IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
AT INDIANAPOLIS
JAMES PATTERSON and )
LISA M. COFFEY )
)
Plaintiffs, ) )
)
vs. )
)
)
THE INDIANAPOLIS STAR, an Indiana )
corporation, owned by )
GANNETT CO., INC., a foreign )
corporation, )
)
Defendants. )
)
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
AND REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL
COME NOW the Plaintiffs, James Patterson and Lisa M. Coffey , upon their respective oaths, and by and through their mutual attorneys of record, to bring this Verified Complaint against the Defendants The Indianapolis Star and Gannett Co., Inc., and, in furtherance of which Verified Complaint, the Plaintiffs allege and declare as follows:
I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1.1 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, this Court has original jurisdiction over this lawsuit given the federal questions of law presented herein. Specifically, this District Court is granted jurisdiction in 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3) over the Plaintiffs’ causes of action under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq.). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, this Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs’ various Indiana state law claims as these claims are so related to the Plaintiffs’ federal law claims as to form part of the same case or controversy.
1.2 Venue is appropriate in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana as the Defendant The Indianapolis Star has its primary corporate headquarters and base of business operations in Indianapolis, Marion County, Indiana; as the employment records relevant to the unlawful employment practices described herein are maintained and/or administered in or from the Defendant The Indianapolis Star’s primary corporate headquarters and base of operations in Indianapolis, Marion County, Indiana; and as the Defendants authorized, perpetrated, endorsed, condoned and/or failed to correct the discriminatory, retaliatory and other unlawful conduct which occurred at/from the Defendant The Indianapolis Star’s primary corporate headquarters and base of operations in Indianapolis, Marion County, Indiana. Specifically, venue is appropriate in this Court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3) as the Defendants’ alleged unlawful discriminatory and retaliatory practices, in violation of Title VII, Indiana and/or local parallel statutes, occurred or were committed in Indianapolis, Marion County, Indiana.
II. PARTIES
2.1 The Defendant Gannett Co., Inc. (hereafter referred to as “Gannett”) is a large diversified news and information company. See http://www.gannett.com/map/gan007.htm. On information and belief, Gannett is a for-profit corporation incorporated and organized under the laws of the State of Delaware, but with its corporate headquarters located in McLean, Virginia. See http://www.gannett.com/street/Governance/certificate.htm. Gannett was incorporated in 1923, went public in 1967 and was listed on the New York Stock Exchange in 1969. See http://www.gannett.com/map/gan007.htm. Gannett is an international company, with business operations in forty-three (43) states (including the State of Indiana), the District of Columbia, Guam, the United Kingdom, Canada, Belgium, Germany, Hong Kong and Singapore. Id. “Gannett is the USA’s largest newspaper group in terms of circulation. The company’s 101 daily newspapers in the USA have a combined daily paid circulation of 7.6 million.” Id. The daily newspapers owned by Gannett include the Defendant The Indianapolis Star, which newspaper Gannett purchased in 2000. Gannett also owns and operates twenty-one (21) television stations covering 17.9% of the United States, as well as more than 130 web sites in this country. Id.
2.2 The Defendant The Indianapolis Star (hereafter referred to as “The Star”) is a local daily newspaper, founded in 1903. In the 1940s, Eugene C. Pulliam purchased this paper, as well as The Indianapolis News, and then formed a new company, Indianapolis Newspapers Inc., organized and doing business under the laws of the State of Indiana. See http://www.gannett.com/map/ataglance/indianapolis.htm. The Indianapolis News ceased operations and dissolved in 1999. In 2000, the Pulliam family sold The Indianapolis Star to Defendant Gannett, and this newspaper has been a fully-owned subsidiary of Defendant Gannett since that time. During the occurrence of the discriminatory and retaliatory misconduct alleged herein, Barbara Henry was and is The Star’s Publisher, and Dennis Ryerson was and is The Star’s Executive Editor and Vice President. Id. For purposes of the allegations contained herein, The Star and Gannett were the joint employers of the Plaintiffs, who were both members of the Editorial Board of The Star.
2.3 The Plaintiff James Patterson is a 51-year-old African-American man with strong and sincere Christian religious beliefs. He is a resident of Indianapolis, Marion County, Indiana, and was so resident at times pertinent to the matters alleged herein. Plaintiff Patterson was hired at The Indianapolis Star in 1989, working for two years as a reporter covering the police beat and for the next four years as a reporter on the State Desk before transferring to The Star’s Editorial Department in 1995. Since that time until his termination, Plaintiff Patterson worked as a member of The Star Editorial Board, editorial writer, columnist and substitute Op-Ed/Layout Editor. The Defendants involuntarily terminated Plaintiff Patterson’s employment at The Star on May 3, 2005.
2.4 The Plaintiff Lisa M. Coffey is a 46-year-old Caucasian woman with strong and sincere Christian religious beliefs. She is a resident of Indianapolis, Marion County, Indiana, and was so resident at times pertinent to the matters alleged herein. In 1990, Plaintiff Coffey was hired to work at The Indianapolis News as a member of the Editorial Board, editorial writer, columnist and Op-Ed editor. She was also coordinator of the Pulliam Journalism Fellowship program, an internship competition for graduating college seniors planning to enter the field of journalism. Plaintiff Coffey performed these duties continuously at The Indianapolis News until that newspaper ceased operations in October of 1999. At that time, Plaintiff Coffey transferred to The Indianapolis Star, where from October of 1999 to August of 2001 she worked full-time on that paper’s copy desk and also substantial overtime for the Pulliam Journalism Fellowship Program. In August of 2001, because of the numerous hours of overtime (reported and unreported) she worked for the Pulliam Fellowship, Plaintiff Coffey requested that she work three days per week on the copy desk and two days a week for the Pulliam Fellowship. The Star’s then executive editor, Terry Eberle, agreed. Thirteen months later, in September of 2002, then Star Editorial Department Head Andrea Neal received permission to recruit Plaintiff Coffey from the copy desk to her department as an Editorial Board member, editorial writer, columnist and backup page designer three days a week. Plaintiff Coffey continued to work two days of the week for Russ Pulliam and the Pulliam Fellowship. Another 13 months later, in October of 2003, after being involuntarily relieved of her responsibilities with the Pulliam Fellowship and the Editorial Department, Plaintiff Coffey was constructively discharged and resigned on October 13, 2003.
III. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
3.1 In 1989, Plaintiff Patterson joined the staff of The Indianapolis Star first as a reporter. Since 1995 through his recent termination, he was a member of the Editorial Board, an editorial writer, columnist and substitute Op-Ed/Layout Editor for The Star’s Editorial Department.
3.2 For his journalistic writing, Plaintiff Patterson has won numerous awards and has received written commendations from leading organizations for his editorials and columns. For instance, in June of 2004, Plaintiff Patterson received a letter from Indiana U.S. Senator Richard Lugar stating that a column he had written about the issue of HIV/AIDS in Africa, leaving millions of children orphaned, had persuaded him to introduce a bill addressing this problem. Also in June of 2004, Plaintiff Patterson received a note from Indiana U.S. Senator Evan Bayh stating that one of his editorials had persuaded him to sponsor a bill regarding DNA testing.
3.3 The Indianapolis News hired Plaintiff Coffey in 1990 as an Editorial Board member, editorial writer, columnist and Op-Ed editor. In this position, Plaintiff Coffey wrote hundreds of editorials and columns, some of which were reprinted in national publications, magazines, other newspapers, books, college textbooks and college literary journals. While employed at The Indianapolis News, Plaintiff Coffey also created the concept for and authored for five years an overview of great world literature, titled Passages. As part of her duties at The Indianapolis News, Plaintiff Coffey was also the administrator/coordinator of the Pulliam Journalism Fellowship Program, which is an international competition for college students bound for journalism careers. Plaintiff Coffey worked and thrived in the above capacities at The Indianapolis News for nine and a half years, winning numerous first-place and community services awards for her writing throughout that time.
3.4 In October of 1999, The Indianapolis News closed, and Plaintiff Coffey was transferred to The Indianapolis Star. From October of 1999 to August of 2001, Plaintiff Coffey worked forty (40) hours per week on the copy desk and another ten (10) to fifteen (15) hours per week in reported overtime for the Pulliam Journalism Fellowship Program.
3.5 In August of 2001, Plaintiff Coffey requested that her schedule be revised, due to the excessive amount of hours (reported and non-reported overtime) dedicated to the Pulliam Fellowship. With then Executive Editor Terry Eberle’s approval, Plaintiff Coffey began work three (3) days per workweek on The Star’s copy desk and two (2) days per workweek for the Pulliam Fellowship and for Russ Pulliam. For her work three days per week on the copy desk and two days per week for the Pulliam Fellowship program, Plaintiff Coffey was paid an annual salary of $55,000.
3.6 Upon transferring to The Star in 1999 upon The News’ closure, Plaintiff Coffey’s sincere desire and goal was to work full-time for that paper’s Editorial Department. In mid-2001, Plaintiff Coffey told Andrea Neal, then head of The Star’s Editorial Department, that she would very much like to work in the Editorial Department and, in early 2002, Plaintiff Coffey began contributing editorials as often as her other responsibilities permitted; Plaintiff Coffey was not, and did not ask to be, paid for these published contributions.
3.7 Finally, in September of 2002, Plaintiff Coffey was formally transferred to The Star’s Editorial Department three days a week, continuing to work the other two workdays for Russ Pulliam and the Pulliam Fellowship.
3.8 After purchasing The Star, Gannett hired Barbara Henry as The Star’s Publisher. In March of 2003, Dennis Ryerson replaced Terry Eberle as The Star’s Executive Editor. In early October 2003, Pam Fine was hired as The Star’s Managing Editor. These three individuals held The Star’s top three management positions over the newsroom, which includes the Editorial Department. Ms. Henry and Mr. Ryerson consistently and repeatedly demonstrated in the workplace a negative hostility towards Christianity and then existing Christian employees of The Star.
3.9 Mr. Ryerson’s first day at The Star was the day after war was commenced against Iraq. Plaintiff Patterson had written an editorial calling for the country to pray over our troops and the war effort in general. Mr. Ryerson informed the Editorial Department that he had been repulsed and offended by the prayer editorial and stated that, in the future, he would not allow any editorials with any Christian overtones to be published or which could be construed as proselytizing on the editorial pages. Thus, since his first day, Mr. Ryerson has consistently demonstrated hostility toward Christianity and Christians on The Star’s staff.
3.10 As a part of their animus towards Christian employees, Ms. Henry and Mr. Ryerson displayed strong disagreement with anyone who had a Biblical view of homosexuality. Thereafter, The Star, through the actions of Ms. Henry and Mr. Ryerson, implemented a policy and practice of encouraging, favoring and printing news coverage and editorials with a positive slant on homosexuality and of disfavoring editorials with a positive slant on Christianity.
3.11 Until the hirings of Ms. Henry, Mr. Ryerson and Ms. Fine, Plaintiff Patterson’s performance evaluations had been consistently positive over the previous fourteen years he had then been with The Star. For instance, Andrea Neal, then head of The Star’s Editorial Department and Patterson’s immediate supervisor, favorably evaluated his 2002 performance in a Performance Appraisal dated January 31, 2003 (a true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto as “Exhibit A”) in which Ms. Neal described his strengths as: “James is a dedicated member of our staff who contributes a distinct and forceful perspective to our editorial board discussions. His work ethic and community connections are noteworthy. He is often the social conscience of the editorial board on issues affecting disaffected and minority communities.” See Exhibit A.
