Claim/Suit Hessel, Tina
Name: Tina Marie Hessel
Address: 2393 Kaufmann Ave. Dubuque, Iowa 52001
Telephone: (563)495-3090
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IOWA
lRST DISTRICT
Tina Marie Hessel
CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT
(42 U.S.C.:1983, 1985)
PLATNTIFF
Vs.
\.,....\
CIVIL NO. [; i 3 / I eve v f:\ .r~.f 3]
(Supplied by Clerk) f')
C)
City of Dubuque
Randy Peck
Michael Van Milligan
Rich Russell
r'""
""",-'1
!
......-
2'\r:-_
~-:~-
V-";l\
<.T'
C"
DEFENDANTS
A. JURISDICTION
r....',
1. Jurisdiction is proper in this court according to:
a. X 42 U.S.c. : 1983
b. 42 U.S.c.: 1985
c. _ Other (Please Specify)
2.
NAME OF PLAINTIFF: Tina Marie Hessel
IS A CITIZEN OF THE STATE OF Dubuque, Iowa
c.
PRESENT MAILING ADDRESS: 2393 Kaufmann Ave Dubuque, Iowa 52001
3. NAME OF FIRST DEFENDANT: City of Dubuque
4. NAME OF SECOND DEFENDANT: Randy Peck
IS A CITIZEN OF: Dubuque, Iowa
IS EMPLOYED AS: Personnel Manager for the city of Dubuque, Iowa
Was the defendant acting under the authority or color of state law at the time these claims
occurred?
YES X NO
Mr. Peck works for the city of Dubuque as the Personnel Manager. He along with Mr. Russell
hired Tina Hessel's cleaning company Maid For You to provide cleaning services for the
City of Dubuque.
4. NAME OF THIRD DEFENDANT: Michael VanMilligan
IS A CITIZEN OF: Dubuque, Iowa
IS EMPLOYED AS: City Manager for the city of Dubuque, Iowa
Was the defendant acting under the authority or color of state law at the time these claims
occurred?
YES X NO
Mr. VanMilligan is employed by the city of Dubuque, Iowa as the City Manager.
5. NAME OF FOURTH DEFENDANT: Rich Russell
IS A CITIZEN OF: Dubuque, Iowa
IS EMPLOYED AS: Building Services Manager for the city ofDnbuque, Iowa
\Vas the defendant acting under the authority or color of state law at the time these claims
occurred?
YES X NO
Mr. Rnssell is employed by the city of Dubuque Iowa as Building Services Manager.
B. NATURE OF CASE
1. \Vhy are you bringing this case to court? Please explain the circumstances that led to the
problem.
On Jauuary 17,2005, Tina Hessel's company Maid For You was hired to provide cleaning
services for the city of Dubuque. Ms. Hessel had at the time four employees, two were Caucasian
and two were African American. Rich Russell; the Building Services Manager hired Maid For
You. On January 21, 2005, Shawn Baldwin, an employee of Maid For You who is African
American was seen with Ms. Hessel cleaning by Ken TeKippe. Mr. TeKippe is the Financial
Director for the city of Dubuqne. He asked who Mr. Baldwin was. A few days later, it was
requested that all employees of Maid For You have background checks done by the personnel
department at City Hall. On February 4,2005, the two female Caucasian employees of Maid For
You had their background checks doue. On February 8, 2005, the two African American
employees of Maid For You went to City Hall to have their background checks done. Randy
Peck refused to run their background checks. When Ms. Hessel inquired as to why, Mr. Peck told
her, "We have employees that work late into the night and they have to feel comfortable with
who is in the building. We don't want to have anything stolen." This was said in the presence of
not only Ms. Hessel, but also Rich Russell. In addition, Mr. Peck and Mr. Russell would not
allow the two Caucasian employees to work because one had a criminal record from sixteen
years ago where she was intoxicated and walked in on her boyfriend and her friend being
intimate. She was charged with burglary though she did no jail time nor was she placed on
probation. The other Caucasian employee ran away from home when she was thirteen because
her parents were going through a bitter divorce. She also had a juvenile charge for getting into an
altercation with her sister. Mr. Peck insisted that the city did not hire Maid For You, that they
only hired Ms. Hessel to do aH the cleaning even though the contract signed says otherwise. Ms.
Hessel tiled a complaint with the Human Rights Department for the city of Dubuque, Iowa.
Because Ms. Hessel did this, the city and the defendants retaliated by dismissing Maid For You
and Ms. Hessel as the provider of cleaning services for the city of Dubuque, Iowa.
C. CAUSE OF ACTION
1. I allege that my constitutional rights, privileges or immunities have been violated and that
the following facts form the basis for my allegations:
a. (1) Count I: Violation of Civil Rights Title 2 Section 202
Deprivation of Rights
(2) Supporting Facts:
Tina Hessel and the employees of her company Maid For You were discriminated
against. Ms. Hessel and her employees complied with the city of Dubuque's request for
background checks. When the checks came back unfavorably for the two Caucasian
employees they were not allowed to work. The city refused to run the two African American
employees background checks because "we have employees that work late into the night and
they have to feel comfortable with who is in the building, we don't want anything stolen."
