Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CRYSTAL DIXON,
Civil Case No. ________________
Plaintiff,
v.
Defendants.
brings this Complaint against the above-named Defendants, their employees, agents and
INTRODUCTION
by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. Defendants, by means of their acts, omissions, policy, practice, and/or custom,
Defendants have in place a policy, practice, and/or custom that grants them unbridled
have denied Plaintiff access to a forum for her speech based on its viewpoint, thereby
depriving Plaintiff of the equal protection of the law guaranteed by the Fourteenth
Amendment.
Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief as well as nominal, compensatory, and
3. This action arises under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Jurisdiction is conferred on this court
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, Rules 57 and 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, and the general legal and equitable powers of this court.
damages for the past loss of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights and the harm caused by
U.S.C. § 1391(b), because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to
2
Case 3:08-cv-02806-DAK Document 1 Filed 12/01/2008 Page 3 of 12
PLAINTIFF
Ohio.
DEFENDANTS
public entity established and organized under the laws of Ohio, with the authority to sue
11. The University is charged with carrying out its own administrative and
furtherance thereof.
12. At all relevant times herein the University was a “person” acting under
13. Defendant Lloyd Jacobs, at all relevant times herein, was President of the
University and acting under color of state law. Defendant Jacobs is responsible for
including those challenged within this Complaint. Defendant Jacobs is sued individually
14. Defendant William Logie, at all relevant times herein, was the Vice
President for Human Resources and Campus Safety at the University and acting under
color of state law. Defendant Logie is responsible for creating, adopting, and
3
Case 3:08-cv-02806-DAK Document 1 Filed 12/01/2008 Page 4 of 12
within this Complaint. Defendant Logie is sued individually and in his official capacity.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
15. Prior to July 1, 2006, Plaintiff was employed full-time as the Acting
Plaintiff was recruited by Defendant Logie to MUO and Plaintiff’s career at MUO was
one of upward career advancement based upon her stellar job performance.
16. On or about July 1, 2006, the University merged with MUO, creating the
University as it exists today, with approximately 22,000 students and 7,700 employees.
17. From about July 2006 to July 2007, Plaintiff was employed full-time by
18. On or about July 2007, Plaintiff was promoted to the position of interim
Associate Vice President for Human Resources over all University campuses.
19. On or about April 3, 2008, Plaintiff read an opinion piece published in the
Toledo Free Press authored by Michael Miller titled “Lighting the Fuse: Gay Rights and
Wrongs.” Miller’s opinion piece equated homosexual activity with the struggles of
African-American civil rights victims. Plaintiff disagreed with the viewpoint advanced
by Miller’s piece and decided to submit her own opinion piece to the Toledo Free Press
believes that homosexuality is a grave offense against the Law of God and that
4
Case 3:08-cv-02806-DAK Document 1 Filed 12/01/2008 Page 5 of 12
victims is absurd and untenable because she believes homosexuality is a lifestyle choice
and not an immutable or inherent genetic and biological characteristic like skin or eye
color.
21. On or about April 15, 2008, Defendant Logie made Plaintiff the
permanent Associate Vice President for Human Resources over all University campuses.
22. On or about April 18, 2008, Plaintiff’s opinion piece, titled “Gay Rights
and Wrongs: Another Perspective,” was published in the Toledo Free Press online
perspective for Miller and Toledo Free Press readers to consider. … I take great umbrage
at the notion that those choosing the homosexual lifestyle are civil rights victims.”
23. Plaintiff did not write her opinion piece as part of her official duties at the
University and she did not intimate that she was writing on behalf of the University.
Plaintiff wrote her opinion piece as a private citizen addressing a matter of public
concern.
24. On or about April 18, 2008, Defendant Logie informed Plaintiff that “he
knew her article was printed online, that he had a steady stream of people in his office
complaining about it, that he was considering placing her on administrative leave pending
his review of University policies and procedures, and that he was concerned with her
leadership,” or words to that effect. Plaintiff asked Defendant Logie what she had done
wrong and he stated that “he did not yet know,” or words to that effect.
5
Case 3:08-cv-02806-DAK Document 1 Filed 12/01/2008 Page 6 of 12
did not yet know what the investigation would entail but that it could take about three
weeks to complete because Defendant Jacobs was in China,” or words to that effect.
Jacobs, University of Toledo President” was published in the Toledo Free Press.
Defendant Jacobs stated in relevant part “Crystal Dixon is associate vice president for
Human Resources at the University of Toledo, her comments do not accord with the
of her writing. ... We (the University) will be taking certain internal actions in this
instance to more fully align our utterances and actions with this value system. … It is my
hope there may be no misunderstanding of my personal stance, nor the stance of the
University of Toledo, concerning the issues of “Gay Rights and Wrongs. … Dr. Lloyd
hearing where Defendant Jacobs informed her “he was considering disciplinary action in
view of the letter you (Plaintiff) wrote and the reaction to it,” or words to that effect.