3.12 Shortly after Mr. Ryerson’s hiring, he made a public statement to the members of the Editorial Department that sodomy laws should be repealed. As a result of Mr. Ryerson’s stated opinion, Plaintiff Coffey began researching the topic of sodomy and specifically the public health and economic consequences of anal intercourse, if any. The topic was timely and relevant in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ongoing review of a Texas sodomy case (Lawrence v. Texas), which ultimately was decided June 26, 2003, with state sodomy laws nullified by the high court’s 6-3 opinion. In reviewing state, federal and international data, Plaintiff Coffey was surprised to learn that there were many significant health risks associated with anal intercourse, with potentially enormous public health and economic ramifications. In fact, a new, comprehensive German university study had just linked the African AIDS pandemic to sodomy. Plaintiff Coffey shared her research results with Ms. Neal, as she was then the head of The Star’s Editorial Department, and proposed a series of editorials on the impact of engaging in anal intercourse from public health and economic perspectives.
3.13 In the midst of the preceding research process, Ms. Neal favorably evaluated Plaintiff Coffey’s work performance, in a form dated May 30, 2003, a true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto as “Exhibit B.” In this appraisal, Ms. Neal stated, “Lisa is a dedicated, personable member of our staff who, better than anyone, can fill in to perform all job responsibilities connected with the editorial page: writing, content editing, copy editing, page planning, art selection, etc. This makes her invaluable. Her work ethic is exemplary.” See Exhibit B. In another part of the appraisal, Ms. Neal wrote that Plaintiff Coffey’s productivity and work ethic were “off the chart.”
3.14 At this time, Ms. Neal also pushed for a substantial raise for Plaintiff Coffey based upon her abilities, education (only MBA in the department), past awards, and contribution to the Editorial Department, particularly in light of the fact that Plaintiff Coffey was the lowest paid member of the Editorial Department at the time. The Star refused to grant the substantial raise recommended by Ms. Neal, instead granting Ms. Coffey only a minimal raise.
3.15 After Ms. Neal announced in the Spring of 2003 her plans to take a leave of absence commencing August 8, 2003, she and Tim Swarens, the assistant editorial page editor at that time, approached Plaintiff Coffey about working full-time for the Editorial Department. Plaintiff Coffey accepted, informing Ms. Neal and Mr. Swarens that she would need to work for the Pulliam Fellowship through December 31, 2003 but would work full-time for Editorial effective January 1, 2004.
3.16 Plaintiff Coffey knew that she would be needed full-time in the Editorial Department, as that department was already short-staffed; the position of an editorial writer (Larry MacIntyre) who had resigned a year or so previously had never been filled. In two months (after August 8, 2003), the staff shortage would be exacerbated by Ms. Neal’s yearlong leave of absence. Additionally, the Editorial Department expected a heavy workload given the then-approaching election season, during which the department is expected to interview all the candidates and endorse each race (the City-County Council races alone fielded nearly eighty candidates). Plaintiff Coffey, even as a part-time staffer, was put in charge of the process. Moreover, the small Editorial Department was soon to become responsible for all six pages of the Sunday Focus section, not just the first four pages, in addition to its daily pages. For these reasons, Plaintiff Coffey knew her contributions were necessary and would remain critical for the efficient operations of the Editorial Department.
3.17 By mid- to late July of 2003, Plaintiff Coffey had completed a great deal of the research for her sodomy/HIV series. Ms. Neal first wanted to run a column as a “test.” Given the views of the occupants of the top two newsroom managerial positions (Publisher Barbara Henry and Executive Editor Dennis Ryerson), Plaintiff Coffey and Ms. Neal feared that these managers would reject the series as anti-homosexual, as anal intercourse is commonly associated with homosexual and bisexual men, even though the series was researched and written for all persons engaging in anal intercourse, regardless of gender, and despite the irrefutable nature of Plaintiff Coffey’s statistics and documented sources.
3.18 The first test column as written highlighted the fact that “men who have sex with men” are indeed a high-risk group when it comes to HIV transmission but also continually underscored the issue of anal intercourse, not homosexuality, as the subject under review. A true and correct copy of this column is attached hereto as “Exhibit C.” The column was already laid out on the page, ready to run, in late July of 2003. When he read it, Mr. Ryerson became enraged and refused to print it, stating that The Star would never run anything that was so anti-gay. The test column was not anti-gay, despite Mr. Ryerson’s interpretation of it; it was an accurate depiction of the risks associated with anal intercourse. See Exhibit C.
3.19 Shortly after censoring the preceding column, on July 24, 2003, Mr. Ryerson sent Plaintiff Coffey a copy of an e-mail he had sent to a letter writer, and Plaintiff Coffey sent a reply e-mail telling Mr. Ryerson that she respected him and hoped they could work well together despite their philosophical differences. In this e-mail exchange, Mr. Ryerson wrote that he did not believe in absolute truth, to which Plaintiff Coffey responded with an e-mail briefly outlining her beliefs in Christianity and the Bible, assuring him that it was a one-time message, since company time was meant for work, not religious debate. Mr. Ryerson sent Plaintiff Coffey a vitriolic e-mail in response, condemning her beliefs and accusing her of proselytizing. Mr. Ryerson’s e-mail demonstrated a deep animosity toward Christianity in general and toward Plaintiff Coffey in particular for holding Christian religious beliefs.
3.20 Shortly thereafter, when Plaintiff Coffey asked Tim Swarens about working full-time in Star Editorial, Mr. Swarens warned her that Mr. Ryerson planned to meet with her, and that it would not be about working for Star Editorial in 2004.
3.21 At the end of the day on August 8, 2003, Andrea Neal left the Editorial Department for a one-year leave of absence, although she ultimately decided not to return.
3.22 When Ms. Neal departed, Tim Swarens stepped up to temporarily (at the time) head the Editorial Department, leaving vacant his position of Assistant Editorial Page Editor. Plaintiff Patterson applied to fill this vacancy. Despite Plaintiff Patterson’s qualifications of nine years’ experience as an editorial writer for The Star, and receiving numerous awards for his writing, he never was interviewed for this position, which remains vacant.
