UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
RONALD R. MCCLAIN, )
Plaintiff, ) COMPLAINT
v. ) Civ. A. No99CV10774 RGS
TRIAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH )
OF MASSACHUSETTS; BARBARA A. )
DORTCH-OKARA, solely in her official capacity as)
Chief Justice for Administration and Management )
of the Trial Court, GREGORY L. PHILLIPS, )
individually and in his official capacity; )
SHARON MATHEWS, JOHN DOE, )
and JANE DOE, )
Defendants. )
Introduction
This is an action by an employee of the Trial Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts against his employer and supervisors for extreme religious discriminatory harassment, and subsequent retaliation for pursuing legal redress. Ronald, McClain was working as an administrative assistant to Gregory L. Phillips, First Justice of the Roxbury District Court ("Phillips"). Sharon Mathews was and is employed as an Administrative Assistant, to Phillips. McClain was also supervised by Mathews. As soon as Sharon Mathews inquired and was informed that McClain believed in Islam, and attended a Mosque, his work environment became hostile. He was denigrated, belittled and treated in an abusive manner by both Sharon Mathews and Judge Phillips, as well as other court personnel. He has been the object of insulting jokes about his religious beliefs. He has been the butt of hateful "pranks".
Upon filing his initial complaint alleging religious discrimination with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination ("MCAD"), he was immediately subjected to retaliation by both Judge Phillips and Sharon Mathews. He has been reassigned, functionally demoted, and given different duties. Criminal records at the Roxbury District Court and the Warrant System have been tampered with in and effort to further threaten, intimidate and retaliate against McClain. He has been willfully and improperly subjected to the criminal jurisdiction of the Court he has charged with Discrimination. He has been subjected to, and continues to be subjected to harassment by his supervisors at the Roxbury District Court as a result of his filing of a discrimination complaint.
Jurisdiction and Venue
Parties
5. The plaintiff, Ronald McClain, is and has at all relevant times been employed at the Trial Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts - Roxbury District Court Division ("Roxbury District Court" or "Roxbury Court"), as an administrative assistant.
6. The defendant, the Trial Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts - Roxbury District Court Division has, since September 16, 1997, been the employer of Ronald McClain.
7. The defendant, Gregory L. Phillips was the First Justice of the Roxbury Court. He directly and indirectly supervised the work of McClain and Sharon Mathews.
8. Sharon Mathews was and is at all relevant times employed by the Roxbury Court as Administrative Assistant. She supervised the work of McClain.
9. Justice Barbara A. Dortch-Okara is a defendant, solely in her official capacity as Chief Justice for Administration and Management of the Massachusetts Trial Court.
10. Defendants John Doe and Jane Doe are persons unknown, employed at the Roxbury District Court who doctored and altered court records, and records in the warrant management system to intimidate and harass the Plaintiff.
III. FACTS
11. During the spring and summer of 1996, McClain worked at the Roxbury District Court as a full time intern. During that time he had a number of assignments, including working as a substitute sixth jury session clerk.
12. In the beginning of September, 1997, McClain received a call from Sharon Mathews. She called on behalf of Judge Phillips, offering McClain employment with the Trial Court. McClain was informed that he would serve as Judge Phillips' personal assistant.
13. McClain accepted and began employment on September 16, 1997. The job went very well, and all parties had an excellent working relationship, as was the case during the prior internship.
14. During the early part of November, 1997, Sharon Mathews inquired as to McClain's religious beliefs. They engaged in a number of conversations about religion. McClain was reluctant to go deeply into his own personal beliefs, and tried to keep the conversations general.
15. That became difficult to maintain, and McClain revealed to Mathews that although he shared a number of Christian beliefs, he truly loved and embraced Islam as his religion of choice.
16. Mathews immediately frowned and became hostile. She subsequently treated him in an abrasive and abusive manner. She purposely created an extraordinarily hostile work environment for McClain.
17. When Mathews informed Judge Phillips that McClain was a Muslim, Phillips said: "not up here he won't be…we'll see about that."
18. In the beginning of December, 1997, Judge Phillips gave McClain the assignment of preparing his personal Christmas card mailing list. He prepared it as instructed. Mathews provided McClain with a set of labels to use in printing out the addresses for the envelopes. She had given him the wrong size labels, making it impossible for him to print them out properly.
19. When McClain informed Mathews of this, she attacked his character and abilities, stomped her feet, slammed things down on her desk, and then stormed out of the office slamming the door. She told the receptionist in a loud voice, "that damn so called Muslim, don't know what he is doing."
20. When Mathews returned to the office later, she continued to berate and belittle McClain. Judge Phillips had told her to take a walk and return in about an hour.
