Kalamazoo Township Lawsuit

Case 1:23-cv-00980-RJJ-RSK ECF No. 1, PageID.
1 Filed 09/14/23 Page 1 of 46

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
DAVID J. OBREITER Case No.

Hon.
Plaintiff,
v.
CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF KALAMAZOO;

CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF KALAMAZOO BOARD OF TRUSTEES;
board members (in their official capacities);
DEXTER A. MITCHELL, Township Manager
(In his official capacity)
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
David A. Kotwicki (P56070)
David A. Kotwicki, P.L.C
Attorneys for Plaintiff
48000 Van Dyke
Shelby Township, MI 48317
586-739-9888 (Office)
586-739-9892 (Fax)
[email protected]
______________________________________________________________________________
There is no other civil action between these parties arising out of the same transaction or
occurrence as alleged in this complaint pending in this court, nor has any such action been previously filed
and dismissed or transferred after having been assigned to a judge, nor do I know of any other civil action,
not between these parties, arising out of the same transaction or occurrence as alleged in this complaint
that is either pending or was previously filed and dismissed, transferred, or otherwise disposed of after
having been assigned to a judge in this court.
COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff David J. Obreiter, by and through his attorneys, David A. Kotwicki, P.L.C, alleges and avers the
following:
pg. 1 COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND - DAVID J. OBREITER v. CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF KALAMAZOO;
CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF KALAMAZOO BOARD OF TRUSTEES; board members (in their official capacities);
DEXTER A. MITCHELL, Township Manager (in his official capacity)
Case 1:23-cv-00980-RJJ-RSK ECF No. 1, PageID.2 Filed 09/14/23 Page 2 of 46
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Plaintiff David Obreiter, former Fire Chief of Defendant Charter Township of Kalamazoo, is a dedicated
public servant who has served his country, and community, with distinction and integrity. He was falsely
accused, and ultimately terminated, for failure to investigate employee claims of workplace harassment. He was
utterly deprived of anything approaching a fair opportunity to defend himself, as the Defendant Township,
spearheaded by its Township Manager, Defendant Dexter Mitchell, directed an investigation, which, while
purportedly independent, was wholly outcome determinative, as Plaintiff was denied any meaningful opportunity
to participate, subjected to a hostile and abusive interrogation, and deprived of crucial evidence required to defend
himself. The investigation, and pre-termination hearing process, was a sham. From the onset of the Township’s
investigation, up to the date of his sudden termination without warning, it was amply clear that Plaintiff was
presumed guilty. Plaintiff did his best to assert his rights, and protect his career and reputation, having been
publicly shamed in the press by a Township Trustee. However, Plaintiff’s efforts to secure a fair-post termination
process, geared toward reinstating his career and reputation, were ultimately rebuffed. As such, Plaintiff was
wholly deprived Due Process, and indeed, his sacred Presumption of Innocence. He brings this action to rectify
these grave injustices.
PARTIES, JURISDICTION & VENUE
1. Plaintiff, David J. Obreiter (“Plaintiff”), resides in Kalamazoo, Kalamazoo County, Michigan.
2. Defendant, CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF KALAMAZOO (“Defendant Township”) is the public body of
local government that employed Plaintiff, and which made the decision to terminate his employment based
on false and unfounded allegations that he failed to investigate allegations of workplace harassment.
3. Defendant Dexter A. Mitchell (“Defendant Mitchell”) is the Township Manager of Defendant Township,
who spearheaded and directed the investigation into false allegations against Plaintiff, wholly denied him
any semblance of Due Process, presumed him guilty, and terminated his employment. He is being sued in
his official and individual capacities.
4. Defendant CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF KALAMAZOO BOARD OF TRUSTEES (“Defendant Board”)
ultimately ratified the actions taken against Plaintiff in termination of his employment, as, although he was
granted a “Name-Clearing” hearing, and presented evidence in support of his exoneration and
reinstatement before them in an approximately three-hour presentation which occurred on December 5,
2022, ultimately, no formal decision was issued – thus ratifying Plaintiff’s termination, and the due
process deprivations which led to it.
5. The events described in this lawsuit arise out of Plaintiff’s employment with the Charter Township of
Kalamazoo (“Defendant Township” and took place in Kalamazoo County.
6. The federal claims asserted in this lawsuit are based on violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
7. The state claims asserted in this lawsuit are for mandamus under MCL § MCL 600.4401 et seq.
8. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over federal claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and over state
law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
9. Venue lies within the Western District of Michigan pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, as it is the district in
which the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims took place.
10. The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
11. Plaintiff David J. Obreiter (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) is fifty-two (52) years old.
12. Plaintiff was born and raised in Kalamazoo, Michigan. Plaintiff has spent his life and career in the service
of his country and local community, chiefly in Fire Service.
13. Plaintiff’s passion for Fire Service began at a young age, as a Boy Scout, then Eagle Scout.
14. Earning a fire service merit badge, Plaintiff subsequently joined the Explorer Scouts for (for Scouts aged
17-21), and through that program earned his State of Michigan Firefighter certification, at the age of
seventeen (17).
15. Taking full advantage of this opportunity, at seventeen (17) years old, Plaintiff applied for employment
with the Charter Township of Kalamazoo, as an “on-call” Firefighter.
16. Plaintiff was hired and served honorably in this capacity, earning substantial additional Fire Service
experience.
17. Plaintiff served as an “on-call” Firefighter for the Township on a continual basis (excepting his four-year
period of active duty in the Air Force, see below Infra) until ultimately, he was hired by the Township as
its Fire Chief in 2009.
18. Taking the next logical step on his path of service, Plaintiff served extensively in our country’s military,
serving four years in the United States Air Force, and seventeen years in the United States Air National
Guard.
19. Plaintiff’s passion for fire service continued to grow during his Air Force Service and he obtained
numerous nationally recognized certifications in Fire Service while serving.
20. Due to Plaintiff’s commitment and expertise, he served in a Fire Service capacity throughout his military
career, both in the Air Force and Air National Guard, including multiple extensive overseas deployments
(Honduras, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Iraq) and provided direct fire service support alongside the fire
service personnel of the host country.
21. Plaintiff served our country effectively in this capacity, in large part, due to his cultural sensitivity and
attunement while serving overseas.
22. Plaintiff ultimately earned an Honorable Discharge and full military retirement.
23. After Plaintiff’s four-year active-duty term of service in the Air Force was completed, while remaining
part of the Air National Guard, in line with his commitment, he sought and obtained further public service
employment, with the State of Michigan.
24. Plaintiff served the State of Michigan, again as a Firefighter, stationed at the Battle Creek Air National
Guard Base.
25. During Plaintiff’s employment with the State, he continued his Fire Service education, earning numerous
certifications through the Department of Defense (DOD) Fire and Emergency Services Academy.
26. Plaintiff was employed with the State of Michigan for fifteen years, achieving a stellar record of service,
and ultimately earning his retirement at the rank of Supervisor and retiring in 2009.
27. In early 2009, while he still employed by the State of Michigan, the Air National Guard deployed Plaintiff
to Iraq, to serve a six-month deployment, as Fire Marshal at Sather Air Base, located at Baghdad
International Airport.
28. During this deployment, Plaintiff learned an opportunity had opened to become Fire Chief serving the
Charter Township of Kalamazoo.
29. Having lived in Kalamazoo all his life, and having served the community throughout, this opportunity
would allow Plaintiff to come full circle on his path of service; indeed, serving as Fire Chief for the
Township was the culmination of his lifelong dream1. Plaintiff applied, interviewed, and ultimately
earned the position and was hired on October 14, 2009.
PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYMENT AS FIRE CHIEF BY THE CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF

KALAMAZOO – DILIGENT, ETHICAL, AND STEADFAST
30. Plaintiff served the Charter Township of Kalamazoo as its Fire Chief for almost thirteen (13) years, from
October 14, 2009, until the date of his termination, September 14, 2022.
31. As Fire Chief for the Charter Township of Kalamazoo, Plaintiff was responsible for the overall
management and supervision of four fire stations, consisting of approximately sixty-five (65) personnel --
Ranking Subordinate Officers (after Plaintiff, the chain of command consisted of Deputy Fire Chief
Michael Weidemann, Battalion Chief Jairus Baird, and Battalion Chief Matt Mulac), supported by ten
(10) part-time command officers (i.e., Assistant chiefs, Captains, Lieutenants), and approximately sixty
(50) firefighters (consisting of eight (8) full & fifty (40) part-time employed firefighters).
1
Indeed, he shared his passion at the age of sixteen, with the son of then-Fire Chief Jack Gould, who became his friend while
working together in a restaurant.
32. At all times during his service as Fire Chief, Plaintiff consistently demonstrated commitment, expertise,
attention to detail, and level-headedness leading the Department, irrespective of the gravity of the fire
emergency, personnel situation, or otherwise.
33. At all times during his service as Fire Chief, Plaintiff consistently demonstrated commitment to ongoing
training and education, both for himself, and within the department.
34. For example, in 2011 Plaintiff earned an Associate’s degree in Fire Science, at Kalamazoo Valley
Community College, despite the same not being required.
35. Additionally, Plaintiff spearheaded implementation of numerous Fire Service education programs within
the Department, emphasizing the dual principles of safety and readiness.
36. Moreover, Plaintiff continually requested additional training / educational programs be procured /
provided by Defendant Charter Township of Kalamazoo for the Fire Department, most notably, regarding
prevention of discrimination and/or harassment in the workplace, and investigation of discrimination
and/or harassment claims in the workplace.
37. In his role as a supervisor and manager, Plaintiff recognized the necessity of both a unified and
complementary team, and an environment in which his subordinates could feel comfortable bringing
issues and concerns to his attention.
38. Recognizing that fire service is unavoidably stressful, Plaintiff brought a calm, friendly, and approachable
demeanor to his role.
39. In sum, Plaintiff diligently and ethically served the Township of Kalamazoo as Fire Chief, which formed
the core of his identity, and provided his livelihood.
Plaintiff is notified of allegations of Inappropriate Treatment made by a Female Firefighter --