3.23 On the afternoon of Friday, October 10, 2003, Mr. Ryerson asked Plaintiff Coffey to meet with him in Star Editorial’s conference room. He told her that the Newsroom would be “taking over” the Pulliam Fellowship effective November 1, 2003, that Plaintiff Coffey was no longer needed to work in any capacity in the Editorial Department, and that he would be transferring her to the copy desk full-time effective November 1, 2003. He said that he believed Plaintiff Coffey had been dedicating too many hours to Fellowship work, when in fact Russ Pulliam and Plaintiff Coffey were the only two Fellowship employees – and despite the fact that Human Resources Vice President Ali Zoibi had issued a check to Plaintiff Coffey just a month earlier, in September 2003, in the amount of $5,500 (net) to cover future pension liabilities based on $30,000 of unpaid overtime work conducted for the Fellowship over the last two years. Knowing that Mr. Swarens had talked about a “final conversation” Mr. Ryerson planned to have with Plaintiff Coffey, she decided to address this issue with Mr. Zoibi, with both of them joking that she might expect $1.98 or so a month extra in her pension when she turned 65 based on the unpaid overtime. Mr. Zoibi and she were both surprised by the amount calculated by the pension actuaries.
3.24 Mr. Ryerson’s statement that Ms. Coffey’s contributions were no longer needed in the Editorial Department was false, as that department was already short-staffed before Ms. Coffey’s removal and was facing the additional onus of covering the upcoming elections. In fact after Ms. Coffey’s removal, the Editorial Department immediately asked Copy Editor Jane Lichtenberg to try to learn to write editorials, and also hired additional staff. Ms. Coffey asked if she might continue to work part-time in Editorial. Her request was flatly denied.
3.25 Plaintiff Coffey believes that her involuntary removal from any and all work with the Editorial Department was the direct result of The Star’s top managers’ hostility toward and prejudice against her known Christian religious beliefs, which these managers assumed was synonymous with anti-homosexuality, especially since her involuntary removal was occurring in the midst of a critical staff shortage in the Editorial Department.
3.26 On Monday, October 13, 2003, Plaintiff Coffey met with Vice President of Human Resources Ali Zoibi to protest her involuntary transfer, during which meeting she was told there was nothing to be done as Mr. Ryerson had the authority to transfer personnel wherever and whenever he wished.
3.27 Given the lack of any meaningful response from Human Resources and the imminent loss of her position in the Editorial Department, where she had a meaningful forum through editorials and columns to research and write, and her mandated transfer to the copy desk, where she would be relegated to rewriting other people’s copy, Plaintiff Coffey had no choice but to resign.
3.28 As to the quality of Plaintiff Coffey’s published work, no errors were ever ascribed to her during the years she worked at The Indianapolis News or The Indianapolis Star. Plaintiff Coffey’s performance reviews first at The Indianapolis News and later at The Indianapolis Star were always favorable. In nearly 14 years, she never received any official disciplinary action or formal reprimand.
3.29 Following Andrea Neal’s departure on leave of absence and then Plaintiff Coffey’s constructive discharge, Plaintiff Patterson came under increasingly close and stressful scrutiny as one of the few known Christians remaining in the Editorial Department.
3.30 In January of 2004, Plaintiff Patterson’s 2003 performance evaluation came due on the anniversary of his original hire date. However, Plaintiff Patterson received no evaluation at that time. Instead, he was ordered to submit a short summary of his column idea each week for managerial pre-approval prior to writing his column. Plaintiff Patterson was told that everyone on the staff who wrote columns would also be required to submit summaries and obtain managerial pre-approval. However, in fact, Plaintiff Patterson was the only one singled out for this treatment and specifically was the only writer on the editorial staff who was required to submit column ideas for managerial pre-approval.
3.31 Several months elapsed, but Plaintiff Patterson still did not receive a performance evaluation. Then, in June of 2004, he wrote an editorial about the Humane Society which contained an error resulting in The Star promptly running a correction. Plaintiff Patterson wrote a follow-up column about the Humane Society, after which the director of the agency and several of its volunteers sent him laudatory notes of thanks and left telephone messages mentioning the column in positive terms.
3.32 Shortly after this minor error occurred, Plaintiff Patterson finally received his 2003 Performance Appraisal, six months late, from Tim Swarens, Ms. Neal’s replacement. When other reporters and editors have won awards, such awards are recognized and rewarded accordingly in their performance evaluations. Plaintiff Patterson won two state first-place awards and a prestigious international award for his series of editorials on the HIV/AIDS pandemic. Yet, his achievements received scant reference in his performance evaluation, contrary to prior practice. Despite the fact that he had received multiple state and international awards for his editorial writing in 2003, Plaintiff Patterson received a lesser performance rating for 2003 than he had in 2002, even though before her departure on sabbatical Ms. Neal never gave any indication that she considered Plaintiff Patterson’s work to be substandard or that he was at risk for receiving a lesser performance rating than he had for 2002.
3.33 During his annual performance review meeting with Mr. Swarens, which occurred on June 30, 2004, Swarens informed Plaintiff Patterson that he was being formally reprimanded for alleged factual errors and would be subject to a Performance Improvement Plan (a/k/a “PIP”) for the next sixty days.
3.34 This PIP demonstrates that Plaintiff Patterson was being held to different, more exacting performance standards than other editorial writers. In particular, other writers who wrote articles or columns containing errors requiring printed corrections were not reprimanded or subjected to a PIP as was Plaintiff Patterson.
3.35 Moreover, The Star’s newsroom managers did not acknowledge or recognize Plaintiff Patterson’s efforts as was done with his colleagues. For instance, Mr. Ryerson noticeably omitted any reference to Plaintiff Patterson in his e-mails in June and July of 2004 to others at The Star regarding his coverage of Death Row inmate Darnell Williams, even though Plaintiff Patterson had written the most about this case and had been the first Star journalist to write significantly about its injustice.