28. On May 12, 2008, Plaintiff received a letter from Defendants dated May 8,
2008, indicating that effective immediately her employment at the University was
terminated in relevant part because “the public position you have taken in the Toledo
Free Press is in direct contradiction to University policies and procedures as well as the
6
Case 3:08-cv-02806-DAK Document 1 Filed 12/01/2008 Page 7 of 12
29. In about June 2008, Defendant Jacobs stated further that “Plaintiff was
fired for her speech and that her termination was not based upon her job performance,” or
30. In July 2008, Defendants filled Plaintiff’s former position with a deposed
former University Dean who had recently resigned after Defendants’ faculty publicly
voiced concerns about his leadership. Defendants pay this individual $40,000 more
annually than Plaintiff was paid to perform the same or similar duties.
expressed personal opinions and viewpoints about various political and social issues.
Excluding Plaintiff, not once have Defendants terminated any employee for publicly
expressing personal views on public issues. Consequently, there are no narrowly drawn,
33. Plaintiff expressed her personal opinion about homosexuality and civil
rights. Plaintiff’s political speech was not expressed as part of her official duties at the
7
Case 3:08-cv-02806-DAK Document 1 Filed 12/01/2008 Page 8 of 12
34. Public employees do not surrender their First Amendment rights by reason
of their employment. The First Amendment protects a public employee’s right to speak
as a citizen addressing matters of public concern. Plaintiff’s opinion piece in the Toledo
Free Press was political speech, constituting personal expression, and is therefore subject
35. Defendants, by their acts, omissions, policy, practice, and/or custom, have
punished Plaintiff for expressing her political messages while allowing other University
employees to speak freely, thereby restricting speech based upon its content and
viewpoint.
comport with constitutional safeguards protecting speech and were enforced against
Plaintiff merely upon Defendants’ desire to avoid the discomfort or unpleasantness that
impermissibly vague standards of determining which messages are acceptable and which
are not.
8
Case 3:08-cv-02806-DAK Document 1 Filed 12/01/2008 Page 9 of 12
expression of the ideas and viewpoint in Plaintiff’s opinion piece did not—and as a
opinion piece equating homosexuality with the civil rights struggles of racial minorities.
Plaintiff rebutted this opinion by submitting her own opinion piece in the same
newspaper, only to be fired from her job by the government for doing so—a University
consequences, published its own opinion piece in the same newspaper to rebut Plaintiff’s
Plaintiff with a less qualified and officially disgraced person and paid him substantially
42. Defendants’ outrageous, reckless, and wanton actions and omissions have
chilled Plaintiff’s constitutionally protected speech, and caused her emotional distress,
lost wages and income, and substantially affected her future earning capacity and
potential.
custom, engaged in under color of state law, Defendants have deprived Plaintiff of her
right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution
as applied to the states and their political subdivisions under the Fourteenth Amendment
9
Case 3:08-cv-02806-DAK Document 1 Filed 12/01/2008 Page 10 of 12
to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in that Defendants have punished
Plaintiff by terminating her government employment based upon the viewpoint of her
45. Defendants have in place a policy, practice, and/or custom that grants
and which political speech is not permitted in violation of the First Amendment and by
reason of the acts, omissions, policy, practice and/or custom, as set forth in this
Complaint, Defendants have violated Plaintiff’s right to freedom of speech under the
First Amendment to the United States Constitution as applied to the states and their
political subdivisions under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Speech Clause of the First Amendment, Plaintiff has suffered injury and irreparable
harm, including the loss of her constitutional rights, entitling her to declaratory and
custom, engaged in under the color of state law, Defendants have deprived Plaintiff of the
equal protection of the law guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United
10
Case 3:08-cv-02806-DAK Document 1 Filed 12/01/2008 Page 11 of 12
government employees to express the government’s viewpoint on the same matter in the
same local newspaper, thereby denying the use of this forum to those viewpoints which
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Plaintiff has suffered injury and
irreparable harm, including the loss of her constitutional rights, entitling her to
censoring her speech and by punishing her by terminating her employment for engaging
in protected speech activities based on the viewpoint of her speech as set forth in this
Complaint;
C) order that Plaintiff be reinstated to the position she held at the time of her
termination, or in the alternative, order that Plaintiff receive front pay for a reasonable
period of time;
E) retain jurisdiction of this matter for the purpose of enforcing this Court’s
orders;
11
Case 3:08-cv-02806-DAK Document 1 Filed 12/01/2008 Page 12 of 12
punitive damages against Defendants Jacobs and Logie in their individual capacities
H) to grant such other relief as this Court should find just and proper.
Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff hereby
Respectfully Submitted,
12