Directed at her by a Male Firefighter – He Promptly Directs and Supervises an Investigation in
Accordance with Charter Township of Kalamazoo Personnel Policies, Fire Department Standard
Operating Guidelines (“SOG”s), and his Training – Plaintiff Directs Prompt and Appropriate
Remedial Action – Discipline of the Offending firefighter coupled with Appropriate Notification to
the Reporting firefighter -- No Further Incidents are Reported.
40. On the morning of December 4, 2019, Plaintiff (who was working in his office in the Main Township
Offices) was contacted by phone by his subordinate officer, Battalion Chief Matt Mulac (who was the
Officer in Charge at the Eastwood Fire Station, directly supervising approximately twenty (20)
firefighters).
41. Battalion Chief Mulac notified Plaintiff that a female firefighter, whom he directly supervised, had
verbally reported allegations of inappropriate treatment directed at her by a male firefighter also stationed
at Eastwood.
42. Battalion Chief Mulac briefed Plaintiff concerning the circumstances of the verbal report made by the
reporting firefighter, notifying Plaintiff that she had reported numerous concerns regarding the treatment
directed at her.
43. Battalion Chief Mulac also advised Plaintiff that he had requested that the reporting firefighter document
her concerns in writing, due to the number of allegations she reported to him, to ensure that all concerns
were investigated and addressed in a thorough and appropriate fashion.
44. Battalion Chief Mulac did not inform Plaintiff of the specifics of any of the allegations reported to him
during this initial conversation.
45. Plaintiff directed Battalion Chief Mulac to notify him when the reporting firefighter had presented her
written documentation of concerns.
46. Plaintiff also advised Battalion Chief Mulac to promptly review the written documentation with the
reporting firefighter when she presented it to him, determine what she was alleging, and what she
requested to have done to resolve her concerns.
47. Later that afternoon (approximately 6 hours later), Battalion Chief Mulac (while at the Eastwood Fire
Station) phoned Plaintiff and advised him that the reporting firefighter had presented the document to him.
Battalion Chief Mulac further advised Plaintiff that he reviewed and discussed the report, which consisted
of just under three pages, with the reporting firefighter at the time she presented it. (See Exhibit 1 – First
Incident Report, dated 12.4.19)

