Brandi Bull Rowlett Lawsuit

Case 3:18-cv-02002-S Document 1 Filed 08/01/18 Page 1 of 32 PageID 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
BRANDI BULL, )
)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO.
)
CITY OF ROWLETT, )
)
Defendant. )
________________________________________ )
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
Plaintiff Brandi Bull (“Plaintiff” or “Bull”), by counsel brings this action for violations of
the Texas Whistleblower Protection Act, sexual harassment and sexually hostile work
environment in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e, et seq. and the Texas Labor Code, and
retaliation in violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e, et seq. and the Texas Labor Code against
Defendant, City of Rowlett (“Defendant” or “City of Rowlett”) and would respectfully show the
Court as follows:
I. PARTIES
1.1. Plaintiff Brandi Bull is a citizen of the United States and a citizen and resident of
the State of Texas, who resides at 11770 Caddo Creek Drive, Lavon, Texas 75166.
1.2. Defendant, the City of Rowlett, Texas is a municipal corporation that is located in
Dallas County. The Defendant may be served with process by serving its City Attorney, David
Plaintiff’s Original Complaint

1
Berman, Nichols, Jackson, Dillard, Hager & Smith, L.L.P., 1800 Ross Tower, 500 North Akard,
Dallas, TX 75201.
1.3. Defendant, the City of Rowlett, is a municipality within the State of Texas and,
until Plaintiff's discharge, was her employer as that term is statutorily defined by the statutes
upon which Plaintiff relies for her causes of action. As a municipality, the City is not immune
from suit or liability in this case. Whenever Plaintiff alleges conduct by the City, it is meant that
the City acted through its officers, agents, servants, employees, or representatives.
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2.1. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and pendent and
supplemental jurisdiction of the common law claims.
2.2. Venue for all causes of action stated herein lies in the Northern District of Texas
because the acts alleged in this Complaint took place, in whole or in part, within the boundaries
of this District, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391. Plaintiff Bull’s EEOC charge was forwarded to the
Department of Justice and the Department of Justice issued a Right to Sue on August 1, 2018.
See exhibit A.
2.3. Plaintiff provided proper and timely notice to Defendant pursuant to the Texas
Tort Claims Act, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 101.101 on November 9, 2017.
III. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
3.1. Plaintiff Brandi Bull was employed with the City of Rowlett beginning on
November 25, 2013 in the Human Resource Department of Defendant City of Rowlett. Ms. Bull
soon realized that she was working in a very hostile work environment created and perpetuated
by Human Resources Director John Murray’s constant unprofessional behavior. Mr. Murray
engaged in and allowed others to engage in numerous instances of sexual harassment within the

2
department. Mr. Murray would make comments about staff members’ breasts and buttocks. Mr.
Murray would often tell people that he hired his staff based on their “8x10 pictures.” Mr. Murray
would walk around with no shirt on and would ask his staff, including Ms. Bull, to touch his pecs
and biceps. There were even times when Mr. Murray asked Ms. Bull about her personal sex life.
3.2. In the summer of 2014, working conditions worsened when Mr. Murray, who was
and still is married, began having an affair with Wendy Badgett, Assistant Director of Finance,
who was also married. Ms. Badgett has since divorced. The affair between the two employees
fueled the already hostile work environment by now adding continuous sexual harassment and
conflicts of interest to the list of problems. Upon the termination of the now former Finance
Director (a termination motivated by Mr. Murray), Mr. Murray facilitated the interim promotion
of his mistress, Ms. Badgett, and she was given a pay increase which was contrary to city policy.
In addition to Ms. Badgett’s salary increase, her best friend Tara Lopez was given a promotion
that included an increase in pay as well. This goes against the City policy section 2.1 and 2.2
regarding ethics and conflict of interest.
3.3. Mr. Murray slowly started shifting responsibility from Ms. Badgett’s department
to the Human Resources (HR) department, adding extra hours and workload onto Ms. Bull and
other staff members in the HR department. Issues and concerns were voiced among staff and
despite the entire city office knowing about the affair, sexual harassment, workplace harassment,
ethics and conflict of interest, this dysfunctional situation was never addressed. Every day Ms.
Bull lived in fear of retaliation, as Mr. Murray stated several times that he would “rip the heart
out of anyone that crossed him with his bare hands.” Ms. Bull lived like this for almost a year
until she finally could not take it anymore. In May of 2015, Ms. Bull requested a meeting with
Assistant City Manager Jim Proce. It was in this meeting that Ms. Bull complained about the

3
sexual harassment, the hostile work environment and the consistent violation of City policy by
Mr. Murray. Mr. Proce was extremely concerned and asked if Ms. Bull and another colleague
would talk to City Manager Brian Funderburk. They agreed and had a meeting with Mr.
Funderburk who seemed reluctant to believe most of what was being said. It was obvious that
Mr. Funderburk was skeptical of what he was being told and did not want to take any action
against Mr. Murray.
3.4. Upon notifying the City Attorney David Berman, about the complaints, Mr.
Berman hired an external investigator/attorney to come into the City to conduct an investigation.
After three days of interviews with more than ten employees providing supporting testimony, the
Attorney Lu Pham submitted a report advising the City of Rowlett and Mr. Funderburk to
terminate Mr. Murray’s employment. Even after receiving the report and talking to Mr. Pham,
Mr. Funderburk was still reluctant to terminate Mr. Murray and even made a phone call to the
attorney asking him if there was any other way to address the issue without terminating Mr.
Murray’s employment. In May of 2015, Mr. Murray provided his resignation and retired, in lieu
of termination, with the City of Rowlett. Mr. Funderburk was resentful that he was forced to
terminate Mr. Murray. From this point forward, Mr. Funderburk retaliated against Ms. Bull, for
her role in the investigation.
3.5. In July 2015, Ms. Bull and a city coworker, Jessica Perkins, were requested to
take a drug test by Mr. Funderburk and were placed under investigation after an unnamed
coworker allegedly made comments of potential drug use. Ms. Bull and several coworkers spent
the weekend together on Lake Lewisville. After returning to work she was asked to submit a
drug test, even though she did not participate in any illegal activity. She wrote a letter to the