3.36 On August 4, 2004, Plaintiff Coffey filed an administrative complaint of workplace discrimination based on her Christian religious beliefs and of related retaliation jointly with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), the Indiana Civil Rights Commission and the Indianapolis/Marion County Division of Equal Opportunity.
3.37 On August 13, 2004, Plaintiff Patterson filed an administrative complaint of workplace discrimination based on his Christian religious beliefs, race, age and of related retaliation jointly with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), the Indiana Civil Rights Commission and the Indianapolis/Marion County Division of Equal Opportunity.
3.38 After the Plaintiffs initiated proceedings with the EEOC, Plaintiff Patterson came under even more intense scrutiny at The Star. Not only was he expected to produce 100% error-free copy for each and every column and article, but he was required to produce far more columns and articles than any other person in the Editorial Department.
3.39 The EEOC issued to Plaintiff Coffey a Dismissal and Notice of Rights, dated March 15, 2005. A true and correct copy of this document is attached hereto as “Exhibit D.” The above-captioned lawsuit is being filed within ninety (90) days of Plaintiff Coffey’s receipt of the same.
3.40 The EEOC issued to Plaintiff Patterson a Dismissal and Notice of Rights, dated March 31, 2005. A true and correct copy of this document is attached hereto as “Exhibit E.” The above-captioned lawsuit is being filed within ninety (90) days of Plaintiff Patterson’s receipt of the same.
3.41 After the conclusion of the EEOC proceedings, Plaintiff Patterson’s employment at The Star was involuntarily terminated on May 3, 2005.
IV. RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION
Come now the Plaintiffs Lisa M. Coffey and James Patterson, and each of them, for their first cause of action against the Defendants, and each of those Defendants, allege and declare as follows:
4.1 Plaintiffs reallege the preceding paragraphs numbered 1.1 through 3.41 and incorporate said allegations by this reference.
4.2 Plaintiff Coffey is a woman holding strong and sincere Christian religious beliefs, who was satisfactorily performing her jobs at The Star. As noted in the preceding section of factual allegations, the Defendants engaged in a series of actions and/or omissions against or regarding Plaintiff Coffey because of her religious beliefs.
4.3 Despite her past performance, experience and qualifications, Plaintiff Coffey, however, was the lowest paid staffperson in The Star’s Editorial Department. Plaintiff Coffey was also denied a meaningful raise intended to place her compensation on an equitable footing with her colleagues, despite the strong push of Plaintiff Coffey’s supervisor, Andrea Neal, the then head of the Editorial Department, for such a raise.
4.4 Despite her past performance, experience and qualifications, Plaintiff Coffey was abruptly and involuntarily removed from her responsibilities and position with the Editorial Department and the Pulliam Fellowship, even though her past performance evaluations had been consistently positive and she had never received any negative evaluation or disciplinary measure regarding her performance of her responsibilities and position with the Editorial Department and the Pulliam Fellowship (most recent Pulliam Fellowship evaluation by Russ Pulliam: “Lisa’s ‘weakness’ is that she is too conscientious and can work too hard if she is not restrained.”) While it is certainly within The Star’s right to transfer the responsibility of the Pulliam Fellowship to the Newsroom, it is highly unusual that someone with nearly 14 years’ experience (Plaintiff Coffey) administering the program no longer would be needed in any way by an executive editor with less than seven months’ experience at The Star and with no hands-on experience with the program. It also is highly unusual that Plaintiff Coffey’s services as an editorial writer/columnist/page designer would no longer be needed in any way (part-time or full-time) by a department that on the day she resigned (October 13, 2003) immediately asked the Editorial Department’s copy editor (Jane Lichtenberg) to start learning how to write editorials while Mr. Ryerson and Mr. Swarens sought someone else to join the staff. New hire Beth Murphy was hired part-time almost immediately and was working full-time in the department within a month or two of Plaintiff Coffey’s departure.
4.5 Despite her past performance, experience and qualifications, Plaintiff Coffey was denied full-time or even part-time employment in The Star’s Editorial Department, although such employment had been discussed in June 2003 by the then head of the Editorial Department (Ms. Neal) and the then assistant head of the department (Tim Swarens).
4.6 In October 2004, The Star won “best editorials in the nation” and best overall writing for its social services editorials published from August 1, 2003, to July 31, 2004, inclusive. The winning authors were listed as Andrea Neal (who rarely wrote editorials as department head and who actually left the paper on August 8, 2003), Tim Swarens and James Patterson. After Plaintiff Coffey told Mr. Patterson that she had written 12-15 social services editorials from August 1, 2003, to October 13, 2003, Mr. Patterson asked Mr. Swarens on several occasions to see the winning editorials, since he (Mr. Patterson) was ostensibly one of the winning writers and the judging agency had confirmed that all contest materials had been sent back to The Star. Mr. Swarens ignored Mr. Patterson’s repeated attempts to see the winning editorials, which – if Ms. Coffey did write one or several of the five editorials that constituted the winning best-of-nation entry – would further substantiate Ms. Coffey’s value to the department.
4.7 Due to Plaintiff Coffey’s known religious beliefs, she was subjected to adverse employment actions including, without limitation, being denied a raise and equitable compensation commensurate to similarly situated employees of different religious affiliations, being deprived of her positions in the Editorial Department and with the Pulliam Fellowship and her constructive discharge. As such, the Defendants discriminated against Plaintiff Coffey on the basis of her religion in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq.), including specifically but without limitation 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2(a) and 2000e-2(l), Indiana’s Civil Rights Law, specifically Indiana Code (“I.C.”) §§ 22-9-1-1 et seq., and/or Chapter 581 of the Consolidated City and County Code for Indianapolis and Marion County, Indiana, codified at §§ 581.101 et seq.