48. At Plaintiff’s direction, a meeting between himself and Battalion Chief Mulac occurred immediately
thereafter at the Eastwood Fire Station.
49. During this meeting, Battalion Chief Mulac provided Plaintiff with a copy of the document, and the two of
them reviewed and discussed it in great detail.
50. During this meeting, Plaintiff developed a plan of action to promptly investigate and address the
allegations, based upon his understanding of the applicable Charter Township of Kalamazoo policies and
procedures, and the Fire Department Chain of Command and Standard Operating Guidelines (“SOGs”) in
place at the time. (See Exhibit 2 - Standard Operating Guidelines)
51. At this point, Plaintiff directed Battalion Chief Mulac to promptly interview the witnesses listed in the
reporting firefighter’s Incident Report, along with any other employees that may have witnessed the
incidents, and to then promptly report back to him.
52. Plaintiff also advised Battalion Chief Mulac that this investigation was the main department priority,
second to nothing other than emergency responses.
53. Upon information and belief, Battalion Chief Mulac promptly followed Plaintiff’s directive, and
interviewed all relevant individuals as directed2, within the scope of his professional judgment, informed
by his understanding of applicable policies and procedures.
54. Later that afternoon, Battalion Chief Mulac phoned Plaintiff (who was still working at the Main Township
Offices) and informed him that his interviews were completed and that he had obtained all information
available at the time.
55. At this point, Plaintiff promptly drove to Eastwood Fire Station, and met with Battalion Chief Mulac to
meet and discuss the results of the interviews, in conjunction with further review of the written report, and
discuss potential options regarding further action to be taken. This meeting lasted approximately an hour.
2
Every named witness was questioned, and there is no evidence to suggest that any of the interviews were of a cursory nature,
prematurely, or inappropriately curtailed.
56. Plaintiff understood, based upon his training, that the key policies governing the situation were the Fire
Department Standard Operating Guidelines, particularly SOG #3 in conjunction with the 2014 version of
the Charter Township of Kalamazoo Personnel Policy.
57. Plaintiff concluded that the essence of the investigation’s findings were that inappropriate behavior had
been directed at the reporting firefighter by the accused firefighter.
58. However, Plaintiff also concluded that the accounts provided by the witnesses were consistent, to the
effect that the accused firefighter’s actions, while inappropriate, occurred in the context of back and forth
jesting interaction with the reporting firefighter, and only rose to the level of inappropriate “horseplay”
(set forth as a type of conduct in SOG#3), as opposed to more serious violations, such as sexual
harassment and/or assault and battery.
59. Therefore, Plaintiff determined that pursuant to SOG#3, sufficient evidence had been gathered to take
disciplinary action against the accused firefighter but did not rise to the level which would warrant
suspension or termination.3
60. Plaintiff also determined that Guidance needed to be issued to the reporting firefighter concerning steps
she should take in the event similar incidents occurred in the future, to ensure she promptly reported
them, providing opportunity for prompt investigation.
61. In sum, Plaintiff determined the following actions to be necessary:’
a. That the employee identified as the accused needed to be notified immediately, in writing, that his
actions were not welcome, and that they needed to immediately stop;
b. That the employee that made the report needed to be promptly notified that the accused firefighter
had been spoken to in serious fashion, that no future problems were expected, and also, reminded
of the importance of promptly reporting any future incidents, and directions regarding the reporting
procedure.4
3
Upon information and belief, the reporting firefighter had directly requested to Battalion Chief Mulac that the offending
firefighter be notified in writing that his actions were inappropriate – this was done.
4
At the time of her First Incident Report, many of the incidents that the reporting firefighter had reported had occurred over
the previous six months.
62. Plaintiff then directed that Battalion Chief Mulac prepare drafts of the documentation determined to be
warranted, and them to his attention for review via email.
63. The next morning, December 5, 2019, when Plaintiff arrived at his office, he checked his email and
determined that two separate draft documents had been emailed to him, which he promptly reviewed on
his computer.
64. After reviewing both documents, Plaintiff called Battalion Chief Mulac to discuss them, and advised him
that both documents needed to include substantially more detail.
65. During this call, focusing first on the documentation to be provided to the accused firefighter, Plaintiff
advised more detail needed to be provided regarding: the alleged offending conduct, the applicable
Township Policy and Procedure and Fire Department Standard Operating Guidelines (“SOGs”), and a
clear directive to cease any conduct which negatively effects other employees.
66. During this call, next focusing on the documentation to be provided to the reporting firefighter, Plaintiff
advised that more detail needed to be provided informing her: that her report had been received, that
witnesses had been interviewed, and that the accused firefighter been spoken to, and advised that his
actions were unacceptable and were expected to immediately cease.
67. After Plaintiff conveyed the above-described crucial points, he and Battalion Chief Mulac worked to
revise the draft memorandums, with Plaintiff providing the substantial majority of revisions, considerably
strengthening their clarity and emphasis of key points.
68. Ultimately, final memorandums were completed which Plaintiff determined were appropriate to present to
and discuss with both firefighters, and he directed that Battalion Chief Mulac promptly do so, and then
report back to him.
69. Upon information and belief, Battalion Chief Mulac did so, and reported to Plaintiff that:
a. The accused firefighter (who he spoke with that same day, December 5, 2019) was notified that he
was receiving disciplinary action and was provided the Memorandum (See Exhibit 3 -
Disciplinary Notice Issued December 5, 2019). He signed the same, copies were made, and he was
provided a copy and notified that the original would be placed in his personnel file.
b. The reporting firefighter (who he spoke with on December 9, 2019, commensurate with her
determination of availability upon request) was read the memorandum (See Exhibit 4 -“Memo of
Response” Issued December 5, 2019), notified that the accused firefighter had been “spoken with
in great depth regarding this matter[,]” and also notified that “[f]ollowing our conversations, I
[Battalion Chief Mulac] do not anticipate any future instances to take place.”
She was also notified that the memorandum to her was not disciplinary and was strongly
encouraged to promptly report any further offending conduct directed at her and provided
direction regarding the procedure for any future reports, inclusive of individuals to whom she
should report. In turn, she signed the same, copies were made, and she was provided with a copy.
70. After the Memorandums were presented by Battalion Chief Mulac as set forth above, he provided Plaintiff
with the signed originals, and Plaintiff took them, in a manila folder to the Township Offices, and
presented them, in the folder to HR Director Molly Cole, and advised her that the documents were to be
placed in the individuals’ respective personnel files.
71. The above-described actions were directed, supervised, and conducted by Plaintiff in accordance with the
then-applicable Township Policies and Procedures and Fire Department Standard Operating Guidelines
(“SOGs”) and informed by his training as provided by the Charter Township of Kalamazoo to that point,
and by his professional experience and judgment.
72. In sum, as soon as Plaintiff was notified that the reporting firefighter had conveyed her allegations and
concerns to Battalion Chief Mulac, he diligently directed and supervised the implementation of prompt
and appropriate remedial action.
73. To Plaintiff’s understanding, the actions he directed to be taken were effective, as no further incidents
were ever reported to him again, by the reporting firefighter or anyone else.
The reporting firefighter makes a second verbal report to Battalion Chief Mulac which Plaintiff
promptly addresses in accordance with Defendant Charter Township of Kalamazoo’s Policy and
Procedure.
74. On or about May 28, 2021, the reporting firefighter made a second verbal report to Battalion Chief
Mulac, expressing her concerns regarding Battalion Chief Mulac’s supervision and management of
Eastwood Fire Station.
75. Upon information and belief, the reporting firefighter’s concerns did not involve the type of conduct
which had allegedly been directed at her by the accused firefighter, which she documented in her First
Incident Report, and which had been fully investigated and addressed.
76. That day, Battalion Chief Mulac reported this second interaction with the reporting firefighter, and the
concerns she relayed, to Plaintiff.
77. At Plaintiff’s instruction, Battalion Chief Mulac issued a memorandum, titled "Record of Conversation”
to the reporting firefighter via the internal TexCom system, outlining their discussion, and her options
regarding reporting further issues. (See Exhibit 5 - "Record of Conversation”, dated May 28, 2021),
thus ensuring that the reporting firefighter was aware of multiple avenues to report any future concerns
she may have had.
78. No further concerns were brought to Plaintiff’s attention by the reporting firefighter and, upon
information and belief, she brought no further concerns to the attention of Battalion Chief Mulac either.
The Reporting Firefighter approaches Township Trustee Ashley Glass and requests a meeting to
discuss her working environment. Defendant Township Manager Dexter Mitchell attends and
directs the meeting. Numerous additional allegations, spanning a three year period, are presented,
discussed, then documented in a lengthy Second Incident Report.
79. Upon information and belief, on or about late January 2022, the reporting firefighter contacted Township
Trustee Glass, Township Trustee (hereinafter “Trustee Glass”), and requested to meet with her to discuss
her experiences, and concerns which she had, regarding working in the Fire Department.
80. Upon information and belief, Trustee Glass asked her if Defendant Charter Township of Kalamazoo’s
Township Manager, Defendant Dexter Mitchell (hereinafter “Defendant Mitchell”)5, could attend the
meeting.
81. Upon information and belief, neither Trustee Glass nor Defendant Mitchell asked her if Plaintiff could
attend the meeting.
82. Plaintiff was not informed of the pending meeting, nor that the reporting firefighter had reported any
concerns to Trustee Glass and/or Defendant Mitchell.
83. Upon information and belief, the meeting occurred on or about February 1, 2023, at a local coffee shop,
during which the reporting firefighter communicated a series of alleged events, which spanned an
approximately three-year timeframe, from 2019-2022.
84. Upon information and belief, at the conclusion of the meeting, Defendant Mitchell asked the reporting
firefighter to forward any written reports she had previously prepared regarding the alleged events to
Trustee Glass and himself.
85. Additionally, upon information and belief, Defendant Mitchell asked her to prepare an additional report,
summarizing the alleged events which had been reported during the meeting.
86. Again, upon information and belief, Defendant Mitchell asked the reporting firefighter to provide this
new report, once prepared, to Trustee Glass and himself.
87. Upon information and belief, a little over two weeks later, on or about February 18, 2022, the reporting
firefighter presented a second report, (consisting of eleven single-spaced pages, spanning an
approximately two and ½ year timeframe). (See Exhibit 6 - Second Incident Report, dated 2.18.22)6
The Second Incident Report is exponentially lengthier and more detailed than the first, addresses
numerous incidents which had not been reported at the time of Plaintiff’s original investigation,
and is replete with detail concerning incidents which had been.
88. In stark contrast to the First Incident Report of 12.4.19, the Second Incident Report is expansive, and
meticulously detailed, almost four times as long, despite having been submitted more than two years after
the First Incident Report.
89. Numerous allegations are made by the reporting Firefighter in the Second Report, which are not even
mentioned in the First Report. For example:
a. Theaccused firefighter told her she was “hot” in front of colleagues.
6
Note, upon information and belief, there was also third report produced, of approximately five pages, which was produced
subsequent to the February 1, 2022 meeting, but again, substantially revised and expanded.
b. The accused firefighter attempted to bar her from being at the fire station.
c. The accused firefighter yelling at her, and then leaving the station in the presence of Battalion
Chief Mulac, who allegedly told her “… not to have expectations of anyone at the station”.
d. Battalion Chief Mulac telling her that she should not be thinking that she had “ownership” of the
station.
e. The accused firefighter “lying” and Battalion Chief Mulac believed him.
f. Accusing Captain Chad Baker of objecting to her speaking Spanish.7
g. The accused firefighter allowing a female paramedic to wear his turnout gear and taking pictures.
h. The accused firefighter repeatedly drove by the station and made noise with his car to bother her.
i. The accused firefighter yelled at her that the parking lot was his.
j. The accused firefighter “sticking his head” in the room where she was located.
k. Battalion Chief Mulac telling her that multiple firefighters’ contributions to the department
combined did not equate to those of the accused firefighter.
l. Battalion Chief Mulac referring to the accused firefighter as “Papa (first name),” which she
believed to be an insult directed at her.
m. Battalion Chief Mulac telling her that she should not “burn her bridges.”
n. Battalion Chief Mulac behaving in a hostile manner toward subordinate employees.
o. Battalion Chief Mulac telling that her none of the employees could meet his standards.
p. The reporting firefighter alleging that after she submitted her First Incident Report, the accused
firefighter continued to yell at and intimidate her.
90. Of the above-described incidents set forth in Paragraph 92 above, none were brought to the attention of
Plaintiff in any way, shape or form.
91. Moreover, there was never an allegation made by the reporting Firefighter that Plaintiff behaved
inappropriately, or that he was unapproachable or unresponsive regarding her reporting of allegations in
any way.
7
Note, upon information and belief, Battalion Chief Mulac did address this issue, directing the employees of Eastwood Fire
Station to stop telling others not to speak Spanish.
92. Additionally, there are several examples of much more detailed depictions of incidents which were
reported in the First Incident Report in cursory fashion, exponentially increasing the ease with which they
could have been investigated.
93. Moreover, there are also numerous factual inaccuracies and contradictions between the First Incident
Report and the Second Incident report, which go to the reasonableness of the actions Plaintiff took at the
time of his original investigation, including:
a. The reporting firefighter claiming there was no follow up, or consequences for the accused
firefighter’s behavior – This is not accurate, as the allegations presented were investigated,
discipline was issued to the accused firefighter, and the reporting firefighter was provided a Memo
summarizing the steps taken and providing guidance for future reports. That discipline was issued
was not shared with the reporting firefighter, as Plaintiff understood that doing so would not be
appropriate per Kalamazoo Township Policy concerning confidentiality.
b. The reporting firefighter claims that harassing behavior continued through the end of 2021.
However, she reported no further incidents after Plaintiff’s directing the investigation of her
original allegations, despite having been provided detailed guidance regarding further reporting
procedure.
94. The only further report of which Plaintiff was aware occurred on May 28, 2021, when the reporting
firefighter met with Battalion Chief Mulac to discuss concerns related to his supervision, and issues
involving her co-workers at Station 2. These were never presented in writing.
95. After the meeting, Battalion Chief Mulac reported to Plaintiff what had been discussed. Plaintiff
determined that it was important to document this report and further advise the reporting firefighter of
protocol to utilize in further reporting. This was done immediately, via the internal Texcom system. (See
Exhibit 5 - "Record of Conversation”, dated May 28, 2021)
96. In her Second Incident Report, the reporting firefighter asserts that it would be a “conflict of interest
reporting concerns to Chief Obreiter about Battalion Chief Mulac, if they are close professionally and
personally,” and that she “doubts that if she had made a complaint due to her incident with (the accused
firefighter), anything would have been done.”
97. However, there is no evidence that Plaintiff engaged in a pattern of favorable treatment toward Battalion
Chief Mulac, nor that had the reporting firefighter reported an issue to him concerning Battalion Chief
Mulac that he would have failed to act upon it.8
98. In stark contrast to the First Incident Report, the Second Incident Report contains extensive allegations of
discrimination, including:
a. Referring to “Racist Interactions from Coworkers.”
b. Alleging “Racism has continued”
c. Alleging “People who have been racist … and not taking me seriously when I presented these
concerns” (Presumably, Battalion Chief Mulac and Plaintiff)
99. Again, Plaintiff never had access to the Second Incident Report at the time he conducted his investigation,
which he conducted in accordance with Defendant Charter Township of Kalamazoo’s Policy and
Procedure, Fire Department Standard Operating Guidelines (“SOG’s”), and the training he received, based
on the information available, or reasonably available, at the time.
Plaintiff is abruptly, and falsely, accused of failure to investigate allegations of harassment, and is
subjected to a sham, cursory investigation, featuring an ambush-style interrogation, and no
meaningful opportunity to present exonerating evidence, geared toward a preconceived outcome –
his termination.
100. On the morning of Monday, February 28, 2022, Defendant Dexter Mitchell, in his capacity as
Township Manager, asked Plaintiff if he had any time to talk that day. Plaintiff advised of his availability,
and a time to meet was set for 2:00 pm.
101. Defendant Mitchell provided no indication of the purpose of the meeting.
102. At approximately 1:50 pm, Defendant Mitchell and Gerald Alexander, a Private Investigator
retained by the Charter Township of Kalamazoo, whom Plaintiff had never met, arrived at his office door
8
Additionally, the Texcom Message, sent as a follow-up to the meeting the reporting rirefighter requested with Battalion Chief
Mulac addresses this very concern, as it presents two reporting alternatives for her - directing her to report to Deputy Chief
Weidemann or Plaintiff. No reports were made either individual.
at the Township Offices, and Defendant Mitchell advised him that they would like to talk to him in the
large conference room.
103. Plaintiff grabbed his meeting notepad from his desk and followed them across the hall to the room.
Defendant Mitchell briefly introduced Plaintiff to Mr. Alexander.
104. At this point, Investigator Alexander advised Plaintiff that they were there to investigate a “Hostile
Work Environment Complaint” made by a fire department employee.
105. Investigator Alexander advised Plaintiff that the complaint was twelve pages long, and was full of
disparaging information about himself, Battalion Chief Mulac, and the operations of the fire department.
106. At this point, Defendant Mitchell read Plaintiff a Garrity9 rights warning and advised him that this
was an administrative investigation. Defendant Mitchell, while remaining present, then turned the floor
over to Investigator Alexander.
107. Investigator Alexander, possessing what appeared to be a written outline, immediately began
interrogating Plaintiff, in an aggressive and hostile fashion, marked by an elevated vocal tone which often
devolved into yelling.
108. Investigator Alexander continually referred to the alleged 12-page complaint and appeared to be
randomly questioning Plaintiff concerning allegations in it.
109. While Plaintiff does not recall the exact allegations he was questioned on, due to his increased
anxiety caused by Investigator Alexander’s hostile and aggressive tone, he made it unequivocally clear
that he had never heard of the majority of the incidents in question.
110. Shockingly, Plaintiff was never allowed, despite repeatedly requesting the same, to review the
alleged 12-page Complaint; Thus, he was deprived of any reasonable opportunity to gather his thoughts
9
Garrity Rights protect public employees from being compelled to incriminate themselves during investigatory interviews conducted
by their employers. This protection stems from the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. See, e.g., Garrity Rights -
Garrityrights.org
and attempt to refresh his recollection concerning allegations which were at that point approximately two
and a half years old, and review those which were entirely new to him.
111. Again, Investigator Alexander spoke in a loud, accusatory manner during the entire Interrogation.
112. Plaintiff repeatedly tried, to no avail, to deescalate the tone in order to allow for a two-sided
discussion.
113. However, when it was apparent his de-escalation efforts had no effect, Plaintiff adopted a firmer
tone, hoping Investigator Alexander would listen. Nonetheless, his hostile tone only escalated.
114. At one point, Investigator Alexander pointed his finger directly at Plaintiff and yelled:
• “You knew about it! And You Did Nothing!!”
115. This abusive tone continued for approximately 30 minutes. Despite this unwarranted,
unprofessional, barrage of hostility by the investigator, Plaintiff kept his composure, and calmly
responded, clarifying:
a. That he was familiar with some of the alleged incidents
b. That there had been an investigation conducted
c. That a three-page incident report had been submitted by the reporting firefighter, at the request of
Battalion Chief Mulac.
d. That the allegations had been investigated, inclusive of witnesses being interviewed.
e. That written Disciplinary Documentation had been issued to the accused firefighter, and
f. Non-Disciplinary Documentation summarizing the investigation, and providing guidance for future
reporting of allegations, had been issued to the reporting firefighter.
116. In response, Investigator Alexander, seemingly stunned, admitted that he had no knowledge of the
First Incident Report, the Disciplinary Notice issued to the accused firefighter, or the Guidance
Documentation issued to the reporting firefighter back in 2019.
117. Shocked that the assigned Investigator was wholly unaware of the existence of the central
documentation in the matter, yet was yelling conclusory accusations at him, Plaintiff, wanting to ensure
that the Investigator had an accurate picture of what action he had taken, offered to immediately walk to
his office, a few doors away, and obtain copies.
118. Inexplicably, Investigator Alexander stated: “That won’t be necessary at this time.” and advised
Plaintiff that he had no further questions.
119. The interrogation meeting lasted approximately an hour, during which Plaintiff was neither
advised of details of any of the allegations, nor allowed to ask any questions.
120. At the conclusion of the bombastic Interrogation, Investigator Alexander opined that the matter,
“Had Wheels and Could Go Someplace,” and, that it would be “Embarrassing for You Guys When It
Hits the Newspapers.”
121. In sum, Plaintiff was wholly deprived of Due Process during the Interrogation:
a. He was provided no notice that he would be interrogated, the contemplated subject matter, or any
opportunity to prepare.
b. He was provided no documents for review prior to, or during the interrogation, most notably, the
alleged 12-page Complaint.10
c. He requested but was denied the opportunity to promptly retrieve crucial documentation, which
would have substantiated his promptly investigating and issuing disciplinary and explanatory
documentation to the principal parties.11
d. The questioning itself was hostile, loud, aggressive, and intimidating, giving Plaintiff little time to
reflect, gather his thoughts, attempt to discern what he was being accused of, and answer
intelligibly.
122. Defendant Mitchell, in his role of spearheading and directing the investigation, wholly approved,
condoned and sanctioned this hostile and aggressive approach, with no regard whatsoever to Plaintiff’s
Due Process rights -as such, Plaintiff was provided no meaningful opportunity to defend himself.
10
The document was ultimately produced to Counsel, on July 13, 2022, but the objectivity of any examination concerning the
same was already ruined, and thus, the investigation is irreparably tainted.
11
This willful and deliberate indifference to exonerating evidence on the part of the Investigator serves as a powerful inference in
support of Plaintiff’s position – The investigation’s outcome was preconceived, geared toward finding multiple serious violations on
his part, irrespective of the evidence.
123. At the conclusion of the meeting, Defendant Mitchell ordered Plaintiff not to discuss the matter
with anyone, which although premised to protect confidentiality, as a practical matter, severely impaired
Plaintiff from gathering exculpatory information.
124. Over the course of the next several months, despite feeling that he had already been presumed
guilty of serious allegations without having had a meaningful understanding of what he was accused of,
much less an opportunity to defend himself, Plaintiff cooperated fully in follow up communications with
Defendant Mitchell, Investigator Alexander, and the Township’s legal counsel as they continued the
investigation.
125. During this timeframe, Plaintiff did his best to provide information to demonstrate that the actions
he had taken were wholly appropriate and warranted by Kalamazoo Township and Fire Department Policy
and Procedure.
126. On March 1, 2022, Investigator Alexander interviewed Battalion Chief Mulac, and Plaintiff, as his
supervisor, was directed to advise him of his Garrity rights, then leave the meeting.
127. Upon information and belief, during this approximately two-hour meeting, Battalion Chief Mulac
provided Investigator Alexander with a copy of the reporting firefighter’s First Incident Report, as well as
unsigned copies of the written Memorandums issued to both firefighters.
128. After the meeting was concluded, Plaintiff briefly met with Investigator Alexander, who provided
him with a list of approximately twelve (12) people that he wished to interview in his investigation. He
directed Plaintiff to gather employee contact information for him, and coordinate employee schedules for
the interviews.
129. During this brief meeting, Plaintiff witnessed a phone call between Investigator Alexander and
Defendant Mitchell, wherein Investigator Alexander stated that copies of the documentation had been
provided.
130. At this point, Plaintiff clearly heard Defendant Mitchell asking Investigator Alexander if he was
sure that Plaintiff and/or Battalion Chief Mulac hadn’t simply typed up the documents twenty minutes
before he arrived.
131. Plaintiff was shocked that Defendant Mitchell had so clearly presumed him guilty, to the point that
he would make the accusation that he would fabricate documents which he had already offered (and was
refused) to promptly provide during his own interrogation.
132. At this point Investigator Alexander advised Defendant Mitchell that he was on his way to the
Township Offices to discuss the investigation with him further.
133. Plaintiff returned to his own office, also at the Township Offices, and did his best to focus on his
work.
134. Approximately 45 minutes later, Plaintiff heard Defendant Mitchell and Investigator Alexander
leaving the building.
135. Approximately 10 minutes thereafter, Defendant Mitchell entered Plaintiff’s office, holding a
pistol in a case, and told Plaintiff he wanted to show it to him, because he knew Plaintiff liked guns.
136. Defendant Mitchell then opened the case and handed the pistol to Plaintiff.
137. Stunned given the circumstances, Plaintiff did his best to remain calm, cleared the pistol to ensure
it was not loaded, aimed it in a safe direction, then handed it back to Defendant Mitchell with the
magazine removed.
138. Defendant Mitchell then made some small talk with Plaintiff and left his office.
139. On March 1, 2022, Plaintiff met with Investigator Alexander to discuss the list of witnesses that he
had requested to interview. Plaintiff provided him with a list of contact numbers for each person and had
scheduled the listed individuals for interviews on the dates Investigator Alexander had requested, a three-
day span covering a Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.
140. Upon information and belief, during the three day interview process, the Offending Firefighter
provided a copy of his signed Disciplinary Memorandum to Investigator Alexander.