4
Interim Human Resources Manager, Irene Kasujji pointing out that both the investigation and the
drug test request were against City policy.
3.6. The City had never participated in hearsay drug trusting and the request for a drug
test was in violation of City testing policy, which states:
All employees will be required to submit to drug and alcohol testing if a

supervisor has a reasonable suspicion that they are under the influence
of drugs or alcohol. Reasonable suspicion may also be determined by
Police Officers or managers in post-accident and/or incident situations.
Reasonable suspicion must be based upon specific, observable facts that
would indicate that the employee is in violation of this policy or any
other City policy related to alcohol consumption or drug use.
3.7. The City Manager and Chief of Police disregarded the written policy. Ms. Bull
and Ms. Perkins were forced to submit to a drug test and polygraph test under threat of
termination. Ms. Bull refused the tests, as was her legal right, and Ms. Perkins submitted to the
testing out of fear of termination and of course passed. Mr. Funderburk’s motive for requesting
drug testing was clearly retaliatory for Ms. Bull’s participation in the investigation of Mr.
Murray and in direct violation of City policy.
3.8. Later in the year, the City hired HR Director Richard Jones and Finance Director
Kim Wilson. Ms. Badgett was no longer in charge of Finance. However, the city’s operations
continued to become increasingly dysfunctional. The lack of accountability provided from the
City Manager, Mr. Funderburk, created and fostered a fearful, retaliatory, contentious, and
harassing workplace culture. Below are various examples of conduct that are retaliatory under
Title VII and TCHRA or retaliatory under Texas Whistleblower laws.
3.9. On July 19, 2017, Chief of Police Mike Brodnax came into the HR building with
Mr. Funderburk to gather information on his Assistant Police Chief’s salary. While in the
building, Mr. Brodnax noticed that an investigator from Dallas Police Department was sitting in

5
the HR Generalist, Alyssa Maxon’s office. The investigator was reviewing the file of an
employee who had voluntarily resigned and was eligible for rehire with the City. The Police
Officer, Julian McDaniel, was at that point in the hiring process with the City of Dallas. Mr.
Brodnax stopped and asked the Investigator from Dallas PD whose file she was reviewing and
when she informed him that it was Mr. McDaniel’s, Mr. Brodnax stated that he heard a “rumor”
that Mr. McDaniel quit because it “interfered with his dope smoking.” Mr. Brodnax then
proceeded to tell the investigator that “if he wanted to come back to my department, he would
need to pass a polygraph on his drug use.” When Mr. Brodnax walked away, the investigator
wrote down the information that she was just provided and asked Mrs. Maxon the name of the
employee who just gave her the information.
3.10. Upon hearing of the incident, Ms. Bull was overcome with extreme anxiety, as
she was aware that this created a huge liability for the City of Rowlett. Therefore, Ms. Bull sent
an email with a statement from Mrs. Maxon, along with her concern to HR Director Mr. Jones to
take to Mr. Funderburk. Ms. Bull reminded both Mr. Jones and Mr. Funderburk that the City
Policy Manuel states in section 3.4 regarding employee employment verifications:
All inquiries received either by telephone or in writing regarding present

or past employees are to be referred to the Human Resources
Department. Human Resources will only provide the following referral
information
• Dates of employment
• Verification of last rate of pay
• Title of last job held
Additional information will be provided only if an employee submits a
signed authorization to release requesting in writing the specific
information to be released or in accordance to Section 3.1 of this
Chapter. This pertains to both present and past employees. However, in
order to minimize the City’s liability regarding negligent referral
practices, other pertinent information may be required to be released if
the past employee caused injury to another employee (or third party),
exhibited violent or abusive behavior, or harassed another in any way.

6
3.11. Mr. Brodnax was not reprimanded in any manner even after Ms. Bull
complained and her allegation was verified that Mr. Brodnax had violated Section 3.4 of the
City Policy Manuel and Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 552.352(a) (supp. 2006), which states that a
person commits an offense if the person distributes information considered confidential.
3.12. Judge Pam Liston, hired Dretha Burris, a good friend of hers, to replace Natasha
Castillo, in September 2017. Judge Liston is not responsible for the hiring processes of the
Municipal Court. Wendy Badgett is the Interim Finance Director and therefore the ultimate
supervisor of the court employees, and yet she was not involved in the process at all. Mr.
Funderburk approved Ms. Burris’ salary to be well above the minimum. Mr. Funderbunk also
rushed Ms. Burris’ start date so that it was only three days after receiving the request for hire on
9/26/17. Policy for on-boarding new hires is a two-week turnaround to allow personnel
adequate time to conduct pre-employment screenings. Even though Ms. Bull complained to
numerous City management personnel, including HR Director Richard Jones that this violated
City policy, Ms. Bull was instructed to do as Judge Liston requested. Even the Judges in the
City of Rowlett discounted the City policy section 2.1 ethics and 2.2 conflict calling for, “all
employees of the City to act in accordance with the highest of ethical standards and that
employees will avoid any action that could create the appearance of: using public office for
private gain, giving preferential treatment to any organization or person.”
3.13. In May of 2015, Ms. Bull complained to Assistant City Manager Jim Proce about
the sexual harassment, the hostile work environment and the consistent violations of City policy
by Mr. Murray. Although Mr. Murray was eventually terminated, Mr. Funderbunk immediately
initiated a retaliation campaign against Ms. Bull for her role in the investigation. In July 2015,
Mr. Funderburk tried to force Ms. Bull to take a drug test and polygraph test, which was in

7
violation of clear written City Policy. She was also placed under investigation and threatened
with termination.
3.14. In 2017, a Rowlett Police Officer notified Human Resources of sexual harassment
taking place within her department, but stated she was in fear of retaliation and did not want the
Rowlett PD knowing she had contacted HR. Although Ms. Bull requested adamantly that HR
investigate anyway, Mr. Jones refused to do so, and telling Ms. Bull and all HR staff not to
mention the incident to anyone. Ms. Bull complained to Mr. Jones that the City was obligated to
investigate but again, Mr. Jones refused.
3.15. In 2017, the Independent Management Consultant, Riley Harvill, PhD, was once
again hired to conduct an assessment with the court staff.1 He concluded that the environment
was hostile, and that court staff was afraid of Judge Liston, even though staff does not report to
Judge Liston. Mr. Funderburk was provided a copy of this report, and yet he has done nothing to
remedy the situation. Consequently, two employees submitted their resignations and a third
employee was threatened with termination, but then forced to move to Parks and Recreation.
3.16. In September of 2017, Mr. Jones, informed Ms. Bull that he was getting pressure
from Mr. Funderburk to terminate Ms. Bull. At this time, Ms. Bull again complained about the
hostile work environment which Mr. Funderburk continued to cultivate against her in retaliation
for her complaints against him or his management friends. She expressed to Mr. Jones that it was
becoming unbearable to work in the human resources department. Ms. Bull told him that she
would cry every morning on her way to work.
3.17. On Tuesday, October 3, 2017, Ms. Bull was given two reclassification packets by
Mr. Jones that Ms. Badgett had submitted to Mr. Funderburk. The purpose of the packets was to
reclassify positions with title changes and pay increases. Upon reading the packets, Ms. Bull