4.8 Plaintiff Patterson is a man holding strong and sincere Christian religious beliefs, who was satisfactorily performing his duties at The Star. As noted in the preceding section of factual allegations, and as with Plaintiff Coffey, the Defendants engaged in a series of actions and/or omissions against or regarding Plaintiff Patterson because, in whole or in part, of his religious beliefs.
4.9 Despite his past performance, experience and qualifications, Plaintiff Patterson was not interviewed or otherwise considered for the position of Assistant Editorial Page Editor which was left vacant when Tim Swarens replaced Andrea Neal as head of The Star’s Editorial Department and which position remains vacant.
4.10 After the replacement of the top three managerial positions, with purchase of The Star by Gannett, Plaintiff Patterson was denied recognition for his positive contributions at The Star. In 2003, Plaintiff Patterson had won a first-place award from the Indiana Associated Press Managing Editors organization for his editorial writing. Trophies for the other award-winning reporters were distributed to them. Plaintiff Patterson did not receive his trophy. After several months, he eventually found it in a gunny sack in an empty office. Mr. Ryerson omitted any reference to Plaintiff Patterson in his laudatory e-mails in June and July of 2004 to other reporters at The Star regarding their coverage of Death Row inmate Darnell Williams, even though Plaintiff Patterson had written the most about this case and had been the first Star journalist to write significantly about its injustice. In addition, in October 2004, Patterson was one of three Editorial Board members who won two first-place national awards for his writing (the award was for best editorials in the nation and best overall entry). The award to Patterson was not acknowledged on the Gannett website, a status which persists to this day, though the posting of such awards has been the usual and customary procedure by Gannett for decades. Moreover, The Star has refused to publish any story reporting on Patterson’s achievements.
4.11 After Andrea Neal’s departure and Plaintiff Coffey’s constructive discharge from The Star, Plaintiff Patterson was held to performance standards different from his colleagues, in that he was expected to write more “faultless” copy. The Star waited months to conduct Plaintiff Patterson’s 2003 performance evaluation, delaying that evaluation until immediately after Plaintiff Patterson had committed one error in an article requiring a printed correction, and subsequently imposed a disciplinary PIP for this one error, although others in the Editorial Department making similar, or worse, errors were not being subjected to the same performance expectations and/or disciplinary measures as Plaintiff Patterson. Said PIP, the tardy 2003 performance rating, and the subsequent criticisms of Plaintiff Patterson’s performance were nothing but pretext, created to justify Plaintiff Patterson’s involuntary termination, which in fact was based on a discriminatory animus based on Plaintiff Patterson’s Christian religious beliefs.
4.12 Due to Plaintiff Patterson’s known religious beliefs, he was subjected to adverse employment actions including, without limitation, being denied promotion to (or even consideration for) a vacant position for which he was eminently qualified, being subjected to disciplinary measures for relatively minor conduct not resulting in similar disciplinary measures against similarly situated coworkers of different religious affiliations, being subjected to more onerous performance standards than similarly situated coworkers of different religious affiliations, being denied recognitions for his award-winning articles, and/or being terminated for alleged conduct for which similarly situated coworkers of different religious affiliations are not so terminated. As such, the Defendants treated Plaintiff Patterson differently and discriminated against Plaintiff Patterson on the basis of his religion in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, including specifically but without limitation 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2(a) and 2000e-2(l), Indiana’s Civil Rights Law (I.C. §§ 22-9-1-1 et seq.), and/or Chapter 581 of the Consolidated City and County Code for Indianapolis and Marion County, Indiana, codified at §§ 581.101 et seq.
4.13 The actions of The Star’s top managers indicate a practice and pattern of refusing to hire and/or promote persons known to have a strong Christian religious belief and of reducing the number of persons known to have a strong Christian religious belief employed at The Star. Such a pattern and practice is also unlawful discrimination on the basis of religion in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq.) including specifically but without limitation 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2(a) and 2000e-2(l), Indiana’s Civil Rights Law (I.C. §§ 22-9-1-1 et seq.), and/or Chapter 581 of the Consolidated City and County Code for Indianapolis and Marion County, Indiana, codified at §§ 581.101 et seq.
4.14 As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ discriminatory actions and/or omissions, as described above, the Plaintiffs have each sustained damages for which he/she is entitled to be made whole and/or for compensation, in amounts to be determined at trial, including without limitation his/her lost past and future income, his/her out-of-pocket expenses, general damages for his/her pain and suffering, mental anguish, humiliation and/or emotional distress, and his/her attorneys’ fees and costs, from each of the Defendants.
V. RACE DISCRIMINATION
Comes now the Plaintiff James Patterson for his second cause of action against the Defendants, and each of those Defendants, alleges and declares as follows:
5.1 Plaintiff Patterson realleges the preceding paragraphs numbered 1.1 through 4.14 and incorporates said allegations by this reference.
5.2 Plaintiff Patterson is an African-American man, who was satisfactorily performing his duties at The Star. As noted in the preceding section of factual allegations, the Defendants engaged in a series of actions and/or omissions against or regarding Plaintiff Patterson because of his race, as well as because of his religious beliefs and age.
5.3 Despite his past performance, experience and qualifications, Plaintiff Patterson was not interviewed or otherwise considered for the position of Assistant Editorial Page Editor which was left vacant when Tim Swarens replaced Andrea Neal as head of The Star’s Editorial Department and which position remains vacant. Although Plaintiff Patterson is qualified to fill this position, the Defendants failed to consider him for it. The Star, unfortunately, has a history and practice of not hiring or promoting African-Americans to management positions. Currently, only one of the managers in the Editorial Department or in the newsroom as a whole is African-American. Patterson, in fact, was the first African-American hired in the Editorial Department in The Star’s history.