141. On or about March 5, 2022, after the Witness Interviews were completed, Investigator Alexander
directed Plaintiff and Battalion Chief Mulac prepare a joint document, setting forth what the steps the two
of them took in investigating the allegations made by the reporting firefighter from the moment they
became aware of allegations.
142. They promptly did so, and produced a document and submitted the document on March 9, 2022
(See Exhibit 7 - “Response to Request for Information Regarding Investigation”)
143. Additionally, ostensibly as part of the investigation, Defendant Mitchell required Plaintiff to
accompany him in searching the Township personnel files, to determine whether copies of the
documentation issued to the two Firefighters had been placed in their personnel files - no copies of the
documents were found in either employee’s personnel file.
144. Shortly thereafter, Investigator Alexander advised Plaintiff that Defendant Mitchell had called the
former Executive Administrative Assistant Ms. Molly Cole, and that she advised him that she did not
recall seeing them. Investigator Alexander also relayed that Defendant Mitchell stated that Ms. Cole
would have remembered the documents, since her daughter had a similar experience.
145. Nonetheless, on or about mid-December 2019, contemporaneous with their issuance, Plaintiff had
given the documents, which were confidential, to the Executive Assistant, in a manila folder with
directions that they be filed in the applicable personnel files.
146. During the week of March 14, 2022, Plaintiff reached out to Defendant Mitchell 3-4 times, to ask if
there were any updates on the status of the investigation.
147. Defendant Mitchell advised Plaintiff that there were no updates and that the information was
attorney/client privileged, so he could not discuss anything with him, despite his having repeatedly, yet
selectively, involved Plaintiff in the investigation.
148. On or about March 28, 2022, Battalion Chief Mulac found copies of the signed documents issued
to both firefighters and notified Plaintiff.
149. Plaintiff promptly notified Investigator Alexander, promptly met with Investigator Alexander and
Defendant Mitchell, and provided the documents.
150. Investigator Alexander copied the documents and provided the original copies to Defendant
Mitchell to place in the respective employee personnel files.
151. Upon information and belief, during early April, 2022, Defendant Mitchell and Investigator
Alexander continued to conduct meetings with various individuals within the Department.
152. On or about Tuesday, April 12, 2022, Plaintiff was ordered by Defendant Mitchell to report to the
Township’s Labor and Employment Attorney’s office, located in Kalamazoo, on Friday, April 15 at 10:30
am.
153. Plaintiff asked Defendant Mitchell if there were any details that were to be discussed so he could
be prepared for the meeting; Defendant Mitchell advised him that were no details available.
154. Plaintiff arrived at the attorney’s office on April 15th at the assigned time; present were the
attorney and Defendant Mitchell. Plaintiff was questioned by the attorney for approximately two hours, in
an interrogation style akin to a deposition.
155. The meeting lasted approximately two hours, but yet again, Plaintiff was not allowed to ask
questions regarding the status or findings of the investigation, nor was he allowed to review or discuss any
information gathered in the investigation; Thus, Plaintiff remained deprived of a meaningful opportunity
to determine what the actual allegations against him were, and to meaningfully defend himself.
156. On or about April 21, 2022, Plaintiff was directed by Defendant Mitchell to send the Township’s
Labor and Employment attorney all of the computer files that were in his possession relating to his drafts
of the Memorandums issued to the accused (Disciplinary) and reporting (Notification) firefighters,
inclusive of emails exchanged between himself and Battalion Chief Mulac containing drafts, revisions, et.
al.; He promptly did so, sending all versions of the documents which had been drafted, exchanged,
revised, and finalized.
157. On or about April 22, 2022, doing his best to focus on his duties but becoming increasingly
concerned and anxious, Plaintiff again asked Defendant Mitchell if there were any available updates;
Defendant Mitchell flatly responded that he had been busy, and did not have time to work on the
investigation or think about it.
158. On or about April 25, 2022, Plaintiff was asked by Defendant Mitchell to provide the annual
personnel assessments for 2019, 2020 and 2021 for the accused firefighter.
159. Plaintiff advised him that 2019 and 2020 had been turned in to the new Administrative Assistant
for filing and that the 2021 assessments were being worked on. However, none of the assessments for
2018, 2019 or 2020 could be found in the files. It was later determined that they, along with most other
township records, had been sent to an off-site contractor to be scanned.
160. Due to a family situation that occurred out of stated, Plaintiff took time off, from on or about April
27, 2022 through May 9, 2022. However, during this time, he received multiple telephone calls from Fire
Department Officers and Firefighters, expressing concern about the investigation and the way in which
they were being treated by Investigator Alexander.
161. As Plaintiff had been directed not to discuss the investigation but remained responsible for
managing the department and upholding morale, he advised the individuals that he would address their
concerns when he returned from vacation.
162. On or about May 6, 2022, Plaintiff returned to town and contacted the Officer who had reached out
to him while he was out of state. The individual requested a meeting with Plaintiff to discuss the matter,
which occurred Monday, May 9th, at 9:00 am.
163. At this meeting, the Officer advised Plaintiff of his concerns, and that other members of the
department had similar concerns.
164. Plaintiff advised him that there was nothing he could do, as he was prohibited from discussing the
investigation, and suggested utilizing the chain of command in reporting further concerns, up to and
including the Township Supervisor.