8
determined that based on her prior working experience with both Mr. Murray and Ms. Badgett,
that Ms. Badgett had not been the person to author the packets. Instead, Ms. Bull had a good
faith and reasonable belief that they were authored by Mr. Murray. Mr. Murray’s background
included over twenty (20) years in the Air Force, so he often used military words and terms that
made his writing style very unique and identifiable. Ms. Badgett provided confidential
government information to Mr. Murray and allowed Mr. Murray to influence and/or engage in
the potential misuse of city funds.
3.18. Ms. Bull immediately informed Ms. Badgett, Mr. Jones, and Mr. Funderburk that
she questioned the authenticity of the reclassification packets, and she complained orally and in
writing that Ms. Badgett had distributed confidential information to a former employee of
Defendant in violation of Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 552.352(a) (supp. 2006), which states that a
person commits an offense if the person distributes information considered confidential. Mr.
Funderburk failed to conduct a reasonable and proper investigation and ignored Ms. Bull’s
complaint. Instead of conducting a thorough investigation, Mr. Funderburk took this opportunity
to retaliate against Ms. Bull by verbally informing her that he was terminating her on October 5,
2017, only two days (2) days after she initially reported the unlawful conduct to the Human
Resources Director and the City Manager and despite the fact that Ms. Bull reported Ms.
Badgett’s unlawful conduct to the City Manager again in writing on October 5, 2017.2 Ms. Bull’s
termination became official on October 6, 2017.
3.19. The City Secretary's office lists all terminations and reasons for termination for
the last three (3) years. Kim Wilson and Ms. Bull, both females, were listed as "Involuntary
1
Riley Harvill, PhD, was first hired in 2015 to conduct an assessment with the court staff.
2
Mr. Funderburk held a meeting with the management team on Friday, September 15, 2017, to discuss his
“transition plans.” In this meeting, Mr. Funderburk stated to a group of at least 25 other employees, including
Plaintiff, that he did not anticipate any other departures.

9
Termination" for "Misconduct." They were the only two employees to ever be terminated for
misconduct.
3.20. Ms. Bull was working in the HR department when the City terminated Ms.
Wilson on September 13, 2017. At this time the City of Rowlett offered Ms. Wilson a Separation
Agreement. Per Ms. Wilson's inquiry, Ms. Bull was specifically told by Mr. Jones that refusal to
sign the Separation Agreement would not be considered an involuntary termination. Mr. Jones
also had confirmed this information with the City Manager and City Attorney. Ultimately it is
because Ms. Wilson and Ms. Bull did not sign the Separation Agreement and retained an
attorney, that the City of Rowlett listed the reason for termination as “Involuntary” for
“Misconduct.”
3.21. The following similarly situated male employees were treated disparately and
better than Ms. Bull:
(1) Mr. Proce, who was offered a Separation Agreement, is listed with the City Secretary
office as resigned with “no reason given”, and therefore eligible for rehire with the City
of Rowlett;
(2) Astonishingly, former Human Resources Director John Murray, whose termination was
recommended by an external investigator/attorney for good cause after a thorough
investigation into his sexual and workplace harassment, was listed as retiring from his
employment, and therefore eligible for rehire with the City of Rowlett;
(3) Tim Rogers, the former City Public Works Director, was terminated but allowed to resign
after his termination, no severance agreement was required, and he was eligible for rehire
with the City of Rowlett;
(4) Joe Beauchamp, the former City IT Director was terminated but allowed to resign after
his termination, no severance agreement was required, and he was eligible for rehire with
the City of Rowlett; and
(5) Alan Guard, the former City Director of Finance who served prior to Ms. Wilson, was
terminated but allowed to resign after his termination, no severance agreement was
required, and he was eligible for rehire with the City of Rowlett.
3.22. The City Secretary's office lists all terminations and reasons for termination of
city employees for the last three (3) years. Ms. Wilson and Ms. Bull were listed as “Involuntary

10
Termination” for “Misconduct.” They were the only two employees to ever be terminated for
misconduct.
IV. CAUSES OF ACTION
COUNT I: Sexual Harassment and Sexually Hostile Work Environment in Violation

of Title VII - 42 U.S.C. §2000e et. seq.
4.1. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference all allegations set forth in all of
the above paragraphs of this complaint.
4.2. As discussed in more detail supra, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant, as Plaintiff's
employer, subjected her to a sexually hostile work environment in violation of § 42 U.S.C. §
2000e-2 et seq.
4.3. Plaintiff is a member of a protected class – female. As discussed in more detail in
supra, Plaintiff was subjected to unwelcome verbal conduct of a sexual nature which continued
between approximately May of 2015 until Defendant terminated Plaintiff on October 5, 2017. 42
U.S.C. § 2000e(f).
4.4. Defendant is an employer within the meaning of Title VII. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b).
4.5. All conditions precedent to filing this action for discrimination under federal law
have been met. Plaintiff timely filed her charge of discrimination on the basis of race with the
EEOC, and the EEOC has within ninety (90) days of filing this lawsuit issued Notice of Right to
Sue to Plaintiff, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A hereto.
4.6. Defendant has violated Title VII, as amended, by harassing Plaintiff and/or
creating a hostile work environment, and/or discriminating and/or retaliating against Plaintiff in
connection with compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment because of

11
Plaintiff's gender, and because Plaintiff engaged in protected activity, including reporting
violations of Title VII.
4.7. Defendant has engaged in a single, continuous course of conduct of
discrimination and retaliation against Plaintiff because of her gender in order to destroy Plaintiff,
her career, and her professional life.
4.8. Defendant maliciously and recklessly violated its own established rules and
procedures to inflict pain and suffering upon the Plaintiff.
4.9. Defendant allowed a sexually hostile work environment that targeted female
employees to persist:
(1) In May of 2015, Plaintiff complained to Assistant City Manager Jim Proce
about the sexual harassment, the hostile work environment and the consistent
violations of City policy by John Murray, as described in detail supra. Although
Mr. Murray was eventually terminated, Brian Funderbunk initiated a retaliation
campaign immediately against Plaintiff for her role in the investigation. In July
2015, Mr. Funderburk tried to force Plaintiff to take a drug test and polygraph
test, which was in violation of clear written City Policy. She was also placed
under investigation and threatened with termination.
(2) In 2017, a Rowlett Police Officer notified Human Resources of sexual

harassment taking place within her department, but stated she was in fear of
retaliation and did not want PD knowing she had contacted HR. Although
Plaintiff wanted HR to investigate anyway, Richard Jones decided that it was best
for the employee to escalate the issue through her command.
(3) The Independent Management Consultant, Riley Harvill, PhD, was hired
again to conduct an assessment with the court staff and concluded that the
environment was hostile, and that court staff was afraid of Judge Liston, even
though staff does not report to Judge Liston. Mr. Funderburk was provided a copy
of this report, and yet he has done nothing to remedy the situation.3 Consequently,
two employees submitted their resignation and a third employee was threatened
with termination, but then forced to move to Parks and Recreation.
(4) In September of 2017, Mr. Jones, informed Plaintiff that he was getting
pressure from Mr. Funderburk to terminate Plaintiff. At this time, Plaintiff again
complained about the hostile work environment Mr. Funderburk continued to
3
Riley had a meeting with Brain Funderburk, Kim Wilson and Jim Proce to discuss his findings after completing the
report.