5.4 Beginning in mid- to late 2003, Plaintiff Patterson was held to performance standards different from and far more exacting than those required of his similarly situated colleagues. Plaintiff Patterson was required to write more articles and columns, with fewer errors of any sort (including typographical errors) than anyone else in the Editorial Department. The Star delayed conducting Plaintiff Patterson’s 2003 performance evaluation for several months until immediately after Plaintiff Patterson had committed one error in an article requiring printed correction, and subsequently imposed a disciplinary PIP for this one error, although others in the Editorial Department making similar, or worse, errors were not being subjected to the same performance expectations and/or disciplinary measures in such or similar circumstances. Said PIP, the tardy 2003 performance rating, and the subsequent criticisms of Plaintiff Patterson’s performance were nothing but pretext, created to justify Plaintiff Patterson’s involuntary termination, which in fact was based on a discriminatory animus based on Plaintiff Patterson’s race, Christian religious beliefs and/or age.
5.5 Due to Plaintiff Patterson’s race, he was subjected to adverse employment actions including, without limitation, being denied promotion to (or even consideration for) a vacant position for which he was eminently qualified, being subjected to disciplinary measures for relatively minor conduct not resulting in similar disciplinary measures against similarly situated non-African-American coworkers, being subjected to more onerous performance standards than similarly situated non-African-American coworkers, being denied recognitions for his award-winning articles, and/or being terminated for alleged conduct for which similarly situated non-African-American coworkers are not so terminated. As such, the Defendants treated Plaintiff Patterson differently and discriminated against Plaintiff Patterson on the basis of his race in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, including specifically but without limitation 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2(a) and 2000e-2(l), Indiana’s Civil Rights Law, I.C. §§ 22-9-1-1 et seq., and/or Chapter 581 of the Consolidated City and County Code for Indianapolis and Marion County, Indiana, codified at §§ 581.101 et seq.
5.6 The Star has a past and current practice and pattern of failing or refusing to hire and/or failing or refusing to promote African-Americans into managerial positions; only one African-American currently holds any managerial position in the Editorial Department or the newsroom as a whole. Such a pattern and practice, of which the failure to promote Plaintiff Patterson is consistent and a part, is also unlawful discrimination on the basis of race in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Indiana’s Civil Rights Law (I.C. §§ 22-9-1-1 et seq.), and/or Chapter 581 of the Consolidated City and County Code for Indianapolis and Marion County, Indiana, codified at §§ 581.101 et seq.
5.7 As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ racially discriminatory actions and/or omissions, as described above, Plaintiff Patterson has sustained damages for which he is entitled to be made whole and/or for compensation, in amounts to be determined at trial, including without limitation his lost past and future income, his out-of-pocket expenses, general damages for his pain and suffering, mental anguish, humiliation and/or emotional distress, and his attorneys’ fees and costs, from each of the Defendants.
VI. AGE DISCRIMINATION
Comes now the Plaintiff James Patterson for his third cause of action against the Defendants, and each of those Defendants, alleges and declares as follows:
6.1 Plaintiff Patterson realleges the preceding paragraphs numbered 1.1 through 5.7 and incorporates said allegations by this reference.
6.2 Plaintiff Patterson is a 51-year-old man, who was satisfactorily performing his duties at The Star. As noted in the preceding section of factual allegations, the Defendants engaged in a series of actions and/or omissions against or regarding Plaintiff Patterson because of his age, as well as because of his religious beliefs and race.
6.3 Despite his past performance, experience and qualifications, Plaintiff Patterson was not interviewed or otherwise considered for the position of Assistant Editorial Page Editor which was left vacant when Tim Swarens replaced Andrea Neal as head of The Star’s Editorial Department and which position remains vacant. The one person known to have been interviewed and given serious consideration for this position was approximately 30 years old.
6.4 Beginning in mid- to late 2003, Plaintiff Patterson was held to performance standards different from and far more exacting than those required of his similarly situated colleagues. Plaintiff Patterson was required to write more articles and columns, with fewer errors, and without any collegial proofreading allowed, as was and is allowed for his coworkers, than anyone else in the Editorial Department. The Star delayed conducting Plaintiff Patterson’s 2003 performance evaluation for several months until immediately after Plaintiff Patterson had committed one error in an article requiring a printed correction. The Star subsequently imposed a disciplinary PIP for this one error although others in the Editorial Department making similar, or worse, errors were not being subjected to the same performance expectations and/or disciplinary measures in such or similar circumstances. Said PIP, the tardy 2003 performance rating, and the subsequent criticisms of Plaintiff Patterson’s performance were nothing but pretext, created to justify Plaintiff Patterson’s involuntary termination, which in fact was based on a discriminatory animus based on Plaintiff Patterson’s age, Christian religious beliefs and/or race.
6.5 Due to Plaintiff Patterson’s age, he was subjected to adverse employment actions including, without limitation, being denied promotion to (or even consideration for) a vacant position for which he was eminently qualified, being subjected to disciplinary measures for relatively minor conduct not resulting in similar disciplinary measures against similarly situated coworkers under the age of 40, being subjected to more onerous performance standards than similarly situated coworkers under the age of 40, being denied recognitions for his award-winning articles, and/or being terminated for alleged conduct for which similarly situated coworkers under the age of 40 are not so terminated. As such, the Defendants treated Plaintiff Patterson differently and discriminated against Plaintiff Patterson on the basis of his age in violation of Age Discrimination in Employment Act, Indiana’s Civil Rights Law (I.C. §§ 22-9-1-1 et seq.), and/or Chapter 581 of the Consolidated City and County Code for Indianapolis and Marion County, Indiana, codified at §§ 581.101 et seq.
6.6 As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ discriminatory actions and/or omissions, as described above, Plaintiff Patterson has sustained damages for which he is entitled to be made whole and/or for compensation, in amounts to be determined at trial, including without limitation his lost past and future income, his out-of-pocket expenses, general damages for his pain and suffering, mental anguish, humiliation and/or emotional distress, and his attorneys’ fees and costs, from each of the Defendants.