165. On or about May 23, 2022, Defendant Mitchell emailed Plaintiff, at approximately 4:45 pm
requesting a copy of all of the Kalamazoo Township Fire Department Standard Operating Guidelines
(“SOG’s”), the Policies and Procedures which directly governed the Fire Department. As Plaintiff was out
of his office, he promptly returned and did so.
166. The month of June passed with no further updates on the status of the investigation, despite
Plaintiff’s persistent efforts to obtain the same, as his anxiety continued to increase, along with the overall
stress level in the department.
167. Under the circumstances, Plaintiff, increasingly concerned and anxious about the ongoing
deprivation of his due process rights, increasingly fearful that he had been presumed guilty of serious
allegations he did not even understand, having had no opportunity to review any alleged evidence in
support of them, and fearful that his employment was in jeopardy, and his reputation was being irreparably
tarnished, began consulting with legal counsel on or about June 8, 2022.
168. During this timeframe, via his counsel, Plaintiff began to request information from Defendant
Charter Township of Kalamazoo, via contact and engagement with its Labor and Employment Counsel.
169. Plaintiff, via his counsel, requested all documentation and materials compiled in the investigation,
including, most importantly, the twelve-page Second Incident Report which Plaintiff still had not seen, and
the Investigative Report which allegedly was being and/or had already been prepared and completed by
Investigator Alexander - as, absent the opportunity to review this report and its findings, Plaintiff would
have no meaningful opportunity to determine what the specific allegations against him were, in order to
rebut them.
170. Ultimately, on or about July 12, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel was provided a copy of the Second
Incident Report, but not the Investigation Report.12
12
However, given the timing of issuance of the Pre-Determination documentation on July 21, 2022, (see below), this belated
production of the Second Incident Report was too little too late, long after it was already found that he had engaged in Misconduct.
171. Also in early July, Plaintiff was informed, by Assistant Chief Todd Dunfield, that the accused
firefighter had received a “Pre-Determination Hearing” notice letter, issued by Defendant Mitchell,
which stated allegations against him, and scheduled a meeting with Defendant Mitchell, to occur
approximately a week later, indicating that he would be allowed to present exonerating information in his
defense before Defendant Mitchell would determine whether he violated policy and/or law, and whether
discipline, up to and including discharge, was warranted.
172. Upon information and belief, accused firefighter’s Pre-Determination Hearing occurred on or about
July 7, 2022, and a few days later, Defendant Mitchell sent an email notice, which Plaintiff received (all
recipients unknown), advising that the accused firefighter was no longer employed by the Township of
Kalamazoo.
173. On or about Thursday, July 21, 2022, at 9:45 p.m., without warning, Plaintiff received the
following email from Defendant Mitchell:
From: Dexter A. Mitchell <[email protected]>

Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2022 9:45:14 PM
To: Dave Obreiter <[email protected]>
Subject: predetermination hearing
Dave,
Please read the attachment.
Dexter A. Mitchell
Township Manager - Kalamazoo Charter Township
1720 Riverview Drive, Kalamazoo, MI 49004-1056
Office: 1 (269) 381-8085 | Fax: 1 (269) 381-6930
www.ktwp.org
174. Attached to the email was a typed document on Charter Township of Kalamazoo Letterhead,
Issued by Defendant Mitchell, providing notice of a scheduled “Pre-Determination Hearing for Chief
David Obreiter” (See Exhibit 8 - " Pre-Determination Hearing for Chief David Obreiter Record”,
dated August 5, 202213)14
13
Note, the Notice was issued on July 21, 2022, and scheduled a Pre-Determination Hearing for July 27, 2022. However, Plaintiff
counsel requested an adjournment, which was agreed to, and a new hearing date was scheduled for August 11, 2022.
175. The four and ½ page, single spaced document contained a panoply of alleged “findings of
violations of misconduct”, allegedly stemming from the investigation, which allegedly revealed that
Plaintiff:
“…[F]ailed to properly investigate and take appropriate action concerning these serious
violations. You will have the opportunity to provide all relevant information you want me to
consider before I determine whether you violated policy and/or law, and if so, whether
discipline up to and including discharge is warranted.”
176. The section of the document under the heading “VIOLATIONS” consisted of numerous
“findings” regarding Plaintiff’s alleged violations of Kalamazoo Township Policy and federal and State
Law15, cited below as follows:
a. NON-FEASANCE. MCLA 750.478 Willful neglect of duty; public officer or person holding
public trust or employment.
1. Presumably, Plaintiff was determined to have willfully neglected his duty, and committed
a crime, which carried potential imprisonment. He vehemently denies the same as
baseless and wholly contrary to the evidence, which compels the conclusion that he
fulfilled his duty to the best of his ability and judgment in accord with his training and
existing Township Policy.
b. BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTIES: See, among other sources, Restatement (Third) of
Agency (2006) Employees owe general fiduciary duties of loyalty and performance to their
employers. Employees are required to act loyally for the employer’s benefit in all matters
connected with the employment relationship. [.]
1. This violation deemed Plaintiff had violated concepts enumerated in a legal treatise. He
denies any such violation, as he wholly adhered to the applicable Charter Township of
Kalamazoo Policies, which were in existence at the time of the alleged violations. The
applicable policy states, in pertinent part:
______________________________________
14
Upon information and belief, on or about July 21, 2022, Battalion Chief Mulac also received a “Pre-Determination Hearing”
notice from Defendant Mitchell, and his Pre-Determination Hearing occurred on or about July 25, 2022. Plaintiff had no
discussion concerning requiring a Pre-Determination Hearing for Battalion Chief Mulac and had no involvement or discussion
of any kind with Battalion Chief Mulac concerning the hearing itself, in regard to preparation or otherwise. Battalion Chief
Mulac was represented by his own legal counsel, and Plaintiff wished to avoid any appearance of collusion or impropriety.
Ultimately, Battalion Chief Mulac was terminated on the same day as Plaintiff.
15
Glaringly absent, is any reference to, or analysis of, any actual Workplace Discrimination Law, concerning Discrimination,
Sexual Harassment, or Retaliation. Indeed, Federal Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), Michigan’s Elliot- Larsen
Civil Rights Act (ELCRA), or any other relevant employment discrimination law is touched on in any fashion. This omission is
critical, as legal analysis of Plaintiff’s conduct should hinge on whether he took “prompt and appropriate remedial action,” based
on the information reasonably available to him.
Kalamazoo Township Fire Department
Standard Operating Guide #3
Subject: Discipline
…
1. Any complaint against a fire department member shall be investigated and a
conclusion of fact reached which will be as follows:
a) Proper conduct
b) Improper conduct
c) Violation of policy procedure
d) Insufficient Evidence
e) Unfounded complaint
2. If discipline is required, every effort will be made to respond to the deficiency with
training and or counseling.
3. Violations of any of the provisions of the Charter Township of Kalamazoo and/or fire
department standard operating guides, directives or procedures shall be the subject of
disciplinary action up to and including discharge.
4. Any fire department member violating these rules and regulations may be subject to
any of the following disciplinary action with due regard for the nature of the offense and the
member’s previous record of conduct. The Fire Chief, Deputy Chief or Battalion Chief may
initiate actions a-c, the Fire Chief will initiate action d-g.
a) Written Reprimand
b) Restriction of activities or privileges
c) Requirement of Restitution
d) Demotion
e) Suspension
f) Probation
g) Discharge
……
6. All offenses, regardless of action taken, shall be acknowledged over the signature of the
member receiving the disciplinary action. When the offense calls for suspension, a copy of
the report will be forwarded to the Township Personnel Director. In the event that the
offense calls for discharge, this will be made in the form of a recommendation to the
Township Personnel Director for action.
……
2. Plaintiff followed Standard Operating Guide #3 to the letter – When it was brought to his
attention that there were allegations made, he directed and supervised an investigation,
examined the allegations which were placed in writing, directed that witness interviews be
conducted, and based on the information obtained, determined discipline was warranted,
but did not rise to the level of suspension or discharge. Discipline was issued to the
accused firefighter, and guidance documentation was issued to the reporting firefighter,
advising what actions were taken, and providing guidance for reporting future incidents.
Despite having received no training whatsoever concerning conducting workplace
harassment / discrimination investigations, Plaintiff took prompt and appropriate remedial
action16, and no further incidents were brought to his attention.
c. Plaintiff was also determined to have committed a multitude of violations of Kalamazoo

Township Policies and Procedures under the headings:
8. SAFETY, ETHICS, AND CONDUCT (failure to follow)17
8.1 COMMITMENT TO SAFETY

8.2 WORKPLACE VIOLENCE PREVENTION
8.5 UNACCEPTABLE CONDUCT
4. TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT
(failure to uphold)
4.1 EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND COMMITMENT

TO DIVERSITY
I 8.6 HARASSMENT POLICIES
8.6.1 TOWNSHIP OF KALAMAZOO SEXUAL

HARASSMENT POLICY
8.6.2. OTHER HARASSMENT
8.6.3 HARASSMENT AND COMPLAINT PROCEDURE
1. Without exception, all of the above policies were simply stated verbatim, in boilerplate
form, with no description whatsoever of how Plaintiff had allegedly violated them, much
less, any reference to any substantiating evidence.
d. Plaintiff was also determined to have violated multiple Kalamazoo Fire Department
Standard Operating Guide (“SOG”) provisions under the headings:
- KALAMAZOO TOWNSHIP FIRE DEPARTMENT STANDARD OPERATING GUIDE #1

SUBJECT: GENERAL EMPLOYMENT
- STANDARD OPERATING GUIDE #3 SUBJECT: DISCIPLINE
1. In the same vein, the above SOG policies were simply recited verbatim in boilerplate
fashion, absent any explanation of how they may have been violated.
16
In general, remedial action is considered adequate if it is “reasonably calculated to end the harassment.” Katz v Dole, 709 F2d
251, 256 (4th Cir 1983). A significant factor in determining whether the employer’s remedial measures are adequate to avoid
liability is whether the measures put an end to any further complaints of harassment by the offending individual. Vermett v
Hough, 627 F Supp 587, 607 (WE Mich 1986).
17
These alleged Policy and Procedure violations utilized the updated August 2021 Charter Township of Kalamazoo Policies and
Procedures, as opposed to those in effect at the time of the alleged violations, which were issued on October 13, 2014. In Ex Post
Facto fashion, Plaintiff was held responsible for violating policies which were not in existence at the time of the relevant
incidents.
2. However, Plaintiff specifically utilized and cited these SOGs, along with #3 (fully
stated above herein) and #17 in the Disciplinary Notice issued to the accused
firefighter. In sum, he reviewed them, and applied them to the best of his
understanding based upon the information available at the time as obtained in the
investigation he directed and supervised.
e. Ultimately, the Notice of Pre-Determination document reached damning conclusions against

Plaintiff, set forth as follows18:
FINDINGS: FAILURE TO PROPERLY INVESTIGATE AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION, AS

