain and public information officer, according to court documents.

She had her computer and building access limited and her city vehicle was also taken away and given to the newly promoted, male provisional captain, the lawsuit claims.

Golden also claims in her lawsuit that she was denied training, but a male employee was able to obtain the same training.

The lawsuit claims Johnson tried to eliminate Golden's position in August and September, but he didn't proceed with the plan when he learned Golden would be bumped back to lieutenant rather than get fired.

Golden alleges Johnson has also launched investigations into her work performance and history with city, which led to multiple false transgressions.

The lawsuit claims those actions violated Michigan's Whistleblower Protection Act and Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act. The case also includes a claim for wrongful discharge.

Golden, who has worked for the police department for 20 years, was serving as a Flint police patrol captain, public information officer and also cleaned out the property room on Saturday afternoons, according to court documents.

She sent out an email on Sept. 25 to members of the media saying she was no longer assigned as public information officer for the Flint Police Department and said Capt. Devon Bernritter would be taking over the position.

Golden authored the department's operational plan for the recent Democratic presidential in Flint and occasionally attended meetings of the South Side Steering Committee as part of a department grant, the lawsuit said.
Post Fri Nov 11, 2016 5:09 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

Originally she was called Jennifer Leigh Golden-Tidball


Flint police lieutenant pleads guilty to failing to report car crash after drinking


Gary Ridley | gridley@mlive.com By Gary Ridley | gridley@mlive.com

on July 01, 2013 at 6:00 PM



RICHFIELD TOWNSHIP, MI -- A Flint police lieutenant has pleaded guilty to her role in an early-morning April car crash in Richfield Township.

Jennifer Leigh Tidball, 37, pleaded guilty Thursday, June 27, to one count of failing to report a property accident after she crashed her Dodge Charger into a guard rail after police said she admitted drinking at a Davison bar.

Tidball and her attorney, Frank Yiannatji, could not be reached for comment on the plea.

Genesee District Judge John L. Conover sentenced Tidball to pay $450. Court records show the fine has been paid.

Tidball was charged with operating while intoxicated and failing to stop at a property damage accident but was able to plea to the lesser charge through an agreement with the township attorney’s office.

Flint police Chief Alvern Lock declined to comment on the plea agreement or if his department took any disciplinary action against Tidball for the incident. Lock said he cannot comment on personnel matters.

Tidball was arrested following an investigation by Richfield Township police officers after crashing into the guard rail around 1:30 a.m. at State and Potter roads.

A Davison police officer was flagged down about the crash by an off-duty Davison firefighter who was at a nearby cemetery visiting his mother’s grave, according to court records.

The firefighter told the police officer that he heard the vehicle crash into the guard rail and attempted to follow the vehicle but was unable to because the vehicle fled at excessive speeds.

Davison police contacted Richfield Township officers who observed damage to the guard rail and the front bumper and other smaller pieces of a dark-blue vehicle at the scene of the crash, according to court records. Officers followed an oil trail from the damaged vehicle but were unable to locate the car.

Richfield Township police contacted a Chrysler dealership and were able to identify that the damaged car parts belonged to a Dodge Charger.


A Richfield Township officer, who noted that he spotted a blue Charger in front of Madden’s Lounge in Davison the night of the crash, asked the bar owner to review security footage from the night of the crash in an attempt to identify the driver, according to court records.

The bar owner was able to identify the driver as a white female. Richfield Township officers interviewed the bartenders from the night of the crash and reviewed credit card receipts to connect Tidball to the crash.

Officers questioned Tidball April 5 about the incident at the Flint Police Department. Tidball admitted to drinking three mixed drinks at the bar before driving home and crashing into the guard rail, according to court records.

“Jennifer said she was going too fast when she went to turn the corner and she slid into the guard rail,” according to a report submitted by the officers.

Tidball was honored nearly a year ago for her work in helping authorities capture suspected serial stabber and convicted killer Elias Abuelazam. Tidball, who was a sergeant at the time of the investigation, was credited as being one of the first law enforcement officers to recognize a pattern in the crimes.