When Ms. Hessel filed a complaint with the Human Rights Department, she was in turn
retaliated against which will be proven in court by evidence and witnesses. When it was
discovered that Ms. Hessel had med a complaint with the Human Rights Department, Mr.
Peck, Mr. Russell and Mr. VanMilligan gave the okay for the African American employees
to work even though one ofthem had a more recent auto theft charge and had spent time in
jail for the crime. Also, Mr. Peck's assistant asked Ms. Hessel for more information on her
two African American employees so background checks could be run. Ms. Hessel refused to
give any more information because her employees no longer wanted to be a part of the
cleaning project for the city of Dubuque. The city of Dubuque ran the background checks
anyway without Ms. Hessel's permission or the permission of her employees. On June 30,
2005, a mediation meeting was held. Ms. Hessel was not allowed to have her employees
present for the meeting. Mr. VanMilligan told her African American employees that they
were not allowed to come to the mediation meeting.
B. (1) Count II: Violation Civil Rights Title two Sections 203
(2) Supporting Facts:
On February 10. 2005, a complaiut was med with the Dubuque Human Rights Department
alleging discrimination. Kelly Larson, the director for the Human Rights Department
initiated an investigation into the allegations. Because Ms. Hessel filed a complaint with the
Human Rights Department, her contract was subsequently terminated.
c. (1) Count III: Breach of Contract
(2) Supporting Facts:
Maid For You was hired to provide cleaning services for the city of Dubuque. The contract
states that Maid For You was the company that was hired. At no time did the contract
indicate that Ms. Hessel would do the work by herself. The contract specifically states that
Maid For You would be performing the cleaning duties the city required. The city of
Dubuque and its' employees, Randy Peck, Mike VanMilIigan and Rich Russell caused a
breach of contract by stating that they only hired Tina Hessel to do the cleaning for the city
of Dubuque and only allowed her to do the cleaning. Because they only allowed Ms. Hessel
to do the cleaning, this made the contract impossible to perform.
d. (1) Count IV: Fraud
(2) Supporting Facts:
Ms. Hessel was told more than once that her company Maid For You was in the runniug for
a more permanent contract then what it had. On February 8, 2005, Mr. Russell and Mr.
Peck assured Ms. Hessel that she was being considered for the permanent contract. On
April 29, 2005 during a mediation meeting in front of many witnesses, Ms. Hessel
threatened to go to the newspaper, the Telegraph Herald with her story of discrimination.
When Mr. Peck knew she was serious, he called Mr. VanMilIigan on the telephone and he
came back to the meeting asking if Ms. Hessel would put a bid in writing and submit it by
May 10, 2005. Ms. Hessel was led to believe that she would receive a two year contract. On
June 30, 2005 when a second mediation meeting commenced, Mr. VanMilIigan stated that
they had no intention of giving Ms. Hessel an extended contract, that they had decided on
March 21, 2005 to terminate Ms. Hessel as the cleaning service for the city of Dubuque and
hire their own employees. For months, Ms. Hessel was led to believe that she would receive
an extension of her contract. The city of Dubuque and its' employees made a promise
without any intention of performing it and committed acts to deceive. We will provide
witnesses during trial and evidence to convey that the listed facts are true.
e. (I) Count Five: Intentional Inlliction of Emotional Distress
(2) Supporting Facts:
On February 7, 2005 and February 8, 2005, Ms. Hessel was told that she would not be
allowed to have her employecs work with her and that she was the only person that was
hired to provide cleaning services for the city.l\-Is. Hessel was made to acquire Workmen's
Compensation insurance on her employees before the city would sign a contract with her to
provide cleaning services. This caused undue emotional distress because workmen's
compensation insurance is very expensive and she would not have had to purchase it if she
were not to have her employees clean for the city. Ms. Hessel was the only one allowed to
clean the buildings. This caused undue emotional distress since the previous company was
allo\yed to have four to five employees in the city buildings cleaning. The previous company
Coqui, stole equipment such as digital cameras and laptop computers from the city. They
were allowed to be the cleaning service for the city of Dubuque for five years. One of their
employees was caught on camera watching pornography on a city computer and
masturbating while doing so. Despite these acts, Coqui was allowed to continue as the
cleaning service for the city of Dubuque. Ms. Hessel was not allowed to have any assistance,
and had to do the work alone which brought on emotional distress. After Ms. Hessel filed a
complaint with the Dubuque Human Rights Department, someone went into the ladies
restroom at City Hall and smeared feces on the walls (nearly to the ceiling), on the 1100r, all
over the pipes and the toilets. The feces were allowed to dry all day. When Ms. Hessel
arrived and said something about the mess she was told by an assistant to Mr. Russell,
'''That is why you get the big bucks, so clean it up." On several occasions, Ms. Hessel was not
paid within the time her contract st..ted she would be paid. When asked why, Ms. Hessel
was told that it was forgotten that she was to be paid on Tuesdays, one week she was told the
computers were down when in fact they were not. On another occasion, she was told that
the check was in the mail. One week, Ms. Hessel was not paid at all and had to wait until the
next week. All intentional infliction of emotional distress. When 1\1r. Peck told Ms. Hessel
why her African American employees could not work, she was devastated at what was said
by a city employee. She became ill. Ms. Hessel will present witnesses as to her state of mind
on February 8, 2005 after Mr. Peck made the comments he did concerning her African
American employees. The city ran background checks on her only underage employee
without the child's parent's permission. The parents will testify in court as to their reaction
and the distress this placed on Ms. Hessel when they told her they would seek legal action
for what the city did. On April 29, 2005 a mediation meeting was held from 10:00 am to 2:00
pm. Mr. Russell conceded to Ms. Hessel and all that were in attendance that he could see
why Ms. Hessel thought Mr. Peck's statements concerning her African American employees
were racist. During the next mediation meeting on June 30, 2005, Mr. Russell retracted that
statement since his boss Mr. VanMilligan was present. Also on June 30, 2005, Mr.