21. McClain asked Donna Dukaskie and Evelyn Guzman, both from the Trial Court's computing services to assist with the problem of the mailing labels. They came and stated that the problem was that the wrong size labels were being used.
22. Over the next few weeks Mathews openly laughed and joked with a number of other employees about McClain being a Muslim.
23. Mathews had stated to another employee that she would get McClain's "Muslim ass out of here," and replace him with someone else.
24. Another employee brought in to work, a bottle of oil. She sprayed it around McClain's office and in the closet, telling McClain that it was anointing oil to get the demons out of the office.
25. At another time this same employee said McClain was never going to church because he was the Devil practicing all of that Muslim stuff. Mathews praised the other employee for being such a strong Christian.
26. Mathews informed Judge Phillips that she didn't want to share an office with McClain. She didn't want to be associated with a so called Muslim. She was given a separate office.
27. Mathews continued to treat McClain in a hostile and abusive manner, also repeatedly verbally attacking him for his religious beliefs. Her attitude towards him and treatment of him had totally changed on the day he informed her of his religious beliefs.
28. On a number of occasion, McClain approached Judge Phillips regarding the religious discriminations he had been subjected to.
29. Judge Phillips Phillips' response was to treat McClain in the same way as Mathews had. Judge Phillips responded to McClain in a hostile, abusive and sometimes physically threatening manner.
30. Thereafter, both Judge Phillips and Mathews attempted to discredit McClain, taking away much of his work assignments, and then telling people that he was lazy and not doing anything.
31. Mathews would make comments about McClain such as: "some people don't know how to leave where they are not wanted"; and "a Muslim huh? Reminds me more like a snake."
32. At other times, McClain was overloaded with work, causing him to fall behind. Then he was again characterized as lazy and incompetent. As a result, many of the people he had worked with have lost respect for him.
33. At work, people have mimicked a salute to him, as is done in Islam, and joked about McClain eating pork.
34. One employee asked McClain what he was having for lunch. When McClain responded, the other employee said maybe they should sprinkle a little pork in there for flavor.
35. Upon information and belief, Sharon Mathews without McClain's prior knowledge, placed pork into his food, and subsequently laughed and joked about it.
36. McClain was required to come into work early and work late for a prolonged period of time. When he sought credit for that time worked, Judge Phillips informed him that he was doing it "voluntarily".
37. One day McClain was sitting at his desk, when he heard a commotion coming from Mathews' new office. When he looked out, Judge Phillips was asking Mathews (through a closed door) to please come out of the office and talk to him. She stated that she was not coming out until "that fucking Muslim is out of here."
38. Phillips turned to McClain and told him to just leave. He said "I want you off the property. Just go home."
39. McClain went to file his Complaint with this Commission.
40. After the Complaint was served, Mathews said to McClain, "I told Judge Phillips to get your Muslim ass out of here, that you were nothing but a snake."
41. Judge Phillips took payroll records, time sheets, and expense report sheets off of McClain's desk. He never returned them, or allowed him to continue his responsibility of maintaining them. Phillips later informed him that there were discrepancies in the books, but would not permit him to see what they were.
42. Judge Phillips ordered McClain not to do anything, but sit at his desk and not move. One time Phillips came off of the bench to yell and scream at him for going to get a soda, when he was supposed to be sitting at his desk doing nothing.
43. Phillips then transferred and functionally demoted McClain out of the Judge's Lobby down to the clerk's office to do work for which he was not trained. He was subjected to a hostile work environment by employees because of the efforts of Mathews and Phillips.
44. Since then, McClain has continued to be subjected to a constant barrage of retaliations and humiliation as the direct result of his having filed a complaint with this MCAD.
45. He is now a switchboard operator. He has been threatened with dismissal, and disciplined, in bad faith, for the sole purpose of discrediting him and retaliating for his having filed the discrimination complaint.
46. He was in an automobile accident. His doctor instructed him to be out of work for several weeks. He provided doctor's notes for his absence. He was told that this was insufficient, and that he had to provide the ambulance report, the police report, the emergency room report as well as the doctor's records, or be terminated. This was an outrageous request designed to harass and intimidate him. It is impossible to obtain such documentation quickly, without a judicial subpoena. This was one more attempt to inflame him so that he might do something inappropriate so that he could be fired for insubordination.
47. McClain has been discriminated against because of his belief in the Muslim faith by the Massachusetts Trial Court, Sharon Mathews, and Judge Phillips, in violation of both state and federal law. He has also been subjected to brutal and sustained retaliation because he filed his initial complaint.
48. On April 1, 1999, it was brought to McClain's attention that he had an outstanding default against him in a Roxbury District Court case resulting from a traffic incident.