12
cultivate against her in retaliation for her complaints against him or his
management friends. She expressed to Mr. Jones that it was becoming unbearable
to work in the human resources department. Plaintiff told him that she would cry
every morning on her way to work.
4.10. Plaintiff complained about the sexual conduct, in accordance with policy as
denoted in Section 12.2 (B) of the City Employee Manuel by reporting the harassment and
hostile work environment to the Director of Human Resources Richard Jones, but her complaints
were all ignored. Defendant failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent the aforementioned and
described sexual harassment and sexually hostile work environment from occurring.
4.11. Plaintiff would not have been subjected to the harassment but for her gender, as
evidenced by the type of sexual acts, remarks and conduct directed towards her.
4.12. Plaintiff was an exceptional employee for the City of Rowlett, as denoted
and supported in a recommendation letter written on October 4, 2017 by her supervisor,
Director of Human Resources, Richard Jones. In the letter, Mr. Jones wrote, “Brandi has
been an exceptional colleague and team member for the City of Rowlett’s human resource
department.” He goes on to state, “Brandi took the lead in several key projects which
greatly improved the delivery of human resources strategic initiatives to the City.”
4.13. The harassment of which Plaintiff complains was severe and pervasive and
altered the terms and conditions of her employment and created a hostile and abusive work
environment.
4.14. On more than one occasion, Plaintiff complained of such harassment to
supervisors and other management employees. Defendant knew or should have known about the
harassment and failed to take prompt remedial action and the harassment and sexually hostile
work environment continued unabated until Plaintiff was terminated.

13
4.15. As discussed in more detail in, supra, Defendant failed to exercise reasonable care
to prevent the aforementioned and described sexual harassment and sexually hostile work
environment from occurring. Defendant further failed to exercise reasonable care to correct
promptly the aforementioned and described sexually harassing behavior.
4.16. By the aforesaid acts and omissions of Defendant, Plaintiff has been directly and
legally caused to suffer actual damages including, but not limited to, loss of earnings and future
earning capacity, attorneys' fees, costs of suit and other pecuniary losses not presently
ascertained.
4.17. As a further direct and legal result of the acts and conduct of Defendant, and each
of them, as aforesaid, Plaintiff has been caused to and did suffer and continues to suffer severe
anguish, humiliation, embarrassment, fright, shock, pain, discomfort, and anxiety. The exact
nature and extent of said injuries is presently unknown to Plaintiff, who will seek leave of Court
to assert the same when they are ascertained. Plaintiff does not know at this time the exact
duration or permanence of said injuries, but is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that
some if not all of the injuries are reasonably certain to be permanent in character.
4.18. Plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorney fees and costs under Title VII, 42
U.S.C. § 2000e-5(k).
4.19. Such discrimination by Defendant against Plaintiff was intentional. Accordingly,
Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages from Defendant for back pay, front pay, past and future
pecuniary losses, emotional pain and suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life and
other nonpecuniary losses. Further, this discrimination was done by Defendant with malice or
with reckless indifference to Plaintiff's federally protected rights. Plaintiff is therefore also
entitled to recover punitive damages.

14
4.20. Plaintiff requests relief as described in the Prayer for Relief below.
COUNT II: Retaliation in Violation of Title VII - 42 U.S.C. §2000e et. seq.
4.22. Defendant has retaliated against Plaintiff for engaging in protected activities by
reporting an environment hostile to Plaintiff based upon gender by committing the retaliatory
acts of denying Plaintiff advancement, subjecting Plaintiff to unlawful drug tests, threatening
Plaintiff with termination, subjecting Plaintiff to hostile work environment, and terminating
Plaintiff. Defendant has thereby intentionally engaged in unlawful employment practices
prohibited by 42 U.S.C. § 2000eet seq. and 29 U.S.C. § 623(d).
4.23. All conditions precedent to filing this action for discrimination and retaliation
under federal law have been met. Plaintiff timely filed her charge of retaliation based upon
protected activities.
4.24. Defendant has engaged in a single continuous course of conduct of retaliation
against Plaintiff because of Plaintiff's protected complaints of discrimination and harassment
based upon gender and sexual harassment, and by subjecting Plaintiff to a hostile environment in
order to destroy Plaintiff, her career, and her personal life.
4.25. Plaintiff was a target of discrimination and retaliation by top city officers for the
City of Rowlett after she participated in numerous protected activities that fall within the
purview of Title VII, as discussed in detail above and summarized below:
(1) In May of 2015, Plaintiff complained to Assistant City Manager Jim Proce about the
sexual harassment, the hostile work environment and the consistent violations of City
policy by Mr. Murray. Although Mr. Murray was eventually terminated, Mr.
Funderbunk initiated a retaliation campaign immediately against Plaintiff for her role in
the investigation. In July 2015, Plaintiff was required to take an unlawful drug test by
Mr. Funderburk, which was in violation of clear written City policy, and she was also

15
placed under investigation and threatened with termination for refusing the unlawful drug
test.
(2) In 2017, a Rowlett Police Officer notified Human Resources of sexual harassment taking
place within her department, but stated she was in fear of retaliation and did not want PD
knowing she had contacted HR. Although Plaintiff requested adamantly that HR
investigate anyway, Mr. Jones refused to do so, and he told Plaintiff and all HR staff not
to mention the incident to anyone. Plaintiff complained to Mr. Jones that the City was
obligated to investigate but again, Mr. Jones refused.
(3) In September of 2017, Mr. Jones, informed Plaintiff that he was getting pressure from
Mr. Funderburk to terminate Plaintiff. At this time, Plaintiff again complained about the
hostile work environment Mr. Funderburk continued to cultivate against her in retaliation
for her complaints against him and his friends Mr. Murray and Chief Brodnax. She
expressed to Mr. Jones that it was becoming unbearable to work in the human resources
department. Plaintiff told him that she would cry every morning on the way to work.
(4) On Tuesday, October 3, 2017, Plaintiff had a good faith and reasonable belief that Ms.
Badgett had disclosed confidential government information to Mr. Murray and Mr.
Murray had authored reclassification packets for Ms. Badgett to pass off as hers, allowing
Mr. Murray to influence and/or engage in the potential misuse of city funds. Plaintiff
immediately informed Ms. Badgett, Mr. Jones, and Mr. Funderburk that she questioned
the authenticity of the reclassification packets. As soon as Mr. Funderburk found out
about the issue and despite Plaintiff reporting the unlawful conduct in writing on October
5, 2017, he refused to conduct a reasonable and proper investigation, and he ignored her
complaint, failed to investigate it, and instead terminated Plaintiff.
(5) This retaliation continued after Plaintiff was no longer employed by the City. The City
Secretary's office lists all terminations and reasons for termination for the last three years.
Plaintiff was listed as "Involuntary Termination" for "Misconduct." She was one of only
two (2) employees to ever be terminated for misconduct.
4.26. Plaintiff was never provided a reason for her termination when her employment
ended abruptly and unlawfully on October 5, 2017. Instead she was asked to sign a separation
agreement releasing the City from liability in exchange for one month’s salary. Because
Plaintiff did not sign the Separation Agreement and retained an attorney, the City of Rowlett
listed the reason for termination as “Involuntary” for “Misconduct.”
4.27. This termination was also in violation of City policy. Because Plaintiff is not a
director, the termination should not have come from City Manager Brian Funderburk. Thus,