JENNIFER LEIGH TIDBALL Ticket Number: 1228982A
2154 HERMITAGE DR Court: DAVISON
DAVISON, MI 484232019 Enforcement Agency: Richfield Twp
Date Issued: 04/03/2013 Time 02:12 AM
Violation:
OPERATING WHILE INTOXICATED

Disposition: DISMISSED Disposition Date: 06/27/2013
Vehicle Information:
Vehicle year: 2010
Vehicle Description: BLU DODG CHARGER
Post Fri Nov 11, 2016 5:22 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

She married Ronald Tidball on 2/29/2012 and divorce final on 11/5/2012

On September 9, 2015 she was accepted into membership of the (MACP) Michigan Association of Police Chiefs.

Does she think she is above the current chief and does she try to undermine him? Is being Police Chief her goal?


The court concluded in Petrich v City of flint that comments made by Petrich about David Dicks and his DUIL were statements regarding matter of public concern. Isn't her failure to report an accident and thus eluding being tested for impaired driving an issue of public concern?
Post Fri Nov 11, 2016 6:26 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

Flint police chief, city hit with second Whistleblower lawsuit

Print Email Dominic Adams | dadams5@mlive.com By Dominic Adams | dadams5@mlive.com

on November 10, 2016 at 3:30 PM, updated November 10, 2016 at 6:29 PM
FLINT, MI – A Flint police internal affairs investigator has filed a lawsuit claiming police Chief Tim Johnson and the city of Flint violated the state's Whistleblower Protection Act when he reported possible mistreatment of another officer.

Rodney Williams claims Johnson retaliated against him by demoting him after Williams allegedly corroborated the gender discrimination claims brought by Capt. Leigh Golden, according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit was filed Nov. 9 in Genesee Circuit Court.

Johnson has denied any wrongdoing.

Williams, who spent 29 years with the department and the last 18 as a sergeant, claims he was asked to meet with an assistant city attorney to provide a statement about the investigation into discrimination complaints Golden made with the city about Johnson.

Golden filed a lawsuit last month after she was reassigned, claiming she was discriminated against because she is a woman, transferred out of her patrol position, verbally abused and retaliated against when she reported illegal activity.


Williams's lawsuit claims he confirmed information provided by Golden about the harassment, discrimination and retaliation Golden received from Johnson.

Dean Yeotis is the attorney for both Williams and Golden. Yeotis had no comment on Williams' lawsuit.

The lawsuit by Williams claims violation of Michigan's Whistleblower Protection Act and alleges a violation of the state's Civil Rights Act.

While talking to the city attorney, Williams allegedly gave information he thought was a violation of Michigan law, rule or regulation, the lawsuit claims.

City officials and Johnson were upset because Williams reported the violations and because of Williams' opposition to gender discrimination, the lawsuit alleges.

On Sept. 15 – about a week after providing his investigative statement to Johnson – Williams was told he was transferred from internal affairs and Federal Bureau of Investigation task force to night shift patrol.

The lawsuit claims Johnson was visibly angry because Williams' statements about the alleged discrimination against Golden.

"It's totally not true," said Johnson on Thursday, Nov. 10, about Williams' lawsuit. "I can't make a comment on this though. It was pretty much restructuring of the department."

Williams' demotion was economically, emotionally and psychologically harmful to him, the lawsuit claims.

The lawsuit said Williams hasn't worked as a patrol officer for almost 20 years and was instead investigating allegations of wrongdoing and illegal conduct of Flint police officers, according to court papers. He also recommended discipline and discharge of police when appropriate.

The demotion of Williams put him in an "untenable position," the lawsuit said, and caused him to fear for his safety and the safety of his coworkers.

Williams resigned Oct. 3 – about six months shy of his 30-year anniversary at the department – rather than accept the transfer, court papers said.