REQUIRED BY POLICY AND LAW, TO ADDRESS FIREFIGHTER -------------’S CLAIMS OF
ASSAULT, BATTERY, SEXUAL HARASSMENT, SEXUAL HARASSMENT, AND/OR HOSTILE
WORK ENVIRONMENT BASED ON GENDER, RACE, COLOR, OR ETHNICITY.
A thorough, competent, and neutral investigation conducted by GBA Investigations and Security
Consulting, LLC and follow-up communications led to the inescapable conclusion that Firefighter
______’s demeanor toward Firefighter ________, the only woman of color in the fire department at the
time, was threatening, demeaning and harassing. He yelled at her, committed assault and battery, called
her “hot” and generally treated her differently than he acted toward other male firefighters. Indeed, he
admitted that he struck Firefighter _________.19
On one occasion, when Firefighter _________ was speaking Spanish in his presence, Firefighter ______
admitted he told her to “speak English.”
The evidence from the GBA Investigation established that Firefighter _______ violated several policies and
laws. The “preliminary investigation” in 2019 was less than 24 hours and it was determined only that “there
have been a number of low-level inappropriate interpersonal interactions between Firefighter ______ and
______ over the past six months. At no time during the investigation were any instances of discrimination
against an employee because of anyone’s race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability or genetic
information discovered.”
Despite identifying the investigation as “preliminary,” on December 5, 2019, one day after receiving the
complaint from Firefighter ________, apparently no further action was taken to investigate the
allegations. You failed to produce any e-mail or notes that you stated you received from Battalion Chief
Mulac.
The report to Firefighter _______ on December 5, 2019, which you approved, reported that “a few key
findings have been identified. Among those, the lack of professional and respectful treatment between
18
Redactions added by the undersigned counsel.
19
Relative to the alleagation that the accused firefighter “struck” the reporting firefighter, Plaintiff’s Investigation revealed that
the accused firefighter had lightly slapped the reporting firefighter’s face with a bundled pair of leather gloves, in response to
her having thrown a shirt at him. To his knowledge, the witnesses interviewed characterized the incident as his having lightly
slapped her with the gloves in response to her having thrown the shirt at him. Under the circumstances, inclusive of the fact that
she reported no injury, and no witness observed any red mark evidence of injury, Plaintiff determined, that although the
conduct was unacceptable, the evidence fit the definition of “horseplay”, set forth in Standard Operating Guide #1, rather than a
more serious conclusion of Assault and Battery.
coworkers and lack of effective, timely and adult-like communications have been identified as some of the
major contributing factors.”
The documentation, which you approved, fails to identify who engaged in this unprofessional and
disrespectful treatment “between coworkers.” In fact, the letter to Firefighter _________ can be
interpreted as a rebuke of her failure to come forward to “timely” report the allegations of assault, battery,
and unlawful harassment. As you know from the Township-sponsored harassment, discrimination, and
retaliation training you attended in 2013, 2015, and 2017 an employee is not required to report such
misconduct. Rather, it is the obligation of the employer to prevent such misconduct if the supervisors knew
or should have known about the harassment. You as Chief had been informed about this harassment.
Despite the “key findings” of a “lack of professional and respectful treatment between coworkers”, which
was acknowledged had been going on “over the past six months,” you took no disciplinary action against
anyone, including Firefighter _______, who freely admitted to the independent investigator that he slapped
Firefighter ________ across the face, which the evidence established left a red mark on her face. Your
failure to learn about this egregious act of violence against a coworker, let alone the other assaults,
establishes the fundamental failure of the investigation. Your failure to thoroughly investigate these
complaints, whether because of negligence or incompetence or a desire to protect a member of the “tight-
knit profession,” and failure to take appropriate action against Firefighter ______ evidences your neglect of
duty, breach of fiduciary duties, and violations of the policies which required you to provide a safe,
violence-free workplace and to protect Firefighter ________ against unlawful harassment.
In addition, your failure to disclose the complaints, “preliminary investigation” and failure to take
appropriate action to the Township Manager or other representative denied the Township the opportunity
to conduct a thorough and timely investigation and take the appropriate action required under the
circumstances.
177. Plaintiff was shocked and devastated to review the Predetermination Documentation, as it was
replete with unfounded allegations of serious violations, up to and including a crime, and cited no
evidence whatsoever in support of the damning allegations against him, which went directly to his
character for professionalism and integrity, earned over the course of a lengthy and stellar career spent in
the service of his country and community – in sum, he felt scapegoated.
178. Plaintiff vehemently denied each and every allegation and conclusion reached, which were
reached wholly without his having received a modicum of Due Process, denials of which included, but
not were not limited to:
a. Lack of Provision of Appropriate Documentation –
1. Most notably, Plaintiff was not allowed to review “The evidence from the GBA
Investigation”, upon which the entire Pre-Determination Notice documentation was
premised.
2. Deprivation of the Second Incident Report submitted by the reporting Firefighter, until it
was too late to have any impact on his ability to gather exonerating evidence.
b. The Investigation was disjointed, lacked thoroughness, and was conducted in an unjustifiably
hostile manner, in which Chief Obreiter was wholly denied Due Process.
1. Most notably, he was subjected to an oppressive interrogation conducted in a manner that

was, as opposed to “independent”, clearly outcome determinative.
c. Being prohibited from discussing the investigation, or his understanding of the allegations, which
prohibited both his ability to gather exonerating information, or even defend his reputation as
rumors spread through the department, and necessarily, the community.
d. Being held responsible, in official Kalamazoo Township Documentation, of having committed a

series of offenses so severe, despite their simultaneously vague and conclusory nature, that his
reputation was irreparably damaged.
e. Being held responsible, indeed, scapegoated, for having not discovered alleged incidents which
were never reported or brought to his attention, in any way, shape or form, despite his best efforts
to direct an investigation pursuant to Kalamazoo Township and Fire Department Policy, as it
existed, applied to the information brought to his attention, and/or reasonably available or
discoverable to him via interviews of pertinent witnesses, which he ordered, based on the limited
training provided to him.20
f. Being judged to have neglected his duty to investigate based on hindsight investigation stemming
from the voluminous Second Incident Report, which, while not in existence at the time of his
investigation, was undoubtedly held against him in Ex Post Facto fashion. This second report was
submitted more than two years after the first, and almost four times as long.
g. Particularly painful for Plaintiff was the suggestion in the Predetermination Documentation that he
acted “based on incompetence or a desire to protect a member of the “tight-knit profession,”
which utterly flew in the face of his character and integrity.
179. After reading the Predetermination Documentation, it was abundantly clear to Plaintiff that
proverbial writing was on the wall was indelibly, and negatively, etched in regard to his employment as
Fire Chief with Defendant Charter Township of Kalamazoo, and likely, any future in the fire service,
which had been the culmination of his lifelong dream.
180. Nevertheless, Plaintiff persevered, in the hope that if he were fully prepared for the Pre-
Determination Hearing, and presented a thorough synopsis of the evidence of which he was aware,
despite having been denied access to the crucial evidence during the entire investigation, and the
20
Indeed, Plaintiff had been provided no training whatsoever regarding how to investigate allegations of harassment or
discrimination, and no written policy regarding the methodology to do so existed either. His trining was limited to general
definitions of what constituted discrimination or harassment. Upon information and belief, at the time of the alleged incidents,
there was also no policy regarding how to report discrimination or harassment.
“findings” having been documented in such damning fashion, that he would be able to preserve his
employment and career.
181. In so doing, he worked with his counsel to prepare and present documentation to submit to
Defendant Charter Township of Kalamazoo, Defendant Mitchell, and the Township’s Labor and
Employment Counsel.
182. The documentation was submitted on August 9, 2022, in advance of the hearing, which was to
occur on August 11, 2022.
183. The document was titled:
“Preliminary Response to Documentation Concerning Pre-Determination Hearing for Fire