16
Plaintiff was terminated in direct violation of City of Rowlett Policy, specifically Section 14.1
(D)(3) of the Defendant’s operative Employee Manuel, as follows:
The Director of Human Resources is authorized to terminate an

employee for conduct-related matters and policy violations. In those
instances, Department Directors will conduct the Pre-Disciplinary
Conference and provide their written recommendation with justification.
If the termination is a Department Director, including the Director of
Human Resources, for conduct-related matters and policy violations, the
Assistant City Manager will conduct the Pre-Disciplinary Conference
and provide his written recommendation with justification. If the
termination is the Assistant City Manager, the City Manager may assign
a Department Director to this task or may, at his option, conduct the
Pre-Disciplinary himself….
4.28. As discussed in detail above, Plaintiff took the proper steps in the process of
complaining about Mr. Murray’s sexual and workplace harassment, Chief Broadnax’s
inappropriate conduct and violation of City Policy, and Ms. Badgett’s breach of confidentiality
in 2017. Also, as described in detail above, Mr. Funderburk and the City retaliated against
Plaintiff by subjecting her to unlawful drug testing, investigating her, subjecting her to a hostile
work environment, and terminating her without cause and all of these adverse actions took place
in temporal proximity to her instances of protected activities.
earning capacity, attorneys' fees, costs of suit and other pecuniary loss not presently ascertained,
for which Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend when ascertained.
4.30. As a further direct and legal result of the acts and conduct of Defendant, as
aforesaid, Plaintiff has been caused to and did suffer and continues to suffer severe emotional
and mental distress, anguish, humiliation, embarrassment, fright, shock, pain, discomfort, and
anxiety. The exact nature and extent of said injuries is presently unknown to Plaintiff, who will

17
seek leave of Court to assert the same when they are ascertained. Plaintiff does not know at this
time the exact duration or permanence of said injuries, but is informed and believes, and thereon
alleges, that some if not all of the injuries are reasonably certain to be permanent in character.
4.31. Plaintiff has been generally damaged in an amount within the jurisdictional limits
of this Court.
4.32. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the Defendant, by
engaging in the aforementioned acts and by ratifying such acts, engaged in willful, malicious,
intentional, oppressive and despicable conduct, and acted with willful and conscious disregard of
Plaintiff’s rights, welfare, and safety, thereby justifying an award of punitive and exemplary
damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
4.33. As a result of Defendant’s harassing and discriminatory acts as alleged herein,
Plaintiff is entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit as provided in Title VII of the
Civil Rights of 1964, as amended.
4.34. Plaintiff also requests relief as described in the Prayer for Relief below.
COUNT III: Gender Discrimination in Violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq.
4.36. The foregoing conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42
U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq., which makes discrimination against employees on the basis of sex
illegal.
4.37. During Defendant’s discrimination, Plaintiff was subject to comments and actions
made against her on the basis of her gender.

18
4.38. Comments and actions the Plaintiff was subjected to by Defendant’s employees
include, but are not limited to:
(1) The City Secretary's office lists all terminations and reasons for termination for the last
three (3) years. Kim Wilson (terminated on September 13, 2017) and Plaintiff (terminated
on October 6, 2017), both female employees, were listed as “Involuntary Termination”
for “Misconduct.” They were the only two employees to ever be terminated for
misconduct;
(2) Mr. Proce, who was offered a Separation Agreement, is listed with the City Secretary
office as resigned with “no reason given”, and therefore eligible for rehire with the City
of Rowlett;
(3) Astonishingly, former Human Resources Director John Murray, whose termination was
recommended by an external investigator/attorney for good cause after a thorough
investigation into his sexual and workplace harassment, was listed as retiring from his
employment, and therefore eligible for rehire with the City of Rowlett;
(4) Tim Rogers, the former City Public Works Director, was terminated but allowed to resign
after his termination, no severance agreement was required, and he was eligible for rehire
with the City of Rowlett;
(5) Joe Beauchamp, the former City IT Director was terminated but allowed to resign after
his termination, no severance agreement was required, and he was eligible for rehire with
the City of Rowlett; and
(6) Alan Guard, the former City Director of Finance who served prior to Ms. Wilson, was
terminated but allowed to resign after his termination, no severance agreement was
required, and he was eligible for rehire with the City of Rowlett.
4.39. Defendant is in violation of gender discrimination against Plaintiff. She was
treated unfavorably specifically because she was a woman, even though she was an exceptional
employee with the same skills and success as other similarly situated male employees.
ascertained.

19
of this Court.
4.43. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the Defendant by
engaging in the aforementioned acts and/or in ratifying such acts, engaged in willful, malicious,
the rights, welfare and safety of Plaintiff, thereby justifying the award of punitive and exemplary
4.44. As a result of Defendant’s conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiff is entitled to
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit as provided in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, as amended.
4.45. Plaintiff requests relief as described in the Prayer for Relief below.
COUNT IV: Sexual Harassment and Sexually Hostile Work Environment in Violation of
Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code
4.47. As discussed in more detail supra, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant as Plaintiff's
employer subjected her to sexual harassment and a sexually hostile work environment in
violation of Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code commonly referred to as the Texas Commission
on Human Rights Act. Texas courts have defined sex discrimination to include sexual
harassment.

20
4.48. Plaintiff is a member of a protected class – female. As discussed in more detail in
supra, Plaintiff was subjected to unwelcome verbal conduct of a sexual nature which continued
between approximately May of 2015 until Defendant terminated Plaintiff on October 5, 2017.
4.49. Defendant has violated Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code, as amended, by
harassing Plaintiff and/or creating a hostile work environment, and/or discriminating and/or
retaliating against Plaintiff in connection with compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of
employment because of Plaintiff's gender, and because Plaintiff engaged in protected activity,
including reporting violations of Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code.
4.50. Defendant has engaged in a single, continuous course of conduct of
discrimination and retaliation against Plaintiff because of her gender in order to destroy Plaintiff,
her career, and her professional life.
4.51. Defendant maliciously and recklessly violated its own established rules and
procedures to inflict pain and suffering upon the Plaintiff.
4.52. Defendant allowed a sexually hostile work environment that targeted female
employees to persist:
(1) In May of 2015, Plaintiff complained to Assistant City Manager Jim Proce
about the sexual harassment, the hostile work environment and the consistent
violations of City policy by Mr. Murray, as described in detail supra. Although
Mr. Murray was eventually terminated, Mr. Funderbunk initiated a retaliation
campaign immediately against Plaintiff for her role in the investigation. In July
2015, Mr. Funderburk tried to force Plaintiff to take a drug test and polygraph
test, which was in violation of clear written City Policy. She was also placed
under investigation and threatened with termination.
(2) In 2017, a Rowlett Police Officer notified Human Resources of sexual

harassment taking place within her department, but stated she was in fear of
retaliation and did not want PD knowing she had contacted HR. Although
Plaintiff wanted HR to investigate anyway, Mr. Jones decided that it was best for
the employee to escalate the issue through her command.