VanMiIligan refused to allow Ms. Hessel's African American employees to attend the
mediation meeting. During this meeting, Mr. VanMiIligan, Mr. Peck and Mr. Russell all
"ganged up" on Ms. Hessel as though they were big bullies. This was an intentional
int1iction of emotional distress. There were witnesses to these events and they will be present
for trial. On March 21, 2005, the defendants decided to terminate Ms. Hessel and Maid For
You. At no time did one of the defendants tell Ms. Hessel of their plans until the April 29,
2005 mediation meeting. On April 29, 2005, an ad had been placed in the newspaper for
people to apply for the cleaning position with the city of Dubuque. The defendants of this
never informed Ms. Hessel until she told them she would be reporting all of this to the
newspaper. Ms. Hessel was then '''strung along" for months, thinking that she would be
receiving a more permanent contract. This was an intentional infliction of emotional
distress. Ms. Hessel was the only one cleaning and had no other cleaning contracts because
she was sure she would have the city contract. Ms. Hessel was waxing the floor of City Hall
in April of 2005 when the buffer she was using injured her. She sustained a broken bone in
each foot so had two broken feet. Ms. Hessel was not allowed to have any employees assist
her so she had to work with two broken feet. When the pain would become too
overwhelming, she would have to sneak a person in to help her so the work could be done.
This caused her severe emotional distress and severe pain. By doing all that is listed, the
defendants acted intentionally and recklessly. In addition, the defendants conduct was
extreme and outrageous as they tried to "cover their tracks" for what they had done.
D. INJURY
1. How have you been injured by the actions of the defendant(s)?
Because of the actions of the city, 1\ls Hessel is in financial ruins. Her automobile was
Repossessed and her home is about to be foreclosed on.
No one "",ill hire her company to clean for them despite the fact
Mr. VanMilligan has said she would receive an excellent reference from the city. She has no
employees, she had to let them all go since she no longer has any work for them. Ms hesselwas
in the running to clean at the University of Dubuque, until the manager found out she worked
for the city of Dubuque. He works with the mayor of the city.
E. PREVIOUS LAWSUITS AND ADMINSTRATIVE RELIEF
I. Have you filed other lawsuits in state or federal court that deal with the same facts that are
involved in this action or otherwise relate to the conditions of your imprisonment? YES_
NO~X_. If your answer is "YES'" describe each lawsuit.
2. Have you previously sought informal or formal relief from the appropriate administrative
officials regarding the acts complained of in Part C? YES_X_NO_.lfyour answer is
"YES" briefly describe how relief was sought and the results.
On February 10,2005, Ms Hessel filed a complaint with the Dubuque Human Rights
Department.
Nothing came of the complaint other then two mediation meetings where nothing was
accomplished. Immediately following the June 30, 2005 mediation meeting, Ms. Hessel filed
a complaint with the Iowa Civil Rights Commission. On November 11,2005, Ms. Hessel
received a letter stating that the case had been "administratively closed", but that she could
request a letter for a '''right to sue". Ms. Hessel received the letter for a right to sue in
December of 2005.
F. REQUEST FOR RELIEF
1. Ms Hessel believes that she is entitled to the following relief:
Ms. Hessel is seeking damages in the amount of $2.5 million.
. . . ..
. .
DECLARA nON UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY
The undersigned declares under penalty of perjury that he/she is the plaintiff in the above action, that
he/she has read the above complaint, and that the information contained therein is true and correct.
28 U.S.c. :1746; 18 U.S.c.: 1621
Executedatrj)~1 & on ~16 d)..lr 200&,.
~.J ~-'JP~
Signature