Chief David Obreiter,
Scheduled for 8.11.22 at 1 p.m.;
Request for Appropriate Documentation Necessary for Fully Preparing his Defense;
Request for Reasonable Continuance of Pre-Determination Hearing to Review Requested
Documentation;” (See Attached Exhibit 9 – Predetermination Response Documentation,
incorporated by reference herein)
184. The document was voluminous, and as responsive as possible to the myriad allegations leveled
against Plaintiff. However, Plaintiff’s ability to develop arguments in support of his exoneration
remained hamstrung, as, despite numerous requests made via his counsel, he was not provided the crucial
documentation necessary to rebut the allegations in the Pre-Determination Document. Specifically, he
was never provided with any material compiled during the Investigation - prior to “Findings” having
been reached.
185. Although, after numerous requests, he was ultimately provided a copy of the Second Incident
Report (on or about July 12, 2022) the allegations had already been used as the basis of the investigation,
Investigative Report conclusions, and Pre-Determination “Findings”. Therefore, Plaintiff had to attempt
to discern and rebut allegations against him, which had already been investigated and determined absent
any meaningful opportunity on his part to participate – an irreparable deprivation of Due Process.
186. Moreover, despite numerous requests, he was never provided any Documentation or any other
Evidence compiled in the investigation conducted by Investigator Alexander / GBA Investigations and
Security Consulting, LLC, most crucially, a copy of the Investigative Report. This deprivation forced him
to attempt to ascertain and rebut any conclusions reached without seeing any supporting evidence –
again, an irreparable deprivation of Due Process.
187. The Pre-Determination hearing occurred as scheduled at the Charter Township of Kalamazoo
Offices, in a conference room. Present were Plaintiff, Defendant Mitchell, the Township’s Labor and
Employment Counsel, and Plaintiff’s counsel.
188. During the Pre-Determination hearing, bearing in mind the voluminous documentation already
presented, and the fact that the requested documentation had not been provided, Plaintiff’s presentation
chiefly focused on his reiterating the steps he had taken during the investigation, requests for renewed and
ongoing training, and his commitment to the Charter Township of Kalamazoo Fire department, career as
Fire Chief, and, requests that Defendant Mitchell evaluate his character and commitment, and act
accordingly in his decision regarding his employment.
189. The Pre-Determination hearing, which lasted approximately an hour, was cordial and congenial.
Plaintiff left very optimistic that his job was secure.
A month passes, and on September 14, 2022, without any warning whatsoever, Plaintiff is terminated
in the middle of his fire service shift.
190. Over the next month after the Pre-Determination hearing of August 11, 2022, Plaintiff, received
no updates regarding the outcome of the hearing, any contemplated decisions from Defendant Mitchell.
191. However, all seemed to be going smoothly and returning to normal within the department.
Although he remained very anxious due to the uncertainty, and worried of the potential consequences, as
always, he focused on his duties, and was optimistic. Overall, tension began to deescalate within the
Department,
192. Plaintiff also noticed that during this timeframe, Defendant Mitchell acted in a cordial, indeed
friendly manner toward him.
193. However, on the afternoon of September 14, 2022, abruptly and without any warning whatsoever,
Plaintiff was terminated, in a shocking and humiliating fashion.
194. At approximately 2:50 p.m. that afternoon, Defendant Mitchell entered Plaintiff’s office holding a
yellow folder, accompanied by Lisa VanDyke, his Executive Assistant.
195. Defendant Mitchell asked Plaintiff if he “had a minute", and Plaintiff replied "yes".
196. Defendant Mitchell and his assistant sat in the two chairs in front of Plaintiff’s desk, and at this
point, Defendant Mitchell opened the folder and flatly informed Plaintiff that he had his Memo of
termination of employment with Kalamazoo Township.
197. Defendant Mitchell then read the entire document word for word to Plaintiff. (See Exhibit 10 –
Memo – Termination of employment with Kalamazoo Township)
198. The termination reasons, set forth below, are damning, and go to the core of Plaintiff’s sense
of duty, integrity, and professionalism:
“As the Township Manager, I authorized an investigation stemming from a report filed with me
earlier this year regarding allegations of sexual and ethnic harassment and/or intimidation by a
member of the fire department. After the completion of the investigation, and the
predetermination hearing, I have determined that your inaction was serious and/or willful neglect
in the performance of duty as a department head for Kalamazoo Charter Township and constitutes
willful neglect of your duties as Fire Chief of the Township. Under section five of your employment
contract number 4: I have deemed you to be in violation of the Township of Kalamazoo harassment
policy. (See Exhibit 10 – Memo – Termination of employment with Kalamazoo Township)
199. At this point, Defendant Mitchell shifted gears, and asked Plaintiff if he had any other equipment
or items not listed on memo to be returned to the department, and Plaintiff stated that he probably did,
and would check over the next few days to arrange to return them.
200. Defendant Mitchell then asked Plaintiff to initial a copy of the Memo, and Plaintiff requested
Defendant Mitchell initial a copy of the memo as well, which he did.
201. At this point, Defendant Mitchell handed Plaintiff back his copy, stood up, and exited his office,
saying nothing further.
202. Shocked, devastated, and reeling from his sudden termination, and the false and damning reasons
for it, Plaintiff nevertheless kept his composure, and realizing that he had no transportation other than a
departmental vehicle, calmly asked Defendant Mitchell if he was planning on giving him a ride home, or
if he should ask someone else.
203. Defendant Mitchell responded that Police Sergeant Smith was in the hallway outside his office
and would take him home.
204. Sgt. Smith then walked into Plaintiff’s office, apologized that he was involved and stated that took
no pleasure in the task.
205. Plaintiff thanked him and advised him that, while he was extremely angry that there would be no
problems whatsoever.
206. Sgt. Smith said that he expected nothing different, thanked Plaintiff and told him to take his time
collecting his things and that he would be back shortly to help him take his items out to his car.
207. Sgt. Smith returned in about 10 minutes, helped Plaintiff with his items, and then went out to
Plaintiff’s work vehicle.
208. Sgt. Smith then moved his car near Plaintiff’s work vehicle, assisted Plaintiff with a few items,
and then drove him home.
209. While driving Plaintiff home, Sgt. Smith told him:
“Listen to me, the walls are thin, your termination was done against the advice of the township
legal counsel."
210. Sgt. Smith then clearly and directly repeated this comment again, and the two of them continued
to Plaintiff’s house.
211. On the arrival of the two men at Plaintiff’s house, Sgt. Smith helped Plaintiff unload his things.
Plaintiff had already provided his work laptop computer, cell phone, building keys and key fob to Sgt.
Smith. Plaintiff had also left his fire service radio in his work truck, and left his pager, ID card, township
credit card, petty cash envelope and all other files and items on his desk before he left.
Devastated by his termination and the likely destruction of his lifelong career in Fire Service,
Plaintiff is determined to clear his name – He promptly submits a formal request for Reinstatement
and also, a request for “Due Process/Name Clearing Hearing.”
212. Having served Defendant Township for virtually the entirety of his career, Plaintiff did not
abandon the hope that he could obtain justice – the clearing of his name and full reinstatement to his
position – via appealing the decision to the Township.
213. In this regard, two days after his termination, via his counsel, Plaintiff submitted a formal request
for reinstatement to the Township’s Labor and Employment Counsel, stating as follows:
Chief Obreiter has authorized me to convey a formal request for reinstatement to his position.
Please share the same with your Client, inclusive of Township Manager Mitchell, and also, all Members of the Township
Board.
Bearing in mind that the Township Board Members were not the decision makers in Chief Obreiter’ termination, I would
respectfully
suggest that they should at the very least be informed of his willingness to return to his position.
In short, Chief Obreiter is absolutely shocked and devastated by his termination. Serving the Township as its Fire Chief
was, and remains,
his lifelong dream.
To the extent there is any interest on the part of your client to discuss potential reinstatement, please let me
know as soon as possible.
214. Unfortunately, upon information and belief this request for reinstatement was not seriously
considered.
215. However, Plaintiff persisted, continuing to make requests for the documentation sought in his
Redetermination Response materials, and ultimately, on November 20, 2022, making a formal request
for a Full Special Meeting and full Due Process “Name-Clearing” Hearing to be scheduled before the
full Board for consideration of his Request for Reinstatement. (See Exhibit 11 – Request for Due
Process “Name-Clearing” Hearing)
216. Plaintiff also requested that copies of his Pre-Determination Response Documentation, inclusive
of the Exhibits contemporaneously submitted with that material, be provided to each member of the
Board of Trustees for consideration, and also placed in his personnel file.
217. Plaintiff’s request for a Due Process “Name-Clearing” Hearing, was ultimately granted, and the
public hearing before the Charter Township of Kalamazoo Board of Trustees was scheduled for
December 5, 2022.
218. In the interim, on or about October 24, 2022, the Township Board of Trustees voted to release the
full investigation report, which Plaintiff had long sought in his efforts to exonerate himself and protect his
career and reputation, to the public. The same was published in full, in the press. In conjunction with this
publication, Plaintiff was also provided a copy, via counsel. (See Exhibit 12 – GBA Investigations
Investigation Report)
219. On review of the report, in conjunction with his humiliation in it having been released to the press
before he had any opportunity to review it, it immediately became clear to Plaintiff that, rather than being
the result of an “independent” investigation, the report was fatally flawed and riddled with inaccuracies,
that irreparably skewed the outcome against him.
220. By way of example only:
a. Several of the people Plaintiff specifically requested to be interviewed, on the basis of his
understanding that they had available information, were not.
b. There were actually not two, but three incident reports:
1. The First Incident Report – again, the only one provided or known to Plaintiff, on which
he based his investigation.
2. A Five-page rough draft provided by the reporting firefighter, upon information and belief,
at the request of Defendants Mitchell and Glass; and finally
3. The 11 page Second Incident Report.
Fundamental notions of Due Process, indeed simple fairness, dictate that Plaintiff should not have
been held responsible for failing to investigate a series of evolving allegations to which he was
never aware, and which he could not reasonably discover.
i. The document which appears to be notes of the interview of Plaintiff is inaccurate.
ii. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the notion that Plaintiff would be unwilling or
indifferent to an individual who reported concerns of workplace discrimination or
harassment, much less, engage in a cover-up to protect the accused firefighter.
iii. The investigation reveals that the reporting firefighter was interviewed extensively by
Defendant’s Mitchell and Glass (as a Trustee, acting wholly outside the chain of
command) yet, there is no information, compelling or otherwise, to substantiate their
decision not to involve Plaintiff, as Fire Chief, in the first place.
iv. The investigation, ultimately, provides no conclusions or recommendations whatsoever,

much less, any suggesting Plaintiff engaged in in any “Violations”, much less the grave
violations for which Defendant Mitchell chose to terminate him.
v. Notably, one of the interviewees notes the fact that the Township had not conducted
diversity training in several years.
vi. The 3 page - Joint Statement by Plaintiff and his Battalion Chief is included, details
exactly how allegations were brought to their attention, and exactly what was done to
investigate, the basis for their respective roles in the investigation, the incidents
investigated with specificity, the conclusions found, the justifications for the actions taken,
and the policies and procedures followed.
221. In sum, the Report, while providing no actual findings or conclusions per se, much less any which
would support violations, wholly comports with the information provided by Plaintiff.
222. The Hearing before the Board occurred on December 5, 2022, commencing at 6:00 p.m.
223. As the hearing was open to the public, it was preceded by a public comment section, in which
many members of the community spoke.
224. After the public comment section, Plaintiff, with the assistance of counsel, presented Plaintiff’s
case for exoneration and reinstatement to the full Board, in a presentation which lasted approximately
three hours.21
225. During Plaintiff’s presentation, he spoke extensively regarding his actions in conducting the
investigation, his understanding of policies, and his history in fire and public service.
21
The entire meeting of the Kalamazoo Township Board of Trustees - December 5, 2022 Kalamazoo Township Special Meeting
was recorded and is accessible at: CloudCast v3 (telvue.com)
226. At the conclusion of Plaintiff’s presentation, he thanked the Board and those present for the
opportunity to be heard, and via counsel, respectfully requested his reinstatement.
227. After Plaintiff’s presentation, contrary to normal procedure, a second public comment section was
added.
228. On December 7, 2022, two days after the hearing, Plaintiff, via counsel, sent a request that a
Motion for his reinstatement be brought at the next regular meeting of the Board, scheduled for December
12, 2022. (See Exhibit 13 – Formal Request – Motion for Reinstatement)
229. However, despite continually, cordially, and patiently reaching out to follow up on the request
via his counsel, no response was given, and no further action was taken.
230. Ultimately, on March 9, 2022, Plaintiff received notification, via a voice mail left to his counsel,
informing him that the Board had voted to seek new leadership at the Fire Department.
LEGAL ALLEGATIONS
COUNT ONE - Violation of Procedural Due Process Liberty Interest in Good Name and Reputation
(vs. Defendants CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF KALAMAZOO;
CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF KALAMAZOO BOARD OF TRUSTEES;
board members (in their official capacities);
DEXTER A. MITCHELL, Township Manager
(In his official capacity)
231. Previous paragraphs adopted by reference.
232. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides:
Section 1 - No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law;
233. The Michigan Constitution of 1963 provides:
§ 17 Self-incrimination; due process of law; fair treatment at investigations. Sec. 17. No person shall
be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty or
property, without due process of law. The right of all individuals, firms, corporations and voluntary
associations to fair and just treatment in the course of legislative and executive investigations and
hearings shall not be infringed. History: Const. 1963, Art. I, § 17, Eff. Jan. 1, 1964. Former
constitution: See Const. 1908, Art. II, § 16.
234. As set forth in the above allegations incorporated herein, Plaintiff was deprived of a liberty interest
without due process
235. As a public employee, Plaintiff had a liberty interest in his good name and reputation as they
related to his continued employment as Fire Chief of Defendant Charter Township of Kalamazoo.
236. Additionally, as a contractual employee, having entered into a contract with Defendant Township
in 2009, albeit with an “at will” clause, as a practical matter, Plaintiff enjoyed guaranteed continued
employment as long as he performed effectively under the terms of the contract, which he did. Thus,
Plaintiff affirmatively avers that, in addition to the liberty interest in his good name and reputation, he had
a property right in his employment under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
237. As set forth more fully in the above allegations, Defendants infringed upon Plaintiff’s Due Process
Liberty interest when:
a. They falsely accused him of accusations which impugned his good name, honor, integrity, and
professionalism.
b. They deprived him of the right to defend himself against the false allegations;
c. Subjected him to a sham investigation with a preconceived outcome, premised on allegations he
had never seen and had no reasonable opportunity to discover, coupled with an abusive and hostile
interrogation;
d. Deprived him of any meaningful opportunity to review alleged evidence arrayed against him when
he could meaningfully impact the investigation and defend himself, prior to findings having been
reached.
e. Unjustly terminated his employment, for alleged reasons which would absolutely foreclose similar
employment opportunities;
f. Then ratified that decision, by refusing to act in the face of overwhelming evidence in support of
his exoneration, in the context of a Due Process / “Name Clearing” hearing, which occurred
before the full Township Board and members of the public.