21
(3) The Independent Management Consultant, Riley Harvill, PhD, was hired
again to conduct an assessment with the court staff and concluded that the
environment was hostile, and that court staff was afraid of Judge Liston, even
though staff does not report to Judge Liston. Mr. Funderburk was provided a copy
of this report, and yet he has done nothing to remedy the situation.4 Consequently,
two employees submitted their resignation and a third employee was threatened
with termination, but then forced to move to Parks and Recreation.
(4) In September of 2017, Mr. Jones, informed Plaintiff that he was getting
pressure from Mr. Funderburk to terminate Plaintiff. At this time, Plaintiff again
complained about the hostile work environment Mr. Funderburk continued to
cultivate against her in retaliation for her complaints against him or his
management friends. She expressed to Mr. Jones that it was becoming unbearable
to work in the human resources department. Plaintiff told him that she would cry
every morning on her way to work.
4.53. Plaintiff complained about the sexual conduct, in accordance with policy as
denoted in Section 12.2 (B) of the City Employee Manuel by reporting the harassment and
hostile work environment to the Director of Human Resources Richard Jones, but her complaints
were all ignored. Defendant failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent the aforementioned and
described sexual harassment and sexually hostile work environment from occurring.
4.54. Plaintiff would not have been subjected to the harassment but for her gender, as
evidenced by the type of sexual acts, remarks and conduct directed towards her.
4.55. Plaintiff was an exceptional employee for the City of Rowlett, as denoted
and supported in a recommendation letter written on October 4, 2017 by her supervisor,
Director of Human Resources, Richard Jones. In the letter, Mr. Jones wrote, “Brandi has
been an exceptional colleague and team member for the City of Rowlett’s human resource
department.” He goes on to state, “Brandi took the lead in several key projects which
greatly improved the delivery of human resources strategic initiatives to the City.”
4
Riley had a meeting with Brain Funderburk, Kim Wilson and Jim Proce to discuss his findings after completing the
report.

22
4.56. The harassment of which Plaintiff complains was severe and pervasive and
altered the terms and conditions of her employment and created a hostile and abusive work
environment.
4.57. On more than one occasion, Plaintiff complained of such harassment to
supervisors and other management employees. Defendant knew or should have known about the
harassment and failed to take prompt remedial action and the harassment and sexually hostile
work environment continued unabated until Plaintiff was terminated.
4.58. Defendant failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent the aforementioned
behavior and described sexual harassment and sexually hostile work environment from
occurring. Defendant further failed to exercise reasonable care to correct promptly the
aforementioned and described sexually harassing behavior.
ascertained.

23
of this Court.
4.62. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the Defendant by
engaging in the aforementioned acts and/or in ratifying such acts, engaged in willful, malicious,
the rights, welfare and safety of Plaintiff, thereby justifying the award of punitive and exemplary
4.63. As a result of Defendant’s conduct as alleged herein, Plaintiff is entitled to
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit as provided in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, as amended.
COUNT V: Retaliation in Violation of Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code
4.66. As discussed in more detail supra, Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant as
Plaintiff’s employer retaliated against her for engaging in protected activity in violation of
Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code commonly referred to as the Texas Commission on Human
Rights Act (i.e. reporting and objecting to sexual harassment and a sexually hostile work
environment).
4.67. Plaintiff opposed a discriminatory practice when she complained about sexual
harassment and a sexually hostile work environment. In spite of performing her duties in a
professional manner and following Defendant’s policies, Plaintiff’s complaints were ignored by
Defendant, and Plaintiff was terminated.

24
4.68. Defendant has engaged in a single continuous course of conduct of retaliation
against Plaintiff because of Plaintiff's protected complaints of discrimination and harassment
based upon gender and sexual harassment, and by subjecting Plaintiff to a hostile environment in
order to destroy Plaintiff, her career, and her personal life.
4.69. Plaintiff was a target of discrimination and retaliation by top city officers for the
City of Rowlett after she participated in numerous protected activities that fall within the
purview of Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code, as discussed in detail above and summarized
below:
(1) In May of 2015, Plaintiff complained to Assistant City Manager Jim Proce about the
sexual harassment, the hostile work environment and the consistent violations of City
policy by Mr. Murray. Although Mr. Murray was eventually terminated, Mr.
Funderbunk initiated a retaliation campaign immediately against Plaintiff for her role in
the investigation. In July 2015, Plaintiff was required to take an unlawful drug test by
Mr. Funderburk, which was in violation of clear written City policy, and she was also
placed under investigation and threatened with termination for refusing the unlawful drug
test.
(2) In 2017, a Rowlett Police Officer notified Human Resources of sexual harassment taking
place within her department, but stated she was in fear of retaliation and did not want PD
knowing she had contacted HR. Although Plaintiff requested adamantly that HR
investigate anyway, Mr. Jones refused to do so, and he told Plaintiff and all HR staff not
to mention the incident to anyone. Plaintiff complained to Mr. Jones that the City was
obligated to investigate but again, Mr. Jones refused.
(3) In September of 2017, Mr. Jones, informed Plaintiff that he was getting pressure from
Mr. Funderburk to terminate Plaintiff. At this time, Plaintiff again complained about the
hostile work environment Mr. Funderburk continued to cultivate against her in retaliation
for her complaints against him and his friends Mr. Murray and Chief Brodnax. She
expressed to Mr. Jones that it was becoming unbearable to work in the human resources
department. Plaintiff told him that she would cry every morning on the way to work.
(4) On Tuesday, October 3, 2017, Plaintiff had a good faith and reasonable belief that Ms.
Badgett had disclosed confidential government information to Mr. Murray and Mr.
Murray had authored reclassification packets for Ms. Badgett to pass off as hers, allowing
Mr. Murray to influence and/or engage in the potential misuse of city funds. Plaintiff
immediately informed Ms. Badgett, Mr. Jones, and Mr. Funderburk that she questioned
the authenticity of the reclassification packets. As soon as Mr. Funderburk found out
about the issue and despite Plaintiff reporting the unlawful conduct in writing on October