Neither the city or Johnson have filed a response to Williams' lawsuit.

City spokeswoman Kristin Moore said it is the city's policy to not comment on pending litigation.
Post Fri Nov 11, 2016 6:52 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

Nelson v. City of Flint, 136 F. Supp. 2d 703 (E.D. Mich. 2001) :: Justia
law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/136/703/2579824/
Nelson v. City of Flint, 136 F. Supp. 2d 703 (E.D. Mich. 2001) case opinion from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

Nelson and Ferris sued because they alleged racial and gender discrimination as the cause of their being passed over for promotion 3 times.

Lenhoff was their attorney, Ed Parker represented Flint and Rosen was the District Judge.

The rule of 3 or 3% is the criteria determined by the bargaining unit for promotions.Promotions can only be made from among those officers who are ranked among the top 3 on the eligibility list or from officers within 3% of the highest certified score.

Chief Hampton testified in his deposition that he decided who received the promotions at issue, but that he did not have final authority to establish employment policy for the Police Department. [See Hampton Dep. pp. 9-10]. He further testified that his discretion with respect to hirings, firings and promotions was limited by, among other things, the terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. [Hampton Dep. pp. 9-10; 38-39, Defendants' Ex. C][3]
Post Fri Nov 11, 2016 7:07 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

Defendants' Ex. E, H; Plaintiffs' Ex. 23.]

Daniel Allen, a white male, and Rodney Williams, a black male, received the final two of the 18 May 3, 1998 promotions. Plaintiff Ferris contends that Rodney Williams' promotion was the result of reverse race discrimination. (He does not challenge the promotion of Daniel Allen, the white male candidate who also scored lower than he did on the exam.)[7] Ferris, however, was promoted to sergeant a month later, on June 7, 1998.

Defendant Hampton testified that Williams was considered to be the best candidate among the certified eligibles in the eighth requisition group:
Post Fri Nov 11, 2016 7:41 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

In his deposition Hampton stated the main reason Nelson was not promoted until May 3, 1998 was his attitude problem, On June 27, 1996 Nelson threw his ticket book at Lt Hagler at roll call. Hagler used his clip board to avoid the book striking him.

Chief Hampton testified that he viewed the ticket book incident as demonstrating poor attitude on the part of Nelson:


We're talking about attitude toward supervision and leadership. We're talking about being a member of the management team. We're talking about that attitude toward authority. We're in a chain of command structure. We're talking about attitude.
[Hampton Dep. pp. 93-94.]
Post Fri Nov 11, 2016 7:51 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

Hampton testified that the main reason Plaintiff Ferris was not promoted until June 7, 1998 was because of his carelessness and inability to follow rules, which he demonstrated throughout his career.[9] Three events, however, stood out in Hampton's *711 mind with respect to Plaintiff Ferris's conduct.

One of these events was when Ferris was written up for his failure to make an arrest after breaking up a fight at approximately 2:00 a.m. in front a local bar. Ferris was off duty when he observed several men fighting. He jumped into the fight and in so doing, punched one of the men in the face. Ferris did not identify himself as a Flint police officer, did not effect any arrests, did not determine the identities of any of the men involved, and did not report the incident to any commanding officer. [See Hampton Dep. p. 13; Defendants' Ex. V, W]. Three of the men involved made assault complaints against Ferris. Id.
A second event was when during a routine search of a detainee at the police station, Ferris removed a suspect's handcuffs before completing the inventory of his possessions. The suspect grabbed a crack pipe which had been taken from his pocket, and smashed it on the floor, destroying the evidence collected. He then fought with the officers until he was restrained. See Defendants' Ex. X.

