COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

Trial Court OF MASSACHUSTS

SUPERIOR COURT

SUFFOLK, ss.

BIJAN MOHAMMADIPOUR,

Plaintiff )

v.

THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ,

BUREAU OF STATE OFFICE BUILDINGS and

DENNIS R. SMITH, Individually,and in his official capacity, )

Defendants. )________________________ )

Jurisdiction

Parties

Facts

  1. Plaintiff Mohammadipour has been a Principal Engineer with the Bureau of State Office Buildings since 1986. His primary duties at times relevant to this action have been planning, budgeting, and implementing capital improvements of buildings within BSB’s control; and oversight of the operation and maintenance of mechanical and electrical systems in the Leverett Saltonstall Building, the McCormack Building, the Charles F. Hurley Building, the Registry Building, the Lindemann Mental HealthCenter and the State House.
  2. Prior to Defendant Smith’s appointment as Superintendent of the BSB in 1993, Mr. Mohammadipour managed the Engineering Department, was in charge of operation and maintenance of mechanical and electrical systems, elevator systems, fire protection, physical plant security, asbestos abatement, and oversight of the electrical shop. He also determined budgetary needs for the Engineering Department.
  3. As a senior staff member, he was also an adviser to the Superintendent. In addition, he was the Superintendent’s designee to the former Division of Capital Planning and Operations ("DCPO"), now Division of Capital Asset Management ("DCAM").
  4. Because of Plaintiff's national origin, Defendants Smith and BSB systematically altered Mr. Mohammadipour’s terms and conditions of employment by, inter alia, relocating the Engineering Department from a 13th floor suite of offices at the Saltonstall to a single office in the McCormack garage; drastically reducing technical personnel in Engineering, and adding a non-engineer supervisory layer to the Engineering Department; removing the fire protection and physical plant security duties from Engineering; temporarily transferring elevator systems out of Engineering; and transferring the electrical shop out of Engineering.
  5. On or about December 21, 1994, Mr. Mohammadipour was informed of an apparent asbestos problem in the 11th floor of the Saltonstall building. He reported to the site and requested the presence of a certified asbestos contractor for the inspection, testing and disposal of the material.
  6. Mr. Mohammadipour also requested that tenants be notified and evacuated and that inspection and testing be conducted in other areas of the buildings.
  7. Mr. Mohammadipour’s recommendations were ignored and he was not contemporaneously notified of the clean-up action taken by the BSB.
  8. Subsequently, Defendants Smith and BSB ordered that Mr. Mohammadipour be excluded from handling the 11th floor matter and further excluded him from any asbestos abatement action, despite his title as asbestos coordinator.
  9. Since 1994, Defendants Smith and BSB denied Mr. Mohammadipour authorization to attend the annual asbestos training courses required for compliance with the requirements of the Asbestos Coordinator position.
  10. Defendants Smith and BSB denied Mr. Mohammadipour access to the State House –where the Superintendent’s office is located– unless Mr.Mohammadipour obtained prior approval from the Deputy Superintendent.
  11. Since 1994, Defendants Smith and BSB excluded Mr. Mohammadipour from the weekly staff meetings; and directed Mr. Mohammadipour not to correspond with him or to use his name or title in any correspondence.
  12. In January of 1997, Defendant Smith directed Deputy Superintendent Leo Colborne not to rate Mr. Mohammadipour’s performance higher than "Meets," despite Mr. Mohammadipour’s higher level of performance.
  13. Despite Defendant Smith’s directive, after discussion with Mr. Mohammadipour, Mr. Colborne rated the latter’s performance as "Exceeds."
  14. In February of 1997, Defendant Smith issued a letter of reprimand to Mr. Colborne for having rated highly Mr. Mohammadipour’s work performance.
  15. In February of 1997, Defendants Smith and BSB barred Mr. Mohammadipour from using any reference to Superintendent Smith, or to copy him on any memoranda; to send any memos without prior BSB approval; to issue reports to individuals; and reminded Mr. Mohammadipour that an earlier directive barring him from direct communication or correspondence with Superintendent Smith was still in effect.
  16. On or about June 18, 1997, at a meeting attended by various state officials and outside consultants, defendant Smith orally stated that plaintiff did not have an Engineering degree.
  17. At that same meeting, defendant Smith also stated that Mr. Mohammadipour had been providing false information to state authorities in relation to the hazardous conditions created by the presence of asbestos in public buildings.
  18. Defendant Smith made the statements alleged in paragraphs 21 and 22 to state officials, including the Secretary of Administration and Finance, and outside consultants who had worked with the plaintiff in the referenced asbestos abatement program.
  19. The statements alleged in paragraphs 21 and 22 are untrue.
  20. At the time of publication, defendant Smith knew that the statements alleged in paragraphs 21 and 22 were untrue, or recklessly failed to determine whether they were true.
  21. The false statements alleged in paragraphs 21 and 22 triggered an investigation by the Secretary of Administration and Finance to ascertain their validity.
  22. The false statements alleged in paragraphs 21 and 22 injured plaintiff by impairing his reputation and standing in the community of engineers, consultants and state officials and thereby diminishing his ability to earn a living in his chosen profession.
  23. On August 28, 1997, Mr. Colborne presented Mr. Mohammadipour with a Performance Review that unilaterally and without prior notice altered his job duties and downrated down to "Meets" his job performance for the prior period, for which he had already been rated "Exceeds."
  24. Defendant Smith consistently ignored or minimized Mr. Mohammadipour’s contribution to the workplace, including his participation in the updating of the mechanical maintenance contract in May of 1997, his selection by the Joint Legislative Committee on Public Service as "1997 Exemplary Public Employee."
  25. Mr. Mohammadipour reported the improper handling of hazardous materials and the existence of hazardous conditions in public buildings.
  26. Mr. Mohammadipour reported improper maintenance and upkeep in public buildings which resulted in costlier, no-bid, emergency repairs.
  27. Mr. Mohammadipour made the above reports inter alia to the Inspector General's Office and to the House Post Audit Committee.
  28. Defendants Smith and BSB have retaliated and continue to retaliate against Mr. Mohammadipour for such reporting.