49. As of April 1, 1999, the Probation Record Information System showed an outstanding warrant and default dating back to March 6. 1995. Annexed hereto as Exhibit C.
50. As of late March, 1999, the Probation Record Information System showed no outstanding warrant or default dating back to March 6. 1995. Annexed hereto as Exhibit D.
51. The record in late March of 1999, showed the entire docket as having been closed.
52. The case was closed in 1995, when all counts were dismissed and full court costs and restitution were paid.
53. On Friday, April 2, 1999 a review of the docket showed an entry having been whited out. Annexed hereto as Exhibit E.
54. The Docket also reflects that no warrant had ever been issued, although the April 1, 1999 Probation Record Report, oddly reflects that a warrant had been issued.
55. The whited out entry was dated "3" or "5" "/15/95." Writing under the white out was legible and read " default off."
56. On April 5, 1999, when McClain appeared in Roxbury District Court before Justice Dolan, the Court file had disappeared.
57. The Court proceeded on a copy of the docket and wrote that day's entry directly over the whited out entry in the docket. Annexed hereto as Exhibit F.
58. The Court files had been tampered with, and false entries made in the warrant management system/ probation record system in an effort to threaten and intimidate McClain from pursuing his claims against Mathews, Phillips, and the Trial Court.
59. When asked to refer the matter of criminal tampering with Court records to the District Attorney's office or other appropriate authority for a criminal investigation, Justice Dolan in open court referred the matter to the Probation Department for investigation, which was the most likely source of the tampering.
60. Justice Dolan also accused McClain of tampering with the court documents, removing the missing file, and of misusing his position with the court in obtaining favorable treatment in 1995.
61. In 1995, McClain was not employed by the Court and had no connection to the Court.
62. On April 5, 1999, McClain, although still employed by the Court was informed that he had had all of his employment benefits, such as health insurance and life insurance cut off.
63. He was informed that defendant Mathews was the only person who was in a position to accomplish this.
64. Additionally, on April 5, 1999, a new employee phone directory was distributed throughout the Roxbury Court.
65. McClain's name was mysteriously missing from the directory, although he was still on the job.
COUNT ONE
42 U.S.C. s. 1983
66. The plaintiff repeats and realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
67. All of the above acts were taken under color of state law.
68. Defendants violated plaintiffs' rights to due process and equal protection secured under the constitution and laws of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth.
COUNT TWO
42 USCA s 2000e
69. The Plaintiff repeats and realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
70. These unequal terms and conditions of employment have violated and continue to violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.
71. The harassment and retaliation for filing a complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination in August of 1998 have violated and continue to violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.
COUNT THREE
M.G.L.c. 151B, § 4.
72. The plaintiff repeats and realleges the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
73. These unequal terms and conditions of employment have violated and continue to violate the Massachusetts Fair Employment Act.
74. The harassment and retaliation for filing a complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination in August of 1998 have violated and continue to violate the Massachusetts Fair Employment Act.
COUNT FOUR
(G.L. ch. 12, Sec. 11I)
.
75. The Plaintiff repeats and realleges all prior Paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
76. The individual defendants, with others engaged in a joint venture to interfere by threats, intimidation and coercion, with the plaintiffs' rights secured under the constitution of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth to due process and equal protection under the law, as well as rights secured under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and the Massachusetts Fair Employment Act.
AS A RESULT of all the above conduct McClain has been injured. He has been stigmatized. His reputation has been damaged. He has been assigned menial and demeaning duties. His career has been ruined. He has suffered great emotional distress.
WHEREFORE, the plaintiff demands that this Court:
a. enter judgment against the defendants and each of them, for his compensatory damages, for punitive damages, for prejudgment interest and for his costs and attorneys fees in this action;
b. issue an emergency and permanent injunction ordering the Trial Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the defendants in their official capacities to restore McClain to the same position and benefits he had before the improper action was taken against him, prohibiting any future harassment of McClain and removing all negative references arising from this matter from his personnel record;
c. declare that by the above conduct each of the defendants violated McClain's rights to religious freedom under both federal and state constitutions and statutes.
JURY DEMAND -- The plaintiff demands a jury trial as to all counts of this complaint.
Dated this day of April, 1999
Ronald McClain
By:
Eric S. Maxwell
BBO No. 557787
112 Shawmut Avenue
Boston, MA 02118
(617) 357-5800
I swear or affirm that I have read this Complaint and that it is true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
_________________________
Ronald R. McClain
SWORN TO AND SUSCRIBED BEFORE ME THIS DAY OF APRIL, 1999
NOTARY PUBLIC: ___________________
SIGNITURE OF NOTARY PUBLIC:_______________________
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES :________________________