IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

CINDY STRANGE, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) Case No. 3:18-cv-00773
v. ) Judge Richardson/Newbern
) (JURY DEMAND)
TOWN OF NOLENSVILLE, )
KENNETH McLAWHON, in his individual )
and official capacities, and BRYAN )
HOWELL, in his individual and official )
capacities, )
)
Defendants. )

MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

COMES NOW the Plaintiff and moves the Court to grant her leave to file Plaintiff's First

Amended Complaint; the proposed Amended Complaint, noting redline modifications, is

attached hereto as Exhibit “A”. In support of this Motion, Plaintiff would state:

1. Although discovery is ongoing and e-discovery has been convoluted, Plaintiff has

obtained sufficient information to warrant amendment and/or revision to some of the facts and

allegations set forth in the Complaint.

2. The proposed amendments and/or revisions to the Complaint are noted with

redlines for ease of reference.

3. The deadlines to amend have been extended without opposition because of the

issues relating to e-discovery, and so this Motion to Amend is timely.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Plaintiff moves the Court for leave to amend her

Complaint as shown on the proposed Amended Complaint attached as Exhibit “A”, deleting

redlines, and for other relief.

Case 3:18-cv-00773 Document 43 Filed 02/18/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 185

 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Kenneth S. Williams

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
[email protected]
[email protected]
Attorneys for Plaintiff Cindy Strange

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned attorney hereby certifies that on the date noted below a true and exact
copy of the foregoing pleading was filed electronically with notice of this filing being provided
to all parties at interest via the Court's electronic filing system (ECF) and/or via U.S. Mail, as
follows:

William N. Bates, Esq.

Farrar & Bates, LLP
211 Seventh Avenue North, Suite 500
Nashville, TN 37219
Attorney for Defendants
Town of Nolensville and Kenneth McLawhon

D. Mark Nolan, Esq.

Dan L. Nolan, Esq.
Tracy P. Knight, Esq.
Suzanne G. Marsh, Esq.
Batson Nolan PLC
121 South 3rd Street
Clarksville, TN 37040
Attorneys for Defendant Bryan Howell

/s/ Kenneth S. Williams 2/18/2020

Attorney Date

Case 3:18-cv-00773 Document 43 Filed 02/18/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 186

 REDLINE 2/18/2020
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

CINDY STRANGE, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) Case No. 3:18-cv-00773
v. ) Judge Richardson/Newbern
) (JURY DEMAND)
TOWN OF NOLENSVILLE, )
KENNETH McLAWHON, in his individual )
and official capacities, and BRYAN )
HOWELL, in his individual and official )
capacities, )
)
Defendants. )

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

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

Defendants in all capacities restates and 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 against her, 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,

Case 3:18-cv-00773 Document 43-1 Filed 02/18/20 Page 1 of 27 PageID #: 187

reinstatement, costs and attorneys fees, and 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 andis chartered as a Town formed pursuant to the laws

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

Tennessee, operating with a Board of Mayor and Aldermen. Nolensville constitutes an

“employer” within the meaning of all federal and State statutes recited hereinafter.

4. Defendant Kenneth McLawhon (the “CityTown 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 CityTown Administrator for Nolensville

and who has been delegatedwith full authority by the Charter and Municipal Code to supervise

and oversee personnel actions in conjunction with the Town Mayor or as may be delegated by

him, 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 hasserved as an administrator of Nolensville as Director of Public Works, and

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

6. Jimmy Alexander (“Alexander” or the “Mayor”), is an adult citizen and

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

Case 3:18-cv-00773 Document 43-1 Filed 02/18/20 Page 2 of 27 PageID #: 188

At all times relevant, Alexander has served as the Mayor of the Town of Nolensville. Alexander

has not been sued as an individual defendant, but is identified as a Town official with decision-

making authority over employment matters along with the Town Administrator, and who was

unlawfully influenced by other Nolensville Insiders (defined hereinafter) with discriminatory

animus to take discriminatory action against Plaintiff, and which causally resulted in

discriminatory action taken against Plaintiff, relying on Cat's Paw and generalized civil

conspiracy theories.

7. Jason Patrick (“Patrick” or the “Vice-Mayor”), is an adult citizen and Tennessee

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

relevant, Patrick served as the Vice-Mayor of the Town of Nolensville. Patrick has not been sued

as an individual defendant, but is identified as a Town official who unlawfully and with

discriminatory animus causally influenced the Mayor and Town Administrator to take

discriminatory action against Plaintiff, which actions are attributable to all defendants under both

Cat's Paw and generalized civil conspiracy theories.

