STATE OF MICHIGAN

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF GENESEE

LISA GRIFFEY, and Case No: 17-

CEDRIC GRIFFEY Honorable

Plaintiffs,

vs.

MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

Defendant.

KEVIN ERNST (P44223)

JONATHAN R. MARKO (P72450)
Ernst & Marko Law, PLC
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
645 Griswold Street, Suite 4100
Detroit, MI 48226
(313) 965-5555/Fax (313)955-5556
jon@ernstmarkolaw.com

There is no other pending or resolved civil action

arising out of the transaction or occurrence alleged in
this Complaint.

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys, Ernst & Marko Law, PLC, and for their

Complaint against the Defendants state as follows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Jurisdiction is proper because the amount in controversy exceeds this

courts jurisdictional limit, not including costs, interests, and attorney fees.

1
 2. Venue is proper because material transactions and occurrences took place

in Genesee County, Michigan.

PARTIES

3. Plaintiff, Lisa Griffey (Plaintiff), is an African-American female, residing

in Genesee County, Michigan, and worked for the Defendant at both the Lapeer and Flint

office in the Probation Department.

4. Plaintiff, Cedric Griffey (Cedric Griffey), is the husband of Plaintiff and

resides with her in Genesee County, Michigan, and currently works for the Defendant as

a deputy warden.

5. Defendant, the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC), is a

Michigan governmental agency that employs Plaintiff in Genesee County, Michigan.

FACTS

6. Plaintiff was an employee of Defendant since 2000, working as a probation

officer in Defendants Probation Department.

7. Plaintiff was an exemplary employee.

8. Plaintiff started working on or about November 10, 2014, at the Lapeer

office which was comprised of solely white employees, leaving Plaintiff to be the only

African-American in the government building of approximately 200 people.

9. The Plaintiff was required to write reports at the Lapeer and Sanilac offices

as a requirement to be allowed to transfer to Lapeer from Macomb. No Caucasian

employee was required to do this as a requirement to transfer. Sanilac is an hour away

2
from Lapeer and the Plaintiff drove between Lapeer and Sanilac for approximately 7 to 8

months.

9. Since then, Plaintiff has been subjected to a culture of racism that has been

ignored, cultivated, and/or perpetrated by the Defendant and employees at Defendants

facilities, including co-workers, secretaries, supervisors, and other individuals in

management.

10. Defendants employees consistently made unwelcome comments,

innuendos, and jokes about Plaintiffs race.

11. Plaintiff was referred to as a mammy, which is a word used to refer to

African-American women as nursemaids for a white family, and used to describe

African-American women as overweight, unattractive, illiterate, and masculine.

12. Mammy is a racially offensive term.

13. Employees would openly watch discriminatory and racist videos in the

office, and purposely showed them to Plaintiff. Plaintiff was shown a video known as

Sweet Brown, which showed an African American female with a scarf on her head, a

gold tooth, who was speaking broken and incorrect English, telling a story while

constantly repeating aint nobody got time for that. The video was mocking and racist

towards African Americans.

14. Plaintiff was also shown a video mockingly advising African-Americans

how not to get arrested.

15. Plaintiffs former supervisor, Michael Slater, often verbally degraded

Plaintiff and often compared her to similarly situated Caucasian probation officers.

3
 16. Plaintiffs coworkers singled her out and mistreated her due to her race.

For example, a paroles family was known by the Defendant to be racist and to disdain

African-Americans. Plaintiffs coworkers stated that Plaintiff, an African-American,

should be the one do to the house call. Plaintiffs coworkers laughed about this

discriminatory harassment and mocked the Plaintiff.

17. Sometimes the office would order pizza for lunch. The supervisors would

go around and ask the employees what they wanted on their pizza. One day, Plaintiffs

supervisor came to her office and asked her if she wanted chitterlings on her pizza. A

racist and discriminatory comment.

18. Plaintiff was singled out and ostracized by her peers. For example, certain

Caucasian coworkers would ignore her, ostracize her, and act as if she was not a human

being. On one occasion when Plaintiff tried to show a colleague some work on a piece of

paper, the colleague threw the paper back at her and referred to her as scary.

19. On another occasion, Plaintiffs Caucasian coworkers told Plaintiff racist

stories, such as a tale about a young African-American boy being adopted by a white

family. Plaintiffs coworkers referred to the family as the Coon family. Coon is an

insulting and racist term for African-American person. Plaintiffs coworkers told her

that she should be able to sympathize with [the black boy], a reference to the fact she is

an African-American woman.

20. On another occasion, Plaintiff was referred to as the woman who wears

different hair styles and another employee remarked that Plaintiff should just be referred

to as the black one.

4
 21. Plaintiffs supervisor witnessed Plaintiff being bullied and harassed by

other employees on the basis of her race and did nothing.

22. Plaintiff filed at least 8 discriminatory harassment complaints with the

Michigan Department of Corrections Equal Employment Opportunity office against

numerous coworkers.

