Loading...
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