68. 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.

79. 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

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

Case 3:18-cv-00773 Document 43-1 Filed 02/18/20 Page 3 of 27 PageID #: 189

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.

911. 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”).

1012. While employed by Nolensville, the CityTown 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”).

1113. When presented with the Plaintiff's Training Recommendation, the CityTown

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.

1214. Although the CityTown Administrator took no steps to inquire further into the

Training 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. The Mayor and Vice-Mayor, whobecame increasingly hostile towards her, taking more

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

Case 3:18-cv-00773 Document 43-1 Filed 02/18/20 Page 4 of 27 PageID #: 190

and objectively discriminatory and retaliatory not only to the Plaintiff but also to her fellow

police officers.

1315. 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 CityTown Administrator, Nolensville

MayorJimmy Alexander (the “Mayor”), and NolensvilleVice Mayor Jason Patrick (the “Vice-

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

individually and collectively had influence amounting to effective decision-making power and

authority over Nolensville operations and employees, including the Nolensville Police

Department and the Plaintiff.

1416. 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, and they discussed ways to remove

her from her position of power and authority in the police department. The illegal, discriminatory

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

time.

1517. In 2016, a policing incident occurred involving an assailant threatening another

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

Case 3:18-cv-00773 Document 43-1 Filed 02/18/20 Page 5 of 27 PageID #: 191

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, andthe CityTown Administrator and other Nolensville

Insiders 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 thisthese lies, various Nolensville Insiders

made statements to the effect that Plaintiff, as a “girl,” should not be in a position of authority

over male officers. Howell became openly disrespectful to the Plaintiff, engaging in frequent

intimidatory acts directed at her, and encouraged other police officers to do the same and to

ignore her authority. 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, and were designed to undermine her position as

a supervising officer within the Police Department. Chief Huffines made a number of

unsuccessful attempts to correct these Nolensville Insiders concerning the falsity of these

allegations, but he was ignored. Contrary to these malicious rumors, aAt 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.

1618. The harassment, retaliation, disparagement and blatant disrespect directed at the

Case 3:18-cv-00773 Document 43-1 Filed 02/18/20 Page 6 of 27 PageID #: 192

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

worse, open and obvious throughout 2016, and into 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,

because he was one of the Nolensville Insiders instrumental in perpetuating these false rumors

with a goal to have Plaintiff removed as a supervisor, no investigation or additional inquiry was

undertaken, and no actions were taken by any Nolensville official reasonably designed to end the

harassment and discriminatory actions towards the Plaintiff.

1719. 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 should seek another

job.

1820. When it became apparent the Plaintiff was not going to succumb to the

Nolensville Insider's hostile pressure and quit, and in furtherance of their collective intentions to

undermine her power and authority within the police department, sometime around the end of

March 2017 and continuing thereafter, Howell, being emboldened by the tacit support of the

other Nolensville Insiders, directed even more hostility towards 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

Case 3:18-cv-00773 Document 43-1 Filed 02/18/20 Page 7 of 27 PageID #: 193

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, Public Works supervisor

and sometime police officer, and with the tacit approval of the other Nolensville Insiders, Howell

told anyone who would listen that the Plaintiff was going to be fired and he 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 designed to end the discriminatory actions. To

the contrary, when it became clear that efforts to encourage the Plaintiff's resignation were not

working, the Nolensville Insiders through the Town Mayor and Town Administrator decided to

reorganize the Town Police Department with the goal of removing the Plaintiff from her

supervisory position within the Department, and hoping that she would resign in response.

1921. 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 and to undermine her supervisory authority. Howell, with the implicit or explicit

encouragement of other Nolensville Insiders, 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, and 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

Case 3:18-cv-00773 Document 43-1 Filed 02/18/20 Page 8 of 27 PageID #: 194

Williamson County Sheriff's deputy, all of which waswere false. Despite being a subordinate to

the Plaintiff in his Nolensville part-time police officer role, Howell refused to follow the

Plaintiff's orders and commands, contending that she was only good for sexual functions. During

this time various of the Nolensville Insiders began to foment suspicion and distrust between