23. The harassment counselor, Kelly Miller, met Plaintiff met to discuss the

complaints at the Lapeer office, and violated Defendants Policy Directive 02.03.100 by

sabotaging Plaintiffs ability to file a meaningful complaint by:

a. Forcing Plaintiff to hand write each complaint on a

separate form when other similarly situated Caucasian
employees were able to type their complaints on one
form;

b. Failing to provide Plaintiff with any kind of follow-up

questions, when other similarly situated Caucasian
employees received follow-up questions; and

c. Observed Kelly Miller being very friendly with

numerous staff in the office who were part of the
complaints after Plaintiff filled out her paperwork.

d. Plaintiff was required to separate her complaints out

into separate and distinct parts, rather than as a full all-
encompassing comprehensive complaint. By
separating Plaintiffs discriminatory harassment
complaint into small discrete parts, Defendant made it
more difficult for Plaintiff to show racial
discrimination and sabotaged her complaints.

24. Plaintiff was forced to transfer to Defendants Flint office due to the

racially hostile work environment.

5
 25. The discrimination and retaliation of the Plaintiff on the basis of race

continued at Defendants Flint office, her supervisor failed to provide Plaintiff notice of

an audit, when other employees received notice.

26. Plaintiff was continually subjected to pervasive racism over the life of her

job including:

a. Being followed around and harassed due to her race;

b. Being verbally abused because of her race;

c. Being harassed on a daily basis;

d. Being denied a fair opportunity for meetings

with management to discuss their disparate
treatment;

e. Having complaints not fully investigated and

dismissed; and

f. Being embarrassed and picked on.

27. Plaintiff filed complaints about her disparate treatment. Her complaints

were not thoroughly investigated and unreasonably dismissed.

28. No real discipline was imposed on the perpetrators, and consequently their

behaviors did not change.

29. As a result of Defendants actions Plaintiff has suffered, and will continue

to suffer, including but not limited to the following:

a. Stress;

b. Time off work;

c. Humiliation;

6
 d. Non-economic damages;

e. Economic damages;

f. All other injuries to be discovered throughout

discovery;

g. Attorney fees and costs.

COUNT I -VIOLATION OF MICHIGAN ELLIOT-LARSEN CIVIL RIGHTS

ACT

Disparate Treatment

30. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was an employee and Defendant was an

employer within the meaning of Michigans Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act

(ECLRA), MCL 37.2101, et seq.

31. At all relevant times, under the ELCRA, Plaintiff had a right to

employment free from discrimination based on her race.

32. Defendant, through its agents, representatives, and employees, was

predisposed to discriminate on the basis of race and acted in accordance with that

predisposition.

33. Defendant, through its agents, representatives, and employees, treated

Plaintiff differently from similarly situated Caucasian employees in the terms and

conditions of employment, on the unlawful basis of race.

34. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants unlawful actions, Plaintiffs

have suffered and continues to suffer injuries and damages.

7
 COUNT II-VIOLATION OF MICHIGAN ELLIOT-LARSEN CIVIL RIGHTS
ACT

Hostile Work Environment

35. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was an employee and Defendant was an

employer within the meaning of ECLRA, MCL 37.2101, et seq.

36. Plaintiff was subjected to unwelcome verbal conduct due to her race.

37. Plaintiff complained about the unwelcome verbal conduct, stating that it

was based on her racial status.

38. The Defendant violated Plaintiffs rights under the ELCRA by allowing the

unwelcome conduct to affect a term or condition of employment, including unreasonably

interfering with Plaintiffs work performance, and thus creating an intimidating and

hostile work environment.

39. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants unlawful actions, Plaintiff

has sustained and continues to sustain injuries and damages.

COUNT III-VIOLATION OF MICHIGAN ELLIOT-LARSEN CIVIL RIGHTS

ACT

Retaliation

40. Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff for filing complaints regarding

Defendants discriminatory and unlawful practices.

41. Defendants actions were intentional, with reckless indifference to

Plaintiffs rights and sensibilities.

42. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants actions, Plaintiff has

suffered and continues to suffer damages and injuries.

8
 COUNT IV-LOSS OF CONSORTIUM

43. Plaintiff, Lisa Griffeys husband, Cedric Griffey, has incurred expenses and

suffered loss of services of his wife, together with loss of society, consortium, and

companionship, all past, present, and future as a result of the torts described previously.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Honorable Court to enter

judgment on Plaintiffs causes of actions in a sum that is just, including attorney fees,

costs, and exemplary damages.

REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, by and through her attorneys, ERNST & MARKO LAW PLC, hereby

requests a trial by jury in the above-captioned matter.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Jonathan R. Marko

Jonathan R. Marko (P72450)
Attorney for Plaintiff
ERNST & MARKO LAW, PLC
645 Griswold Street, Suite 4100
Detroit, Michigan 48226
Phone: 313.965.5555
Fax: 313.965.5556
Email: jon@ernstmarkolaw.com
Dated: January 24, 2017