g. Defendants publicly affirmed the false reasons for Plaintiff’s termination to the press and public, to
the permanent detriment of Plaintiff’s reputation and future employability in his chosen career, in
which he had demonstrated unswerving diligence, integrity and professionalism.
238. At all relevant times herein, Defendants acted in their official capacities when they acted as set
forth above herein. In so doing, they deprived Plaintiff of his constitutional liberty interest in his good
name and reputation and his property right to continued employment by terminating his employment for,
and publicly and falsely accusing him, and labeling him, of having failed to perform his duties in
investigating allegations of workplace discrimination and harassment as alleged herein.
239. These defendants deprived Plaintiff of his Due Process rights as he was wholly deprived of any
meaningfully adequate notice of the charges against him, the evidence, the documentation on which the
charges were based, or any other investigative documentation, most notably, the inherently flawed
investigation report.
240. Plaintiff was provided nothing in the way of detail which would allow him effectively discern,
much less rebut the allegations made against him.
241. He was prohibited from discussing the matter with anyone, thereby effectively depriving Plaintiff
of any opportunity to question or obtain witnesses on his behalf.
242. Plaintiff was not given additional detail about the charges until Notice of Pre-Determination
Hearing was issued, and the “findings” of “violations” which had already been reached against him.
243. Plaintiff was not provided Investigator Alexander / GBH’s Investigation report, which actually
vindicated him, until after he was terminated, and the damage had already been irreparably effected to his
career, and reputation.
244. Plaintiff did not otherwise have a meaningful time or meaningful time and/or opportunity to
respond to these charges, as the Investigation spanned approximately seven and ½ (7.5) months, yet his
opportunity to respond to the Notice of Pre-Determination “Findings” was a fraction of this time, and he
was deprived the crucial documentation necessary to do so.

245. Plaintiff’s attempts to appeal and further be heard, despite overwhelming evidence presented
before and during the “Due Process” / “Name Clearing” hearing, were denied, thus officially and
publicly ratifying the false and destructive allegations that formed the basis of his termination.
246. At all relevant times, these defendants were acting under color of state law.
247. At all relevant times, in their official capacities as Township Manager, board members, and
collectively as the Charter Township of Kalamazoo and Charter Township of Kalamazoo Board of
Trustees, these defendants were executing official Township Policy, by making edicts or acts depriving
Plaintiff of his constitutional rights, representing the official policy of the Township and the Board, by
making, and ratifying, unsubstantiated, gravely damaging findings that were made in utter contravention
of the relevant evidence, Township and Fire Department policy and procedure regarding such
investigations, and then, falsely and irreparably finding Plaintiff had committed grave acts of dereliction of
his duty in failing to investigate allegations of workplace discrimination and harassment, casting the death
knell to any hope that he could be employed in a Fire Department leadership position, much less as a Fire
Chief in the future.
248. Accordingly, these defendants are liable to Plaintiff pursuant to 42 USC § 1983 for their
deprivation of Plaintiff’s constitutional rights and damaging him as alleged herein and below.
COUNT TWO – Mandamus

(vs. Defendants Charter Township of Kalamazoo and
Charter Township of Kalamazoo Board of Trustees)
250. As an alternative count, should it be found that Plaintiff has no legal remedy, he seeks mandamus
against defendant Board to compel them to reverse the decisions made against him:
a. (1) that he Violated the Charter Township of Kalamazoo’s Harassment Policy, by failing to
investigate allegations of workplace discrimination and/or harassment, or in any other manner.
b. and (2) that he be terminated from his position as Fire Chief, and that he be fully reinstated with full
backpay, benefit losses, and any other remedies determined to be appropriate and just, including an
award reasonable and actual attorney’s fees and expenses.
251. The extraordinary remedy of mandamus is proper, under MCL 600.4401 et seq., only when the
Plaintiff has shown a clear legal right to the performance of a specific duty by the defendant and the defendant
has an incontrovertible legal duty to act in the manner requested; in addition, there must be a lack of an
adequate legal remedy.
252. In this case, the Plaintiff has shown a clear legal right that under no interpretation of the law should he
have been found responsible for “serious and/or willful neglect in the performance of duty … as Fire Chief …
in violation of the Township Kalamazoo harassment policy….”, in any way, shape or form, and because his
termination was erroneously based on that finding, the Charter Township of Kalamazoo and/or the Charter
Township of Kalamazoo Board of Trustees has an incontrovertible legal duty to reverse the decisions against
him, as described in paragraph 251.
253. These Defendants’ failures to act in accordance with Plaintiff’s clear legal rights, and its
incontrovertible legal duty, has caused Plaintiff considerable damages, and entitles him to those damages and
the specific relief of mandamus, should he have no other adequate legal remedy.
CONCLUSION
Plaintiff, former Kalamazoo Township Fire Chief David Obreiter, took the allegations made by
the former firefighter in his department very seriously and would never tolerate any form of
discrimination or harassment in the department. He investigated in accordance with his professional
judgment, based on the allegations reported, and the information reasonably available to him.
His livelihood and reputation, built over the course of a lifetime of service, and as a member of his
community, have been taken from him, and by extension, his family. He respectfully requests that this
honorable Court allow him the opportunity to restore them.
DAMAGES SOUGHT
255. As a direct and proximate result of defendants’ actions, Plaintiff suffered damages exceeding
$75,000, as follows:
a. Economic Damages – lost wages, lost earning opportunity, lost value of benefits, including but not
limited to value of future retirement benefits, attorney fees, incidental and consequential damages.
b. Non-Economic Damages – harm to reputation, emotional distress, mental anguish and continuing
mental anguish, denial of social pleasures and enjoyment, inconvenience, embarrassment, ridicule,
humiliation, and outrage.
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial as to each of his causes of action against Defendants.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE Plaintiff respectfully requests this honorable court grant him:
a. In excess of $75,000 damages against defendants, as warranted by the law and the proofs,
including:
i. economic and non-economic damages as described above;
ii. the greatest possible combination of non-economic and exemplary damages;
iii. punitive or special damages as permitted by law;
b. costs and pre- and post- judgment interest as permitted by law;
c. attorney fees as permitted by 42 USC 1988 (b) and otherwise under law;
d. declaratory, injunctive, and/or other prospective relief, as permitted by law and equity;
e. the specific remedy of mandamus, if he is found to have no other adequate legal remedy, to
compel the Defendants Charter Township of Kalamazoo and/or Charter Township of
Kalamazoo Board of Trustees to perform their ministerial duty to reverse the erroneous
findings against the Plaintiff; and
f. other remedies as are just, appropriate, and permitted by law or equity.
Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ David A. Kotwicki

David A. Kotwicki, P.L.C
David A. Kotwicki (P56070)
Attorney for Plaintiff
48000 Van Dyke
Shelby Township, MI 48317
586-739-9888 (Office)
586-739-9892 (Fax)
[email protected]
Dated: September 14, 2023

Kalamazoo Township Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kalamazoo Township Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kalamazoo Township Lawsuit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:23-cv-00980-RJJ-RSK ECF No. 1, PageID.

1 Filed 09/14/23 Page 1 of 46

DAVID J. OBREITER Case No.

CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF KALAMAZOO;

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

these grave injustices.

PARTIES, JURISDICTION & VENUE

1. Plaintiff, David J. Obreiter (“Plaintiff”), resides in Kalamazoo, Kalamazoo County, Michigan.

2. Defendant, CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF KALAMAZOO (“Defendant Township”) is the public body of

his official and individual capacities.

reinstatement before them in an approximately three-hour presentation which occurred on December 5,

process deprivations which led to it.

Kalamazoo (“Defendant Township” and took place in Kalamazoo County.

law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

which the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims took place.

10. The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

of his country and local community, chiefly in Fire Service.

with the Charter Township of Kalamazoo, as an “on-call” Firefighter.

its Fire Chief in 2009.

numerous nationally recognized certifications in Fire Service while serving.

service personnel of the host country.

attunement while serving overseas.

employment, with the State of Michigan.

Charter Township of Kalamazoo.

earned the position and was hired on October 14, 2009.

PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYMENT AS FIRE CHIEF BY THE CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF

emergency, personnel situation, or otherwise.

Community College, despite the same not being required.

the Department, emphasizing the dual principles of safety and readiness.

prevention of discrimination and/or harassment in the workplace, and investigation of discrimination

and/or harassment claims in the workplace.

issues and concerns to his attention.

demeanor to his role.

the core of his identity, and provided his livelihood.

Plaintiff is notified of allegations of Inappropriate Treatment made by a Female Firefighter --

were investigated and addressed in a thorough and appropriate fashion.

during this initial conversation.

written documentation of concerns.

requested to have done to resolve her concerns.

Incident Report, dated 12.4.19)

thereafter at the Eastwood Fire Station.

them reviewed and discussed it in great detail.

place at the time. (See Exhibit 2 - Standard Operating Guidelines)

incidents, and to then promptly report back to him.

second to nothing other than emergency responses.

by his understanding of applicable policies and procedures.

available at the time.

the Charter Township of Kalamazoo Personnel Policy.

been directed at the reporting firefighter by the accused firefighter.

harassment and/or assault and battery.

them, providing opportunity for prompt investigation.

61. In sum, Plaintiff determined the following actions to be necessary:’

warranted, and them to his attention for review via email.

that both documents needed to include substantially more detail.

actions were unacceptable and were expected to immediately cease.

strengthening their clarity and emphasis of key points.

report back to him.

placed in the individuals’ respective personnel files.

and by his professional experience and judgment.

and appropriate remedial action.