Chief Huffines and the Plaintiff, all intended to isolate her from any ally and to cause her to lose

the support of her Police Chief. In late May 2017 the Town Mayor and Town Administrator met

with Chief Huffines and representatives of the Municipal Technical Advisory Service (“MTAS”),

a State consulting body assisting towns and municipalities with their governance needs (the

“Restructure Meeting”). The intent of the Nolensville Insiders was to use the guise of a Police

Department restructure to eliminate the Plaintiff's supervisory position and so demote her as one

more method to harass, humiliate and discriminate against her in efforts to force her to quit her

employment with Nolensville. Chief Huffines and MTAS representatives opposed this proposed

restructure. Their recommendations were ignored by the Town Administrator and the Town

Mayor, who, as the “decision makers” and with improper motives, restructured away the

Plaintiff's supervisory title and role.

2022. As part of her Captain and Detective duties, the Plaintiff would liaison with

Williamson County Sheriff's Department officers, both inside and outside the cityTown limits.

Following the May 2017 Restructure Meeting, Nolensville Insiders began surreptitiously

searching for a plausible reason to support the demotion decision. In May or early June 20167,

theNolensville Insiders AdministratorCity told Chief Huffines that the Plaintiff was having an

affair with a Williamson County Sheriff's deputy, which was false, asked that the Chief monitor

the Plaintiff's GPS in her patrol car and instructed Chief Huffines that the Plaintiff was not

Case 3:18-cv-00773 Document 43-1 Filed 02/18/20 Page 9 of 27 PageID #: 195

allowed to leave the Nolensville cityTown limits while working. No such similar restrictions

were placed on the male Nolensville police officers. While other Nolensville male police officers

left the Town limits to have lunch, Plaintiff was denied this privilege and isolated because of her

sex.

2123. Thereafter, in June 2017, having been unsuccessful in their attempts to force the

Plaintiff to resign, despite the continuing hostility and discriminatory actions directed at her, the

Nolensville InsidersWhen the Plaintiff would not resign despite all of the hostile and

discriminatory actions directed toward her, the Nolensville Insiders implemented their

restructuring plan. 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 despite her spotless employment record with multiple

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

from Captain to Detective, and to 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.

2224. 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.

10

Case 3:18-cv-00773 Document 43-1 Filed 02/18/20 Page 10 of 27 PageID #: 196

Although there was or should have been videotaped evidence of Howell's actions, in the

subsequent investigation this videotape, which was under the control of Public Works,

mysteriously disappeared. This area was visualized by camera and recorded. In response to

Plaintiff's complaints of harassment, an investigation occurred. Plaintiff requested the

investigative attorney to ensure preservation of this recording. This recording, however, was not

preserved, where other video recordings during this same time period were preserved. Upon

belief and information, Defendant Howell had access to these recordings.

2325. 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.

2426. From and after her June 2017 filing of her Discrimination Claims, the hostility

and retaliatory acts directed toward the Plaintiff and toward those within the Police Department

who supported her, 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.

2527. 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

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

11

Case 3:18-cv-00773 Document 43-1 Filed 02/18/20 Page 11 of 27 PageID #: 197

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.

2628. 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 CityTown 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

Howell's harassment and discrimination of the Plaintiff.

12

Case 3:18-cv-00773 Document 43-1 Filed 02/18/20 Page 12 of 27 PageID #: 198

 2729. Other retaliatory acts began to occur. Following the restructuring, Plaintiff filed a

series of her Discrimination Claims, and thereafter the Town Mayor and the Town Administrator

expressed continuing desires that she would resign rather than work patrol. When that did not

happen, they discussed assigning her strictly to solo night patrol with a goal to force resignation.

The Town Mayor and Town Administrator, and the other Insiders, closely monitored and

scrutinized her every move, as well as the moves of those in the Police Department who still

supported her. On one or more occasions 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.

2830. 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.

2931. 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.

3032. After her Discrimination Claims, the Nolensville Police Department work

environment became more 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

13

Case 3:18-cv-00773 Document 43-1 Filed 02/18/20 Page 13 of 27 PageID #: 199

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

the Supporting Officer a 'homo' and threatened him if he 'snitched.' The Nolensville Insiders

began to closely scrutinize the Supporting Officer's every move. Howell subsequently instigated

a Nolensville Public Works Department subordinate employee under Howell's supervision to

complain about file a frivolous, silly, contrived and false 'male-on-male' sexual harassment

complaint against the Supporting Officer and then, knowing that his actions were retaliatory

towards the Plaintiff and those supporting her, Howell filed a formal male-on-male harassment

complaint on behalf of his subordinate against the Supporting Officer. The Nolensville Insiders,

spearheaded by the CityTown Mayor and Town Administrator, promptly threatened and told

others 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 an obvious setup to

silence police officers sympathetic to Plaintiff. 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 formal 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 by the Town and its officials as set forth she had described

in her ongoing Discrimination Claims.