    Counts I & 2: Violation of Fair Employment Laws

  29. Plaintiff Mohammadipour repeats and realleges the foregoing paragraphs, as if fully set forth herein.
  30. These unequal terms and conditions of employment have violated and continue to violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and the Massachusetts Fair Employment Act.

    Count III: § 1983 Claim

  31. Plaintiff Mohammadipour repeats and realleges the foregoing paragraphs, as if fully set forth herein.
  32. All of the above acts were taken under color of state law.
  33. Defendants have violated the plaintiffs' rights secured under the constitution and the laws of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth to freedom of speech and equal protection under the law.

    Count IV : Defamation

  34. Plaintiff Mohammadipour repeats and realleges the foregoing paragraphs, as if fully set forth herein.
  35. Defendant Smith has defamed Plaintiff.
  36. Because of defendant Smith’s conduct as alleged in the foregoing paragraphs, plaintiff has suffered, inter alia, loss of reputation, loss of career prospects, embarrassment, and anxiety.

    Count V: Whistleblowing

  37. Plaintiff Mohammadipour repeats and realleges the foregoing paragraphs, as if fully set forth herein.
  38. The defendant Department is an "employer" subject to the restrictions of the Massachusetts Whistleblower Protection Act , G.L. c. 149 s. 185.
  39. The defendant Department has taken retaliatory actions against the plaintiff because he disclosed to a public body conduct he reasonably believed to be unlawful and unsafe.
  40. Such retaliation by the Department against the Plaintiff violated his rights as protected by G.L. c. 149 s. 185.
  41. As a result of all the above conduct Plaintiff has been injured. He has been stigmatized. His reputation has been damaged. His career has been ruined. He has suffered great emotional distress.

    Count VI: The Massachusetts Civil Rights Act

    (G.L. c. 12, §§ 11H and 11I)

  42. Plaintiff Mohammadipour repeats and realleges the foregoing paragraphs, as if fully set forth herein.
  43. The individual defendant engaged in a longstanding campaign to interfere by threats, intimidation and coercion, with the plaintiffs' rights secured under the constitution and the laws of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth to freedom of speech and equal protection under the law.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff demands judgment against the defendants and prays:

     1. That this Court enjoin the defendants from further discriminating against the Plaintiff on the               basis of national origin;

  1. That this Court enjoin the defendants from retaliating against the Plaintiff in violation of the Whistleblowing Act;
  2. That this Court award the plaintiff compensatory and punitive damages;
  3. That this Court grant reasonable attorney’s fees and any other costs of this action; and
  4. That this Court award the plaintiff such other and further relief that is just and equitable.

Demand for Jury Trial

The Plaintiff respectfully requests a trial by jury in this matter.