The third incident that Chief Hampton testified played an important part in his decisions prior to June 7, 1998 not to promote Plaintiff Ferris was when Ferris negligently left a cell door open, allowing a prisoner to escape. Hampton testified that he viewed this incident and the bar fight incident as very serious:

Well, you have the fight issue and you have the prisoner issue. And the reason I Those are the two that are most serious here, and that's because of the potential liabilities involved and the potential danger to the officer and others. The fight issue clearly raises a liability problem for the city. Police officers don't go around having fistfights....
[Hampton Dep. p. 35.]
Post Fri Nov 11, 2016 7:53 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

Affidavit of a Flint Police Lt.:
5. In 1996, I saw a document authored by Chief Hampton lying on his secretary's desk. This document seemed to be a "mission statement" from Chief Hampton concerning employment decisions within the City of Flint Police Department.

6. The document stated the following: that one of Hampton's goals within the City of Flint Police Department was to hire, promote and retain minorities (African Americans and others) and females.
See Plaintiffs' Ex. 20.

The actual document was not presented and was labeled hearsay.
Post Fri Nov 11, 2016 8:01 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

Summary judgment is proper "`if the pleadings, depositions, answer to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.'" Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(c).

Three 1986 Supreme Court cases Matsushita Electrical Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 106 S. Ct. 1348, 89 L. Ed. 2d 538 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986); and Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986) ushered in a "new era" in the standards of review for a summary judgment motion. These cases, in the aggregate, lowered the movant's burden on a summary judgment motion.[11] According to the Celotex Court,


In our view, the plain language of Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof.
Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322, 106 S. Ct. 2548.

After reviewing the above trilogy, the Sixth Circuit established a series of principles to be applied to motions for summary judgment. They are summarized as follows:


* Cases involving state of mind issues are not necessarily inappropriate for summary judgment.

* The movant must meet the initial burden of showing "the absence of a genuine issue of material fact" as to an essential element of the non-movant's case. This burden may be met by pointing out to the court that the respondent, having had sufficient opportunity for discovery, has no evidence to support an essential element of his or her case.
Post Fri Nov 11, 2016 8:32 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

*713 * The respondent cannot rely on the hope that the trier of fact will disbelieve the movant's denial of a disputed fact, but must "present affirmative evidence in order to defeat a properly supported motion for summary judgment."

* The trial court no longer has the duty to search the entire record to establish that it is bereft of a genuine issue of material fact.

* The trial court has more discretion than in the "old era" in evaluating the respondent's evidence. The respondent must "do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Further, "[w]here the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find" for the respondent, the motion should be granted. The trial court has at least some discretion to determine whether the respondent's claim is plausible.
Betkerur v. Aultman Hospital Association, 78 F.3d 1079, 1087 (6th Cir. 1996). See also, Street v. J.C. Bradford & Co., 886 F.2d 1472, 1479-80 (6th Cir.1989).
Post Fri Nov 11, 2016 8:35 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

Plaintiffs here have failed to establish such "background circumstances" showing that the City of Flint is that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority. Of significance in this case is the race and sex of the vast majority of the 25 individuals promoted to Sergeant in 1996-1998. Eighteen of the individuals promoted were white males, one was Hispanic, three were African-American, and three were women. Clearly, the hiring statistics do not support an inference that the City discriminates against the majority in its promotion practices.

As evidence of background circumstances, Plaintiffs point to the purported 1994 Flint Affirmative Action Plan attached to their Response Brief as Exhibits *715 19.[15] However, as noted above, this document was never produced by either party during discovery and Plaintiffs established no foundation for it to be deemed admissible evidence prior to the December 14, 2000 hearing.[16] The Court, however, afforded Plaintiffs the opportunity to do so following the hearing. The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs' Supplemental Brief and supporting exhibits and finds that Plaintiffs have failed to cure the foundational deficiencies in Exhibit 19 noted by the Court at the hearing. Specifically, the Court advised Plaintiffs that in order for the Court to consider Exhibit 19, they would have to establish an evidentiary foundation authenticating the Plan and show that it was operative in 1996 and 1997; that the City formally adopted the Plan; and that it applied to the Flint Police Department and to Chief Hampton. [See 12/14/00 Hearing Transcript, pp. 27-31.] Plaintiffs, however, have failed to do so.