25
5, 2017, he refused to conduct a reasonable and proper investigation, and he ignored her
complaint, failed to investigate it, and instead terminated Plaintiff.
(5) This retaliation continued after Plaintiff was no longer employed by the City. The City
Secretary's office lists all terminations and reasons for termination for the last three (3)
years. Plaintiff was listed as "Involuntary Termination" for "Misconduct." She was one of
only two (2) employees to ever be terminated for misconduct.
4.70. Plaintiff was never provided a reason for her termination when her employment
ended abruptly and unlawfully on October 5, 2017. Instead she asked to sign a separation
agreement releasing the City from liability in exchange for one month’s salary. Because
Plaintiff did not sign the Separation Agreement and retained an attorney, the City of Rowlett
listed the reason for termination as “Involuntary” for “Misconduct.”
4.71. This termination was also in violation of City policy. Because Plaintiff is not a
director, the termination should not have come from City Manager Brian Funderburk. Thus,
Plaintiff was terminated in direct violation of City of Rowlett Policy, specifically Section 14.1
(D)(3) of the Defendant’s operative Employee Manuel.
4.72. As discussed in detail above, Plaintiff took the proper steps in the process of
complaining about Mr. Murray’s sexual and workplace harassment, Chief Broadnax’s
inappropriate conduct and violation of City Policy, and Ms. Badgett’s breach of confidentiality
in 2017. Also, as described in detail above, Mr. Funderburk and the City retaliated against
Plaintiff by subjecting her to unlawful drug testing, investigating her, subjecting her to a hostile
work environment, and terminating her without cause and all of these adverse actions took place
in temporal proximity to her instances of protected activities.

26
earning capacity, attorneys' fees, costs of suit and other pecuniary loss not presently ascertained,
for which Plaintiff will seek leave of Court to amend when ascertained.
4.74. As a further direct and legal result of the acts and conduct of Defendant, as
aforesaid, Plaintiff has been caused to and did suffer and continues to suffer severe emotional
and mental distress, anguish, humiliation, embarrassment, fright, shock, pain, discomfort, and
anxiety. The exact nature and extent of said injuries is presently unknown to Plaintiff, who will
seek leave of Court to assert the same when they are ascertained. Plaintiff does not know at this
time the exact duration or permanence of said injuries, but is informed and believes, and thereon
alleges, that some if not all of the injuries are reasonably certain to be permanent in character.
of this Court.
4.76. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the Defendant, by
engaging in the aforementioned acts and by ratifying such acts, engaged in willful, malicious,
Plaintiff’s rights, welfare, and safety, thereby justifying an award of punitive and exemplary
4.77. As a result of Defendant’s harassing and discriminatory acts as alleged herein,
Plaintiff is entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit as provided in Title VII of the
Civil Rights of 1964, as amended.
COUNT VI: Violation of the Texas Whistleblower Protection Act, Tex. Gov’t Code §§
554.001 et. seq.

27
4.80. As described in detail, supra, on July 19, 2017, Chief of Police Mike Brodnax
violated City Policy as denoted in the Manuel, Section 3.4 regarding employee employment
verifications when he informed an investigator from the Dallas Police Department about rumors
concerning Mr. McDaniel, whom she was investigating about a possible rehire. Mr. Brodnax
stated that he heard a “rumor” that Mr. McDaniel quit because it “interfered with his dope
smoking.” Mr. Brodnax then proceeded to tell the investigator that “if he wanted to come back to
my department, he would need to pass a polygraph on his drug use.” Plaintiff sent an email
complaint to Mr. Jones and Mr. Funderburk informing them that Mr. Brodnax had violated
Section 3.4 of the City Policy Manuel and Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 552.352(a) (supp. 2006),
which states that a person commits an offense if the person distributes information considered
confidential.
4.81. Also, described in detail, supra, in September of 2017, Judge Pam Liston, hired
Dretha Burris, a good friend of hers, to replace Natasha Castillo, who left her employment with
the City because of issues with Judge Liston. Judge Liston is not responsible for the hiring
processes of the Municipal Court. Wendy Badgett is the Interim Finance Director and therefore
the ultimate supervisor of the court employees, and yet she was not involved in the process at all.
Mr. Funderburk approved Ms. Burris’ salary to be well above the minimum in addition to
rushing her start date to being only three days after receiving the request for hire on September
26, 2017. Policy for on-boarding new hires is a two-week turnaround to allow personnel
adequate time to conduct pre-employment screenings. Plaintiff complained to numerous City
management personnel, including HR Director Mr. Jones and City Manager Mr. Funderburk hat
this violated City Policy, specifically section 2.1 ethics and 2.2 conflict which state, “all
employees of the City to act in accordance with the highest of ethical standards and that

28
employees will avoid any action that could create the appearance of: using public office for
private gain, giving preferential treatment to any organization or person.”
4.82. Also, described in detail, supra, on October 3, 2017 Plaintiff reported Ms.
Badgett’s (Finance Director) misconduct and violation of city policy to Mr. Funderburk and Mr.
Jones. Specifically, Plaintiff reported Ms. Badgett disclosed confidential employee information
to ex-employee Mr. Murray and allowed Mr. Murray to influence and/or engage in the potential
misuse of city funds in violation of Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 552.352(a) (supp. 2006), which
states that a person commits an offense if the person distributes information considered
confidential.
4.83. The Texas Whistleblower Act waives sovereign immunity when the public
employee alleges a violation of Chapter 554 of the Government Code. A violation under Chapter
554 occurs when a governmental entity retaliates against a public employee for making a good
faith report of a violation of law to an appropriate law enforcement authority.
4.84. Plaintiff, while employed by the city as a public employee, promptly notified the
City Manager and the Director of Human Resources: (1) on July 19, 2017, Chief of Police Mike
Brodnax violated City Policy when he informed an investigator from Dallas PD about rumors
concerning Julian McDaniel, whom she was investigating about a possible rehire, specifically
that Mr. McDaniel quit because it “interfered with his dope smoking”; (2) in September and
October of 2017, Judge Liston violated City Policy, specifically section 2.1 ethics and 2.2
conflict when she hired her friend without appropriate authority, without having her pre-
screened, and at a much higher salary that normally approved; and (3) on October 3, 2017 Ms.
Badgett (Finance Director) engaged in misconduct and violations of City Policy when she