3133. 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

14

Case 3:18-cv-00773 Document 43-1 Filed 02/18/20 Page 14 of 27 PageID #: 200

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.

3234. 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.

3335. Despite actual knowledge by the Nolensville Insiders of the blatant hostility,

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

acts directed towards 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 the impropriety of this to and by Chief Huffines and to the CityTown

Administrator, the CityTown Administrator failed and refused to modify work schedules or to

otherwise take any steps designed to remedy this situation.

3436. 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 cityTown

offices as the reason.

3537. 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 CityTown Administrator in terms of witnesses and

15

Case 3:18-cv-00773 Document 43-1 Filed 02/18/20 Page 15 of 27 PageID #: 201

evidence, who were the very persons at the heart of the discriminatory and retaliatory actions

directed toward the Plaintiff. Certain critical information relating to this inquiry in the form of

videotapes under the control of Howell as Public Works Director were not provided to the

investigator despite his request and have since mysteriously disappeared.

3638. During the investigatory period on the Discrimination Claims, Nolensville hired

another male police officer who, unlike Plaintiff who possessed both a Bachelor's and a Master's

degree, only held the equivalent of an Associates degree, also had one (but not two) college

degrees,. yet Nolensville paid that officer a $1.00 per hour step-up because of his college degree,

. No similara benefit that had never been offered to the Plaintiff, a female, before, despite her

having two college degrees.

3739. During this investigatory period of the Soon after issuance of the Investigation

Report on the Plaintiff's Discrimination Claims, Chief Huffines resigned. Normal Nolensville

procedure and practice for Department Head hiring normally followed written Town policies and

Codes and, after publication of a Police Chief or other Department head opening, background

checks were conducted, an applicant review committee was established which narrowed the pool

of qualified applicants, and formal interviews were conducted before a panel of Nolensville

officials, after which an offer was extended. was to interview all qualified candidates for the

police chief. Knowing that Plaintiff was the most qualified employee on staff, however, standard

practice was not followed by the Town Mayor and Town Administrator after Chief Huffines

resigned. 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

16

Case 3:18-cv-00773 Document 43-1 Filed 02/18/20 Page 16 of 27 PageID #: 202

acknowledged, much less considered. She was never given the opportunity to interview for the

police chief position,. Instead, the Mayor or Town Administrator, or both, first hand-selected

Howell to fill that role. Howell had not even applied for the position, and was not minimally

qualified by education, training or POST certification to assume the role of Police Chief, and so

the Town Administrator and the Town Mayor turned to their next hand-selected male candidate,

offering him the position of Police Chief without following even minimum standard protocol.

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

40. When the Plaintiff filed her three (3) written grievances/complaints concerning

the elimination of her Captain's position on or about June 16, 19 and 21, 2017, those submissions

in conjunction with her discussions surrounding those submissions and her interview by the

Town's investigator, where she expressed the facts supporting her grievances and her

understandable concern that she would be retaliated against by the Nolensville Insiders,

constituted protected speech. When her charges were filed, the retaliatory actions by Howell and

other Nolensville Insiders against the Plaintiff appeared on the surface to largely abate while that

investigation was ongoing. Upon information and belief, the Plaintiff's statements and

discussions with the Investigator during the interview were shared, directly and indirectly, with

various of the Nolensville Insiders and others before his report was issued on or about September

1, 2017. Although the Investigator had assured the Plaintiff that she would be protected from

retaliation for filing her discrimination claims, the Investigator's final report was silent as to the

implications of retaliation. Once the Investigator's report was issued, the Nolensville Insiders and

other Town officials treated this as a get-out-of-jail-free card. The various Nolensville Insiders

renewed their retaliatory actions against the Plaintiff, and against those witnesses supportive of

17

Case 3:18-cv-00773 Document 43-1 Filed 02/18/20 Page 17 of 27 PageID #: 203

her for speaking out against discriminatory conduct, with renewed vigor including ignoring her

Police Chief application, failing to consider her for that position, and allowing Howell and others to

treat her with open and obvious distain and disrespect. The Plaintiff's working conditions became so

unpleasant and intolerable that finally, in December 2017, she felt compelled to resign, a goal that

had been pursued by the Nolensville Insiders for more than six (6) months.