Plaintiffs attempt to authenticate the 1994 Plan by arguing that it was produced by the City of Flint in response to discovery requests in another case, Hall v. City of Flint, 97-CV-60349-AA. However, Plaintiffs have presented only undated and unsigned responses to discovery requests in that case (see Plaintiffs' Supplemental Ex. 3).[17] Unsigned discovery responses, without supplemental authentication, are inadmissible as evidence for purposes of Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 56. See Simmons v. Hoegh Lines, 784 F.2d 1234, 1238 (5th Cir.1986). See also, EEOC v. Clay Printing Co., 955 F.2d 936, 945 & n. 9 (4th Cir.1992); Garside v. Osco Drug, Inc., 895 F.2d 46, 49-50 (1st Cir.1990). Plaintiffs simply have produced no evidence to establish that the Plan at Exhibit 19 was ever formally adopted by the City of Flint.
Post Fri Nov 11, 2016 8:39 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

Defendants received summary disposition
Post Fri Nov 11, 2016 8:47 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

Garceau v. City of Flint - Casetext
https://casetext.com/case/garceau-v-city-of-flint-3
Aug 31, 2016 - It is undisputed that Defendant Lock was not the Chief of Flint Police at the ..... Rodney Williams testified that he was ordered by a previous Flint .
Post Fri Nov 11, 2016 8:47 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
untanglingwebs
El Supremo

RISK MANAGEMENT
White police officers' suit over sergeant appointments can proceed: Court
REPRINTS
By Judy Greenwald
7/14/2014 12:00:00 AM
Employment Practices

A racial discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed by 14 white police officers in Flint, Michigan, against the city and two supervisors in connection with the appointment of black provisional sergeants can proceed, says an appeals court.

In 2011 and 2012, the Flint police department promoted some patrol officers to the rank of sergeant on a provisional basis, according to Friday's ruling by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati in Robert Garceau et al. v. City of Flint et al.

To determine whether those provisional sergeants should stay on permanently, the department administered a test. Some of the provisional sergeants, who are African-Americans, did not pass the test, but the department allowed them to stay on as provisional sergeants anyway, according to the ruling.

“The plaintiffs, all Caucasian, saw these provisional promotions as part of a pattern designed to skirt the department's internal rules (requiring seniority-based promotions) and to favor African-Americans” according to the ruling.

The plaintiffs charge that after raising their concerns with the department, police Chief Alvin Lock and police Capt. Darryl Patterson harassed and retaliated against them through increased scrutiny and “pretextual discipline” in violation of their First and 14th Amendment rights, according to the ruling. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of expression, while the 14th guarantees equal protection under the law.

The plaintiffs filed suit against the city, Chief Lock and Capt. Patterson in U.S. District Court in Detroit on charges including racial discrimination and retaliation.

While the District Court dismissed some of the counts, including a conspiracy count and two retaliation counts, for failure to state a claim, it allowed one of the First Amendment retaliation claims against Chief Lock and Capt. Patterson, based on their actions after the plaintiffs filed the lawsuit, to proceed, and held the claim against the city could proceed as well.

The plaintiffs appealed, but a three-judge panel of the 6th Circuit upheld the lower court's ruling. On the case filed against the supervisors, the ruling says the complaint alleges discrimination on the basis of race. “The First Amendment thus protects the plaintiffs' complaint,” the ruling states.

Regarding the complaint against the city, the complaint “contains sufficient factual material to raise a 'plausible' inference that the defendants maintained a policy or custom that led to discrimination and retaliation,” said the panel, in affirming the lower court ruling.
Post Fri Nov 11, 2016 8:53 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
  Display posts from previous:      
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page 1, 2  Next

Last Topic | Next Topic  >

Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 

Flint Michigan online news magazine. We have lively web forums

Website Copyright © 2010 Flint Talk.com
Contact Webmaster - FlintTalk.com >