29
disclosed confidential employee information to ex-employee Mr. Murray and allowed Mr.
Murray to influence and/or engage in the potential misuse of city funds.
4.85. Plaintiff’s good faith reports to the Human Resources Director and the City
Manager regarding Finance Director’s misconduct, Judge Liston’s misconduct and Chief
Brodnax’s misconduct and unlawful activities were clearly protected activity under Chapter 554
of the Government Code.
4.86. On the morning of October 5, 2017, Defendant terminated Plaintiff’s employment
in violation of Section 14.1 (D)(3) of the Defendant’s operative Employee Manuel and in direct
retaliation to her protected conduct and thereby violated Chapter 554. Defendant’s stated reasons
for terminating Plaintiff’s employment are neither true nor valid, but are clearly a pretext on
unlawful retaliation in violation of Chapter 554. Further, Defendant would not have terminated
Plaintiff had the Plaintiff not reported Defendant’s violations of the City Policy and
confidentiality provisions of the law, including and Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 552.352(a).
4.87. Plaintiff has exhausted all administrative appeals required by Defendant before
filing this suit by writing a letter appealing her termination and submitting said letter on the
afternoon of October 5, 2017 to the City Manager (Mr. Funderburk) and Director of Human
Resources (Mr. Jones) and all such conditions precedent have been met. Under Sections 14.1
(D)(4) and 15.1 of the Defendant’s operative Employee Manuel, employees can, but are not
required to, appeal the decision to terminate.
4.88. Plaintiff provided proper and timely notice to Defendant pursuant to the Texas
Tort Claims Act, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 101.101.
4.89. Plaintiff's report to Human Resources Director and the City Manager were the
appropriate law enforcement agencies to whom such a report should be made to trigger the

30
protection of the Texas Whistleblower's Act. The City of Rowlett Policy Manuel defines the
City Manager as the employee who “leads, directs and coordinates all City operations and staff.
The City Manager is, in effect, the Chief Executive Officer, who answers to the ‘Board of
Directors,’ the Mayor and City Council, elected by the citizens of Rowlett.” Plaintiff believed in
good faith that both the City Manager and the City Attorney were authorized to regulate under,
enforce, investigate, or prosecute a violation of the state’s sexual harassment and other laws and
policies.
4.90. Plaintiff was terminated by Defendant on October 5, 2017, only two days (2) days
after she initially reported the unlawful conduct to the Human Resources Director and the City
Manager and despite the fact that Plaintiff reported Ms. Badgett’s unlawful conduct to the City
Manager again in writing on October 5, 2017, and Defendant failed to adhere to established city
and departmental policies in its treatment of Plaintiff subsequent to the report, and Defendant
exhibited discriminatory treatment toward Plaintiff in comparison to similarly situated
employees. Additionally, after the July 19, 2017 complaint regarding Chief of Police Mike
Brodnax, Plaintiff continued to suffer adverse actions, including a termination without cause
only three (3) months later, as described above.
4.91. Consequently, Plaintiff is entitled to damages in the form of lost wages, attorney's
fees and liquidated damages.
V. ATTORNEYS’ FEES
5.1. It was necessary for Plaintiff to hire the undersigned attorney to file this lawsuit.
Upon judgment, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of attorney fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. §
1988, 42 U.S.C. 2000e-5 et seq, and 29 U.S.C. 209 sec. 107(a)(3).

31
VI. JURY TRIAL
6.1. Trial by jury is demanded.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff prays that Defendant be cited to
appear and answer herein, and that on final trial, Plaintiff have and recover the following relief
against Defendant:
(1) Judgment for actual damages in the amount of past and future lost earnings and
benefits and damages to past and future earnings capacity;
(2) Judgment for back pay and front pay as allowed by law;
(3) Judgment for past and future pecuniary losses, emotional pain and suffering,
inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life and other nonpecuniary losses;
(4) Damages for past and future mental anguish, emotional distress, and physical distress;
(5) Exemplary damages in an amount to be determined by the trier of fact;
(6) Prejudgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum legal rate;
(7) All costs of Court;
(8) Attorneys' fees;
(9) Such other and further relief to which Plaintiff may be justly entitled.
Dated: August 1, 2018 Respectfully Submitted,
Andrea S. Loveless
Texas State Bar No. 24041889
1301 Ballinger Street
Fort Worth, Texas 76102
(949) 679-4690
Fax (949) 666-7424
andrea@lovelesslawfirm.com
Attorney for Plaintiff

32
Case 3:18-cv-02002-S Document 1-1 Filed 08/01/18 Page 1 of 1 PageID 33
EXHIBIT A
Case 3:18-cv-02002-S Document 1-2 Filed 08/01/18 Page 1 of 1 PageID 34

Brandi Bull Rowlett Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Brandi Bull Rowlett Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 3:18-cv-02002-S Document 1 Filed 08/01/18 Page 1 of 32 PageID 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

Plaintiff’s Original Complaint

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

supplemental jurisdiction of the common law claims.

III. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

Plaintiff’s Original Complaint

regarding ethics and conflict of interest.

Plaintiff’s Original Complaint

against Mr. Murray.

her role in the investigation.

Plaintiff’s Original Complaint

drug test request were against City policy.

test was in violation of City testing policy, which states:

All employees will be required to submit to drug and alcohol testing if a

Murray and in direct violation of City policy.

Title VII and TCHRA or retaliatory under Texas Whistleblower laws.

Plaintiff’s Original Complaint

employee who just gave her the information.

Policy Manuel states in section 3.4 regarding employee employment verifications:

All inquiries received either by telephone or in writing regarding present

Plaintiff’s Original Complaint

person commits an offense if the person distributes information considered confidential.

private gain, giving preferential treatment to any organization or person.”

Plaintiff’s Original Complaint

investigate but again, Mr. Jones refused.

would cry every morning on her way to work.

Plaintiff’s Original Complaint

the potential misuse of city funds.

termination became official on October 6, 2017.

Plaintiff’s Original Complaint

better than Ms. Bull:

Plaintiff’s Original Complaint

IV. CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT I: Sexual Harassment and Sexually Hostile Work Environment in Violation

the above paragraphs of this complaint.

employer, subjected her to a sexually hostile work environment in violation of § 42 U.S.C. §

4.3. Plaintiff is a member of a protected class – female. As discussed in more detail in

Sue to Plaintiff, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A hereto.

connection with compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment because of

Plaintiff’s Original Complaint

violations of Title VII.

4.7. Defendant has engaged in a single, continuous course of conduct of

her career, and her professional life.

procedures to inflict pain and suffering upon the Plaintiff.

(2) In 2017, a Rowlett Police Officer notified Human Resources of sexual

Plaintiff’s Original Complaint

and supported in a recommendation letter written on October 4, 2017 by her supervisor,

4.14. On more than one occasion, Plaintiff complained of such harassment to

work environment continued unabated until Plaintiff was terminated.

Plaintiff’s Original Complaint

promptly the aforementioned and described sexually harassing behavior.

4.19. Such discrimination by Defendant against Plaintiff was intentional. Accordingly,

entitled to recover punitive damages.

Plaintiff’s Original Complaint

the above paragraphs of this complaint.

Plaintiff. Defendant has thereby intentionally engaged in unlawful employment practices

prohibited by 42 U.S.C. § 2000eet seq. and 29 U.S.C. § 623(d).

4.24. Defendant has engaged in a single continuous course of conduct of retaliation

against Plaintiff because of Plaintiff's protected complaints of discrimination and harassment

order to destroy Plaintiff, her career, and her personal life.

purview of Title VII, as discussed in detail above and summarized below: