IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

CINDY STRANGE, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) Case No.
v. )
) (JURY DEMAND)
TOWN OF NOLENSVILLE, )
KENNETH McLAWHON, in his individual )
and official capacities, and BRYAN )
HOWELL, in his individual and official )
capacities, )
)
Defendants.

COMPLAINT

COMES the Plaintiff, Cindy Strange, and for causes of action against the named

Defendants in all capacities alleges the following:

I.
Background, Parties & Jurisdiction

1. This case arises out of the Plaintiff's claims of wage discrimination based on her

gender and sex discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, all in violation of the Constitution of

the United States, and under various provisions of federal and State laws including 28 U.S.C.

§1981 and §1983, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2, the Equal Pay

Act of 1963, 29 U.S.C. §206(d) (the “Equal Pay Act”), and the Tennessee Human Rights Act,

Tenn. Code Ann §4-21-101, et seq. (the “THRA”). The Plaintiff filed a charge and amended

charge of discrimination with the EEOC, and a right-to-sue letter was issued on May 23, 2018.

(See attached Exhibit A). The Plaintiff seeks compensatory, punitive and liquidated damages,

back and front pay, injunctive and declaratory relief, reinstatement, costs and attorneys fees, and

Case 3:18-cv-00773 Document 1 Filed 08/17/18 Page 1 of 20 PageID #: 1

for all other relief to which she may be entitled.

2. Plaintiff, Cindy Strange (“Plaintiff” and/or “Cindy”), is a female adult citizen and

resident of Davidson County, Tennessee, who at all times relevant was an employee of

Nolensville, Tennessee working in the Police Department.

3. The Town of Nolensville, located in Williamson County, Tennessee

(“Nolensville”), is a municipality created and formed pursuant to the laws of the State of

Tennessee as well as by and through the Charter of the Town of Nolensville, Tennessee.

Nolensville constitutes an “employer” within the meaning of all federal and State statutes recited

hereinafter.

4. Defendant Kenneth McLawhon (the “City Administrator”) is an adult citizen and

Tennessee resident who, upon information and belief, resides in Williamson County, Tennessee,

and who, at all times relevant, acted as the City Administrator for Nolensville with full authority

by the Charter and Municipal Code to supervise and oversee personnel actions including the

power to hire, evaluate, discipline, promote and demote, terminate and take other actions

concerning Nolensville police officers.

5. Defendant Bryan Howell (“Howell”) is an adult citizen and Tennessee resident

who, upon information and belief, resides in Williamson County, Tennessee. At all times

relevant, Howell has served as an administrator of Nolensville as Director of Public Works, and

on occasion has worked as a police officer for Nolensville Police Department.

6. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff's federal claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§1331 and 28 U.S.C. §1343, and has supplemental jurisdiction over all related State law claims

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367.

Case 3:18-cv-00773 Document 1 Filed 08/17/18 Page 2 of 20 PageID #: 2

 7. All relevant facts, circumstances and events surrounding Plaintiff's employment

through her constructive discharge from employment occurred in Williamson County, Tennessee,

making venue appropriate in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391.

II.
Facts

8. In 2012 the Plaintiff, a certified police officer possessing undergraduate and

master's degrees and with more than ten years of police experience and an unblemished

employment record was hired by Nolensville as its first full-time female police officer.

9. Within months of being hired, the Plaintiff was promoted, first to Detective and

thereafter in May 2014 to Captain, then being second in administrative and supervisory charge of

the Nolensville Police Department to the newly hired Police Chief Troy Huffines (“Chief

Huffines”).

10. While employed by Nolensville, the City Administrator, over the Plaintiff's

objections, ordered her to investigate the conduct of Chief Huffines following the filing of

internal employee grievances. Among the Plaintiff's findings at the conclusion of this

investigation was a recommendation that police officers within the Nolensville Police

Department receive harassment and hostile work environment training (the “Training

Recommendation”).

11. When presented with the Plaintiff's Training Recommendation, the City

Administrator became visibly angry and upset, instructed the Plaintiff to “stay out of it,” declared

that the grievances had been withdrawn, inserted a written response to her Training

Recommendation labelling it as “N/A,” and ignored her findings and recommendations.

12. Although the City Administrator took no steps to inquire further into the Training

Case 3:18-cv-00773 Document 1 Filed 08/17/18 Page 3 of 20 PageID #: 3

Recommendation or to undertake corrective actions designed to remedy a potentially

discriminatory or hostile work environment, from and after the date that the Plaintiff presented

her Training Recommendation she began to be marginalized by Nolensville administrators and

officials who became increasingly hostile towards her, taking more and progressively worse

retaliatory acts against her because of her sex; said acts being obviously and objectively

discriminatory and retaliatory not only to the Plaintiff but also to her fellow police officers.

13. During this same period of time, Howell simultaneously worked on a part-time

basis as a Nolensville police officer under the Plaintiff's supervision and as a Nolensville

administrator holding the office of Director of Public Works. Howell was an insider to the

Nolensville management group consisting of Howell, the City Administrator, Nolensville Mayor

Jimmy Alexander (the “Mayor”), and Nolensville Vice Mayor Jason Patrick (the “Vice-Mayor”)

(collectively referred to as the “Nolensville Insiders”). The Nolensville Insiders individually and

collectively had decision-making power and authority over Nolensville operations and

employees, including the Nolensville Police Department and the Plaintiff.

14. From and after the Plaintiff's presentation of her Training Recommendation, the

Nolensville Insiders began to disparage and denigrate the Plaintiff among themselves and to

others in and out of Nolensville government, and to question whether females in general, or the

Plaintiff in particular, were appropriate or effective police officers. The Vice Mayor would

frequently accompany Howell in his police cruiser, where the Plaintiff and her perceived

incompetency as a police officer were topics of discussion. The illegal, discriminatory and

retaliatory actions of the Nolensville Insiders became more open, obvious and blatant over time.

15. In 2016, a policing incident occurred involving an assailant threatening another

Case 3:18-cv-00773 Document 1 Filed 08/17/18 Page 4 of 20 PageID #: 4

Nolensville police officer with a knife (the “Knife Incident”). Howell and others in the group of

Nolensville Insiders spread false rumors labelling the Plaintiff as a coward and emotionally

unstable based on her alleged actions that day, undermining her respect and authority among

Nolensville police officers, members of the police community beyond Nolensville and the

Nolensville public. Specifically, Howell and the City Administrator told, spread and encouraged

the lie that Plaintiff had not exited her vehicle, but rather sat in her vehicle refusing to assist in

managing the Knife Incident crime scene. As a result of this lie, Nolensville police officers

whom plaintiff supervised lost confidence in Plaintiff's ability to lead and viewed her as a

coward. As a direct result of this lie, Howell became openly disrespectful to the Plaintiff,

engaging in frequent intimidatory acts directed at her, and encouraged other police officers to do

the same. One Nolensville police officer mocked Plaintiff's work attire that she wore as a Captain

and stated to members of the Nolensville public that she should have thrown a 'shoe' or 'high

heel' at the knife wielding assailant during the Knife Incident. All of the rumors spread by the

Nolensville Insiders about the Plaintiff and her conduct during the Knife Incident were verifiably

false, malicious, and unfounded. At a Nolensville town meeting and for her actions during the

Knife Incident, Chief Huffines awarded the Plaintiff with a written commendation for her

outstanding conduct during the Knife Incident.

16. The harassment, retaliation, disparagement and blatant disrespect directed at the

Plaintiff by or at the direction of Howell and other Nolensville Insiders became increasingly

worse, open and obvious throughout 2016, and in early 2017 causing another law enforcement

individual to report to the Vice-Mayor the increasing hostility and discriminatory actions being

directed at and endured by the Plaintiff. Although the Vice-Mayor promised an investigation, no

Case 3:18-cv-00773 Document 1 Filed 08/17/18 Page 5 of 20 PageID #: 5

investigation or additional inquiry was undertaken, and no actions were taken by Nolensville

reasonably designed to end the harassment and discriminatory actions towards the Plaintiff.

17. In February and March 2017, Chief Huffines confided in the Plaintiff that in

multiple meetings he had with the Nolensville Insiders they told him of their opinions that the

Plaintiff was incapable of doing her job as a police officer because she was a “girl” and that they

did not want a female in a supervisory position. Based on his continuing discussions with the

Nolensville Insiders and his observing their continuing directing of hostility toward the Plaintiff

because of her sex, Chief Huffines recommended to the Plaintiff that she seek another job.

18. When it became apparent the Plaintiff was not going to succumb to the

Nolensville Insider's hostile pressure and quit, sometime around the end of March 2017, Howell,

being emboldened by the tacit support of the other Nolensville Insiders, directed even more

hostility toward her. Howell began making sexually demeaning statements and comments to

other workers including Nolensville police officers under the Plaintiff's supervision, claiming

that the Plaintiff was only good for sex and blow jobs, mocking her looks, stating openly that she

was unable to perform her duties as a police officer because she was a female, that women

should not be put into positions of authority, and stating and inciting the feeling in other

Nolensville police officers that they needed to get the “bitch” out of the way. From his vantage

point as a Nolensville Insider, Howell told anyone who would listen that the Plaintiff was going

to be fired and made her a subject of ridicule. The Vice Mayor participated in some of these

conversations, laughing about the Plaintiff in public and in the presence of other Nolensville

police officers. Howell's misconduct was reported by the Plaintiff and by others to Chief

Huffines, and to various Nolensville Insiders, but no corrective actions were taken reasonably

Case 3:18-cv-00773 Document 1 Filed 08/17/18 Page 6 of 20 PageID #: 6

designed to end the discriminatory actions.

19. Howell's misconduct directed at the Plaintiff continued to worsen, and he began to

encourage other Nolensville police officers under the Plaintiff's supervision to demean her and

her abilities. Howell spread false rumors about the Plaintiff and her abilities to other nearby law

enforcement departments and court system officials, and to the public at large, all in efforts to

undermine Plaintiff’s competence and ability to perform her tasks as a police officer, all because

of her sex. Included in his demeaning statements were claims that the Plaintiff was depressed,

mentally ill, and that she was having sexual affairs with a Williamson County Sheriff's deputy,

all of which was false. Despite being a subordinate to the Plaintiff in his Nolensville police

officer role, Howell refused to follow the Plaintiff's orders and commands, contending that she

was only good for sexual functions.

20. As part of her Captain and Detective duties, the Plaintiff would liaison with

Williamson County Sheriff's Department officers, both inside and outside the city limits. In May

or early June 2016, the City Administrator told Chief Huffines that the Plaintiff was having an

affair with Williamson County Sheriff's deputy, which was false, and instructed Chief Huffines

that the Plaintiff was not allowed to leave the Nolensville city limits while working. No such

similar restrictions were placed on the male Nolensville police officers.

21. When the Plaintiff would not resign despite all of the hostile and discriminatory

actions directed toward her, the Nolensville Insiders finally decided to take more direct action,

using a manufactured administrative restructuring as a guise in order to further harass, humiliate

and discriminate against the Plaintiff to force her to quit her employment with Nolensville. Over

the objections of Chief Huffines, and despite her spotless employment record with multiple

Case 3:18-cv-00773 Document 1 Filed 08/17/18 Page 7 of 20 PageID #: 7

commendations and awards, Chief Huffines was instructed to demote the Plaintiff three grades,

from Captain to Detective, and return her to patrol duties. Chief Huffines was unable to provide

the Plaintiff with a reason for the demotion, telling her only that this had not been his decision

but had “come from the top down” referring to the decision made by the Nolensville Insiders.

22. After the Plaintiff was told of her demotion, the Plaintiff left Chief Huffines'

office. Lurking just outside Chief Huffines' doorway was Howell. Looking at the Plaintiff and

smirking, Howell then turned and while laughing, made snide comments to other Nolensville

police department employees about the Plaintiff. He thereafter referred to the Plaintiff's demotion

as an “epic” moment, and otherwise publicly reveled in the humiliation of the Plaintiff.

23. On June 16, 18 and 21, 2017, the Plaintiff filed three separate written grievances

with Nolensville (the “Discrimination Claims”), requesting an investigation into her demotion

and contending that the unwarranted demotion violated her federally protected rights because of

her sex.

24. From and after her June 2017 filing of her Discrimination Claims, the hostility

and retaliatory acts directed toward the Plaintiff by or with the encouragement of Nolensville

Insiders, including Howell, increased in intensity, degree and outrageousness, through the date of

her constructive discharge on December 11, 2017.

25. Howell used openly hostile and intimidating tactics directed at the Plaintiff in

retaliation for her Discrimination Claims. As Public Works Director, Howell was in charge of the

vehicle pool. After the Discrimination Claims were filed, Howell removed or hid the Plaintiff's

usual police cruiser so that she was unable to use it, leaving her instead the worst, unmarked

patrol car in the vehicle pool containing no cage to separate the officer from persons in the back

Case 3:18-cv-00773 Document 1 Filed 08/17/18 Page 8 of 20 PageID #: 8

seat. This created potential danger to the Plaintiff as a lone patrol officer, sometimes working at

night. Not having a cage in the police vehicle required the Plaintiff to call for law enforcement

back-up when she had to transport a detainee, and for this Howell ridiculed the Plaintiff calling

her scared and further perpetuating the lie that she was too scared to get out of her car at the

Knife Incident. Adding insult to injury, Howell would leave that police vehicle full of trash, or

in a condition where it would not start. Howell and persons under his supervision at the

Nolensville Public Works Department would lurk around the Nolensville Police Department,

even when Howell was not on duty and near the rest room, and would laugh at, demean and

otherwise intimidate the Plaintiff whenever she attempted to come off patrol for rest room breaks

or to check her paperwork. On one occasion, at night, when the Plaintiff was alone in the

Nolensville Police Department, Howell entered the parking lot, pointed his headlights at the

window in front of her desk and revved his car engine, to antagonize and intimidate the Plaintiff

to force her resignation.

26. Even though on duty during the day as Public Works Director and not as a police

officer, Howell monitored the police radio. He began to stalk the Plaintiff on her official police

field calls, and to randomly appear, hovering in the background while she was addressing public

and/or safety concerns, all in efforts to intimidate and demean the Plaintiff in her official duties.

She reported these frequent incidents to Chief Huffines on more than one occasion. Knowing that

Howell was one of the Nolensville Insiders, Chief Huffines in turn reported Howell's hostile,

harassing and intimidating tactics to the City Administrator, with pleas for the Nolensville

Insiders to instruct Howell to leave the Plaintiff alone. Despite these repeated requests, no

corrective actions were taken by any of the Nolensville Insiders reasonably designed to end

Case 3:18-cv-00773 Document 1 Filed 08/17/18 Page 9 of 20 PageID #: 9

Howell's harassment and discrimination of the Plaintiff.

27. Other retaliatory acts began to occur. Following her Discrimination Claims,

paychecks began to be distributed early to all other male police officers so that these could be

retrieved at the end of shift. This change did not apply to the Plaintiff, however, who instead had

to return to the office on her day off to gather her paycheck or to wait for days for her wages.

Male Nolensville police officers were not similarly treated.

28. Although the Plaintiff received an annual cost of living increase in July 2017, she

did not receive an annual raise in August 2017, which was given to all other male Nolensville

Police Department employees, including Chief Huffines.

29. As a Captain, the Plaintiff had been considered a plain clothes officer, but after

her demotion she was considered a patrol level police officer. Nolensville provides uniforms to

all of its patrol level officers, but, despite her repeated requests, the Plaintiff was not provided the

appropriate uniforms. No other male Nolensville police officer was similarly treated.

30. After her Discrimination Claims, the Nolensville Police Department work

environment became divided between those siding with Howell and the Nolensville Insiders, and

those lamenting the discriminatory treatment suffered by the Plaintiff. In efforts to further isolate

the Plaintiff, Howell first attempted to intimidate a fellow Nolensville police officer who openly

supported the Plaintiff (“Supporting Officer”). Specifically, Howell called the Supporting Officer

a 'homo' and threatened him if he 'snitched.' Howell subsequently instigated a Nolensville Public

Works Department employee under Howell's supervision to file a frivolous, silly, contrived and

false 'male-on-male' sexual harassment complaint against the Supporting Officer. The

Nolensville Insiders, spearheaded by the City Administrator, promptly threatened and told others

10

Case 3:18-cv-00773 Document 1 Filed 08/17/18 Page 10 of 20 PageID #: 10

of their intention to terminate the Supporting Officer before a full investigation had even been

undertaken of the male-on-male sexual harassment complaint. In a meeting with the Nolensville

Insiders, as they started to present the Supporting Officer with a termination letter, the

Supporting Officer instead tendered a written resignation before the start of the meeting. In that

written resignation, the Supporting Officer cited as one reason that he felt compelled to resign

because he was a witness to the Plaintiff's mistreatment as set forth in her ongoing

Discrimination Claims.

31. Nolensville police officers have historically been assigned mandatory work at

certain Nolensville town functions including the Veteran's Day Parade and the Christmas event,

each receiving overtime pay for those efforts. For the Nolensville 2017 Veteran's Day Parade and

Christmas event, which occurred after the Plaintiff was demoted back to Detective and patrol

officer, all other male patrol officers were again given mandatory duty at these two events and

received overtime pay. The Plaintiff, however, was not given the option to work these mandatory

events and so did not receive overtime pay given to the other male patrol officers. She was the

only Nolensville police officer performing patrol duties who did not receive the overtime pay.

32. Every Nolensville police officer received an annual Christmas bonus. This

tradition continued in 2017 for all other male police officers, but the Plaintiff was not provided

with her annual Christmas bonus.

33. Despite actual knowledge by the Nolensville Insiders of the blatant hostility,

demeaning comments, open disobedience and disrespect and other discriminatory and retaliatory

acts directed toward the Plaintiff by Howell both before and after the filing of her Discrimination

Claims, she was repeatedly forced to work with Howell. Despite her repeated complaints about

11

Case 3:18-cv-00773 Document 1 Filed 08/17/18 Page 11 of 20 PageID #: 11

the impropriety of this to and by Chief Huffines and to the City Administrator, the City

Administrator failed and refused to modify work schedules or to otherwise take any steps

designed to remedy this situation.

34. During the investigation into the Plaintiff's Discrimination Claims, at least one

Nolensville non-police employee, also a female, felt compelled to resign from Nolensville, citing

the presence of the sexually hostile work environment permeating the Nolensville city offices as

the reason.

35. Although Nolensville retained what it claimed was an independent investigator to

evaluate the Plaintiff's grievances, such was actually in efforts to conceal its discriminatory

actions directed towards the Plaintiff. The investigation was fundamentally flawed in several

respects and relied upon unsubstantiated statements, verifiably false statements and information,

and was guided or directed by Howell and the City Administrator, who were the very persons at

the heart of the discriminatory and retaliatory actions directed toward the Plaintiff.

36. During the investigatory period on the Discrimination Claims, Nolensville hired

another police officer who also had one (but not two) college degrees. Nolensville paid that

officer a $1.00 per hour step-up because of his college degree, a benefit that had never been

offered to the Plaintiff before, despite her having two degrees.

37. During this investigatory period of the Discrimination Claims, Chief Huffines

resigned. Normal Nolensville procedure was to interview all qualified candidates for the police

chief. Although the Plaintiff applied for the vacant position as police chief position, had been

second in command in Nolensville Police Department, and had an unblemished record with

multiple awards and commendations, her application for the police chief position was never even

12

Case 3:18-cv-00773 Document 1 Filed 08/17/18 Page 12 of 20 PageID #: 12

acknowledged. She was never given the opportunity to interview for the police chief position,

and instead, it was awarded to a male candidate hand selected by the Nolensville Insiders.

38. All of the actions, as described herein and directed towards the Plaintiff, were

harassing, discriminatory, retaliatory and designed to force the Plaintiff's resignation. These

events, whose origins traced to the Plaintiff's Training Recommendation, culminated in the

Plaintiff's constructive discharge when Nolensville refused to even consider her for the police

chief position. All of the badgering, harassment, intimidation and humiliation that the Plaintiff

encountered from and after her Training Recommendation was both discriminatory and

retaliatory in nature, was designed and intended to, and in fact did, force the Plaintiff to

involuntarily terminate her employment and resulted in her being constructively discharged.

III.
Claims and Causes of Action

Count One – First and Fourteenth Amendment Violations (42 U.S.C. §1983)
(Town of Nolensville Only)

39 In each instance where the Plaintiff complained to Chief Huffines and to various

other Nolensville Insiders concerning her suffering sexual harassment, discrimination and

retaliation in violation of federal and State law as well as the official Nolensville policies, she

was speaking in a personal capacity on a matter of public concern. The value and importance of

this speech outweighed any potential disruption of Nolensville government or workplace

efficiency.

40. As a result of her advocacy, despite Nolensville's knowledge that the Plaintiff was

engaged in protected activities, she was continually and unlawfully retaliated against, demoted

and ultimately constructively discharged, all in violation of and motivated, in part, by the

13

Case 3:18-cv-00773 Document 1 Filed 08/17/18 Page 13 of 20 PageID #: 13

Plaintiff's exercise of her rights to freedom of speech guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth

Amendments to the United States Constitution, and actionable under 42 U.S.C. §1983. Such

unlawful actions by Nolensville and the Nolensville Insiders would deter a person of ordinary

firmness from engaging in the same type of speech exercised by the Plaintiff in this case.

41. The acts of the Nolensville Insiders in forcing the Plaintiff's constructive

discharge were officially sanctioned by officials responsible for establishing Nolensville's final

policy and decision-making, sufficient to constitute an “official policy” of Nolensville or a

governmental custom and practice, even though such a custom had not received formal approval

through Nolensville's official decision-making channels, sufficient that such unlawful actions

directed at the Plaintiff exhibited deliberate indifference to her exercise of her federally protected

rights.

42. The sanctioned and unlawful actions by the Nolensville Insiders, as

aforementioned, who were cloaked with authority to act for and on behalf of Nolensville in

employment decisions concerning police officers, including decisions to demote, retaliate against

and ultimately constructively discharge the Plaintiff, were designed to and did deprive her of the

benefits, terms, conditions and compensation which other Nolensville employed police officers

working in the Nolensville police department enjoyed. As a result, the Plaintiff suffered damages

entitling her to compensatory and punitive damages, back pay, front pay and compensation for

loss of employment benefits and other damages available at law, including attorneys fees and

litigation expenses for these violations and for violations of her federally protected rights.

14

Case 3:18-cv-00773 Document 1 Filed 08/17/18 Page 14 of 20 PageID #: 14

 Count Two – First and Fourteenth Amendment Violations (42 U.S.C. §1983)
(Defendants Kenneth McLawhon and Bryan Howell Individually)

43 In each instance where the Plaintiff advocated to Chief Huffines and to various

other Nolensville Insiders concerning perceived sexual discrimination and retaliatory conduct

directed at her in violation of federal and State laws as well as the official policies of Nolensville,

she was speaking in a personal capacity on a matter of public concern. The value and importance

of this speech far outweighed any potential disruption to governmental functions or workplace

efficiency.

44. As a result of the Plaintiff's advocacy, as described herein, which is speech on a

matter of public concern, the individual defendants Howell and the City Administrator, acting

under color of law, violated the federally protected rights of the Plaintiff protected and

guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution by

demoting, retaliating against and ultimately causing the Plaintiff's constructive discharge from

employment, which is actionable against the individual defendants under 42 U.S.C. §1983.

45. The Plaintiff's federally protected rights were clearly established, and reasonable

governmental officials would or should have known that by demoting the Plaintiff and

continually taking harassing, intimidating and hostile actions directed at her which ultimately

resulted in her constructive discharge, in retaliation for speaking on matters of public concern,

violated the Plaintiff's federally protected rights guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth

Amendments to the United States Constitution.

46. Howell and the City Administrator acted maliciously, willfully, and in wanton and

reckless disregard, under color of law, and in disregard of the Plaintiff's federally protected

Constitutional rights, in order to chill the exercise of such rights in the Plaintiff and others, and

15

Case 3:18-cv-00773 Document 1 Filed 08/17/18 Page 15 of 20 PageID #: 15

with a goal to conceal Nolensville Police Department problems involving sexual discrimination,

harassment, hostile work environment and retaliatory misconduct, and for other ill-conceived

motives. As such, each of the individual defendants are liable under 42 U.S.C. §1983 and each is

liable to the Plaintiff for compensatory and punitive damages, lost wages to include front pay and

back pay and the value of lost employment benefit and other damages available at law, including

attorneys fees and litigation expenses.

Count Three – Title VII and Tennessee Human Rights Act Violations
(42 U.S.C. §2000e and Tenn. Code Ann. §4-21-101 et seq.)
(Town of Nolensville Only)

47. At all times relevant, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.A.

§§2000e et seq., (“Title VII”) and the Tennessee Human Rights Act, Tenn. Code Ann. §4-21-101

et seq. (“THRA”) were in full force and effect, and the provisions of Title VII and the THRA

were binding on the actions of Nolensville, which at all times employed greater than 15 full time

employees for 20 or more weeks in the year period next preceding plaintiff's termination.

48. In the Plaintiff's discussions and filings with Chief Huffines and with other

Nolensville Insiders, as described herein, she reasonably and in good faith believed that she

suffered and continued to suffer from illegal discrimination and harassment, and was subjected to

a hostile working environment and/or retaliatory misconduct in violation of federal and State

laws as well as the established policies of Nolensville, and which she reported to various

Nolensville officials.

49. Based on the allegations contained herein, Nolensville violated Title VII and the

THRA, which make discrimination against employees on the basis of sex illegal, in violation of

the Plaintiff's rights.

16

Case 3:18-cv-00773 Document 1 Filed 08/17/18 Page 16 of 20 PageID #: 16

 50. Nolensville violated Title VII and the THRA by permitting and knowingly

allowing a pattern of harassment, discrimination and hostility to be directed toward the Plaintiff

because of her sex, which had the purpose and effect of unreasonably interfering with the

Plaintiff's work and performance and which created an ongoing, intimidating, hostile and

offensive working environment of which Nolensville officials were fully aware, but which they

declined to remedy.

51. Nolensville violated Title VII and the THRA by knowingly failing to prevent, or

to mitigate, and tacitly authorizing and approving continued and increasingly worsening

retaliatory actions taken against the Plaintiff from and after her Training Recommendation,

which increased in intensity and degree after the Plaintiff's June 2017 unlawful demotion and

subsequent filing of Discrimination Claims.

52. In each instance after the Plaintiff voiced her concerns to Nolensville officials and

made pleas for help concerning ongoing retaliatory misconduct, hostility and harassment,

Nolensville not only failed to take remedial action but also tacitly allowed retaliatory acts to

increase in intensity and degree. As a result of the actions and inactions of Nolensville, as

described herein, plaintiff suffered a tangible job action with her demotion and constructive

termination, suffered emotional abuse and injury including intimidation, fear of bodily injury,

embarrassment and humiliation and suffered loss wages and benefits. The actions and inactions

of Nolensville, as described herein, would deter a person of ordinary firmness from engaging in

such federally protected conduct, and in addition, such actions and inactions of Nolensville are

in violation of the Title VII and THRA.

53. In each instance after the Plaintiff voiced her concerns of harassment,

17

Case 3:18-cv-00773 Document 1 Filed 08/17/18 Page 17 of 20 PageID #: 17

discrimination, a hostile working environment and/or retaliatory misconduct, Nolensville and its

officials, including but not limited to the Nolensville Insiders, were motivated to retaliate against,

to demote, and to ultimately constructively discharge the Plaintiff, all in such a manner as would

deter a person of ordinary firmness from engaging in that conduct.

54. As a proximate result of the unlawful actions of Nolensville as described herein,

the Plaintiff suffered injuries and is entitled to an award of compensatory and punitive damages,

back pay, front pay and other damages available at law, including attorneys fees and litigation

expenses, to which she is entitled at law.

Count Four – Equal Pay Act and Related THRA Claims

(29 U.S.C. §203 and 29 U.S.C. §206(d), and Tenn. Code Ann. §4-21-101 et seq.)
(Town of Nolensville Only)

55. Nolensville is an employer and Plaintiff who is a female, and employee of

Nolensville within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. §203 and 29 U.S.C. §206(d) (collectively, for

purposes of the Complaint, the “Equal Pay Act”), and Plaintiff's employment with Nolensville is

subject to the provisions thereof.

56. Howell, a male Nolensville employee, despite being of similar supervisory level

as Plaintiff, also worked part-time as a Nolensville police officer and was paid for all overtime

worked as a patrol officer, while the Plaintiff, a female who also worked patrol duties, was not

provided this same opportunity given to male employees for patrol tasks which require equal

skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions.

57. Plaintiff, a female, was deprived of the right and opportunity to receive mandatory

police officer overtime and other benefits, including step-ups and an annualized raise and

18

Case 3:18-cv-00773 Document 1 Filed 08/17/18 Page 18 of 20 PageID #: 18

Christmas bonus, which were provided to all male police officers for tasks which require equal

skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions.

58. Plaintiff was discriminated against in violation of the Equal Pay Act and

applicable corresponding provisions of the THRA because of her gender, female, who was paid

lower compensation than male employees and by being deprived of compensation and benefits

which male employees received for jobs involving equal or similar work, skill, effort, and

responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions.

59. The net result of this disparity in pay, examining all forms of compensation

including wages, salary, profit sharing, expense account, company car, uniform allowance or

other forms of compensation or fringe benefits, and including sick, vacation, and holiday

compensation, is that Plaintiff was paid less than her male counterparts, constituting a

discriminatory practice in violation of the Equal Pay Act and the corresponding provisions of the

THRA, entitling plaintiff to recover her lost wages and benefits and other damages available at

law, including attorneys fees and litigation expense.

60. The actions of Nolensville with regard to disparities in work assignments,

overtime assignments, pay steps-ups and bonuses are considered continuing violations intended

to be protected under the Title VII and THRA until the discriminatory disparity ceases.

61. Nolensville's violations of the Equal Pay Act and corresponding THRA provisions

were malicious and willful violations in that Nolensville knew, or should have known, of the

equal pay protections under federal and State laws but nonetheless permitted the discriminatory

disparity to continue during the Plaintiff's term of employment with Nolensville, entitling

Plaintiff to an additional award of liquidated damages.

19

Case 3:18-cv-00773 Document 1 Filed 08/17/18 Page 19 of 20 PageID #: 19

 IV.
Prayer for Relief

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Plaintiff Cindy Strange demands judgment

against the Defendants in amounts to be determined for compensatory damages including back

and front pay and loss of the value of benefits, punitive and/or liquidated damages, attorneys

fees, litigation expenses, for declaratory or injunctive relief including reinstatement to her former

job title and position with commensurate increase in pay to today's prevailing rates and all under

proper circumstances, and for other, further or differing relief to which she is entitled and/or the

Court deems appropriate.

This is the first application for extraordinary process.

A JURY OF EIGHT (8) IS DEMANDED IN THIS CAUSE.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Cynthia A. Wilson

Kenneth S. Williams (#10678)
Cynthia A. Wilson (#013145)
MADEWELL, JARED, HALFACRE, WILLIAMS & WILSON
230 N. Washington Avenue
Cookeville, TN 38501
Telephone: (931) 526-6101
Facsimile: (931) 528-1909
ken@madewelljared.com
cynthia@madewelljared.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff Cindy Strange

20

Case 3:18-cv-00773 Document 1 Filed 08/17/18 Page 20 of 20 PageID #: 20