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

which traced back in one form or another to Plaintiff's initial recommendations for training on

harassment, 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)

3942. 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

18

Case 3:18-cv-00773 Document 43-1 Filed 02/18/20 Page 18 of 27 PageID #: 204

efficiency.

4043. 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

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.

4144. The acts of the Nolensville Insiders, and each of them, were motivated by

discriminatory animus, intending to cause harm to Plaintiff as a result of their discriminatory

misconduct, and causally related to Plaintiff's ongoing retaliation claims as well as her

constructive discharge. All such actions of the Nolensville Insiders, those taken by the Town

decision-makers as well as those actions by those without power over employment decisions but

intending to unlawfully influence the decision-makers, constituted causally related

discriminatory misconduct in violation of law which may be inputed to each of the defendants

under a Cat's Paw as well as generalized civil conspiracy theories. InThose continuing retaliatory

acts and acts 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.

19

Case 3:18-cv-00773 Document 43-1 Filed 02/18/20 Page 19 of 27 PageID #: 205

 4245. 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.

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

4346. 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.

4447. 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 CityTown 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.

20

Case 3:18-cv-00773 Document 43-1 Filed 02/18/20 Page 20 of 27 PageID #: 206

 4548. 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.

4649. Howell and the CityTown 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 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)

4750. 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.

21

Case 3:18-cv-00773 Document 43-1 Filed 02/18/20 Page 21 of 27 PageID #: 207

 4851. 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.

4952. 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.

5053. 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.

5154. 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.

5255. In each instance after the Plaintiff voiced her concerns to Nolensville officials and

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

22

Case 3:18-cv-00773 Document 43-1 Filed 02/18/20 Page 22 of 27 PageID #: 208

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.

5356. In each instance after the Plaintiff voiced her concerns of harassment,

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,

and to influence decision-makers under Cat's Paw and generalized civil conspiracy theories all

attributable to Nolensville to retaliate, 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.

5457. As a proximate result of the unlawful actions of Nolensville and its officials 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)

23

Case 3:18-cv-00773 Document 43-1 Filed 02/18/20 Page 23 of 27 PageID #: 209

 5558. 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.

5659. 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.

5760. 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

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.

5861. 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.

5962. 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

24

Case 3:18-cv-00773 Document 43-1 Filed 02/18/20 Page 24 of 27 PageID #: 210

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.

6063. 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.

6164. 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.

IV.
Prayer for Relief

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Plaintiff Cindy Strange demands judgment

against the Defendants, and each of them, in amounts to be determined and assessed, 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, for punitive damages to be set by the

trier of fact, 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.

25

Case 3:18-cv-00773 Document 43-1 Filed 02/18/20 Page 25 of 27 PageID #: 211

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

Respectfully submitted.

/s/Kenneth S. Williams
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
[email protected]
[email protected]
Attorneys for Plaintiff Cindy Strange

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I the undersigned attorney do hereby certify that I have this day served, via U.S. Mail,
hand delivery, facsimile transmission and/or by ECF filing, a true and correct copy of the
foregoing pleading upon counsel for all parties, as follows:

William N. Bates, Esq.

Farrar & Bates, LLP
211 Seventh Avenue North, Suite 500
Nashville, TN 37219
Attorneys for Defendants
Town of Nolensville and Kenneth McLawhon

D. Mark Nolan, Esq.

Dan L. Nolan, Esq.
Tracy P. Knight, Esq.
Suzanne G. Marsh, Esq.
Batson Nolan PLC
121 South 3rd Street
Clarksville, TN 37040
Attorneys for Defendant Bryan Howell

/s/ Kenneth S. Williams 2/18/2020

Attorney DATED

26

Case 3:18-cv-00773 Document 43-1 Filed 02/18/20 Page 26 of 27 PageID #: 212

 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
[email protected]
[email protected]
Attorneys for Plaintiff Cindy Strange

27

Case 3:18-cv-00773 Document 43-1 Filed 02/18/20 Page 27 of 27 PageID #: 213

Case 3:18-cv-00773 Document 43-2 Filed 02/18/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 214
Case 3:18-cv-00773 Document 43-2 Filed 02/18/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 215