VII. UNLAWFUL RETALIATION
Comes now the Plaintiff James Patterson for his fourth cause of action against the Defendants, and each of those Defendants, alleges and declares as follows:
7.1 Plaintiff Patterson realleges the preceding paragraphs numbered 1.1 through 6.6 and incorporates said allegations by this reference.
7.2 Plaintiff Patterson is a 51-year-old African-American man with strong and sincere Christian religious beliefs, who asserted his civil rights by complaining of the Defendants’ discriminatory conduct jointly to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), the Indiana Civil Rights Commission and the Indianapolis/Marion County Division of Equal Opportunity.
7.3 The Plaintiff’s right to work in a professional atmosphere free from unlawful discrimination because of his religious beliefs, race and/or age is guaranteed by federal, Indiana and local statutes.
7.4 After Plaintiff Patterson asserted his civil rights guaranteed by statute and because he complained of their behavior, the Defendants more openly expressed animosity towards and regarding Plaintiff Patterson, and intensified their campaign to remove him from his position at The Star, which campaign was ultimately and unfortunately successful.
7.5 As Plaintiff Patterson asserted civil rights granted by statute and as a result suffered intensified discrimination leading inevitably to his involuntary termination, the Defendants are liable for unlawful retaliation against Plaintiff Patterson, pursuant to Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Indiana’s Civil Rights Law (I.C. §§ 22-9-1-1 et seq.), and/or Chapter 581 of the Consolidated City and County Code for Indianapolis and Marion County, Indiana, codified at §§ 581.101 et seq.
7.6 As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ retaliation, Plaintiff Patterson was involuntarily terminated from his position at The Star, depriving him of his career and any future employment (whether managerial or not) at The Star, and has sustained damages for which he is entitled to be made whole and/or for compensation, in amounts to be determined at trial, including without limitation his lost past and future income, his out-of-pocket expenses, general damages for his pain and suffering, mental anguish, humiliation and/or emotional distress, and his attorneys’ fees and costs, from each of the Defendants.
VIII. CONSTRUCTIVE DISCHARGE
Comes now the Plaintiff Lisa Coffey for her second cause of action against the Defendants, and each of those Defendants, alleges and declares as follows:
8.1 Plaintiff Coffey realleges the preceding paragraphs numbered 1.1 through 4.15 and incorporates said allegations by this reference.
8.2 As noted in the section regarding factual allegations above, Plaintiff Coffey admirably performed her responsibilities first at The News and later at The Star. No errors were ever ascribed to Plaintiff Coffey’s published work during the years she worked at The News or The Star; neither paper ever had to issue any retraction or correction because of her published materials. Plaintiff Coffey’s performance reviews first at The News and later at The Star were always favorable. She never received any written or verbal reprimand, or any other form of disciplinary action.
8.3 Without warning, Dennis Ryerson abruptly informed Plaintiff Coffey on Friday, October 10, 2003, that she would be removed from any and all duties in the Editorial Department or with the Pulliam Fellowship and moved full-time to the copy desk effective November 1, 2003.
8.4 The only reason given for this abrupt removal from her previous duties was that she was not needed in those positions any longer.
8.5 The proffered reason was patently false, and Plaintiff Coffey knew the proffered reason was false. The Editorial Department was already short-handed with the previous departure of an editorial writer and Andrea Neal’s absence on sabbatical, and the elections, which generate a very large volume of work for the Editorial Department, were less than a month away, with Plaintiff Coffey in charge of the endorsement process. Far from not needing staff in the Editorial Department, a replacement was immediately interviewed and promptly hired for that department.
8.6 Instead of the proffered and false reason, Plaintiff Coffey was actually removed from the Editorial Department and the Pulliam Fellowship because of her Christian religious beliefs, because she mentioned those beliefs briefly in an e-mail to Mr. Ryerson, and because Mr. Ryerson and the other newsroom managers are hostile towards known Christians on staff at The Star because they connect Biblical Christianity with anti-homosexuality, and the promotion of viewpoints favorable to homosexuality and the gay community is a priority of these top newsroom managers.
8.7 On Monday, October 13, 2003, Plaintiff Coffey took her case to the Vice President of Human Resources, who explicitly told her that there was nothing to be done about the situation.
8.8 Given the lack of any assistance, support or options from Human Resources and the apparent and blatant prejudice and hostility of Mr. Ryerson towards her because of her Christian beliefs and Christianity in general, Plaintiff Coffey felt she had no choice but to resign.
8.9 Where an employer has made working conditions so difficult that a reasonable person would feel forced to resign, or has allowed or empowered its personnel to create or maintain such intolerable working conditions, the employer is liable to Plaintiff Coffey for her constructive discharge under Indiana common law.
8.10 As a direct and proximate result of Mr. Ryerson’s creation and maintenance of difficult working conditions, and the Defendants’ failure or refusal to rectify the same, Plaintiff Coffey was forced to resign her employment at The Star, and has sustained damages for which she is entitled to be made whole and/or for compensation, in amounts to be determined at trial, from each of the Defendants.
IX. NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
Come now the Plaintiff Lisa M. Coffey for her third cause of action and the Plaintiff James Patterson for his fifth cause of action against the Defendants, and each of those Defendants, allege and declare as follows:
9.1 Plaintiffs reallege the preceding paragraphs numbered 1.1 through 8.10 and incorporate said allegations by this reference.
9.2 When the Defendants persecuted and discriminated against the Plaintiffs, they breached their duty of care to the Plaintiffs to act as competent and reasonable managers or supervisors and to prevent unlawful conduct in the workplace. When Defendants failed to take any affirmative steps to rectify the discrimination, they also breached a duty of care owed to each of the Plaintiffs to provide a safe and productive workplace, free from discrimination, harassment and retaliation.
9.3 As a result of the respective Defendants’ actions,
omissions, failures and/or breaches of the duties of care owed to the
Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs Coffey and Patterson each sustained significant emotional
harm. Moreover, the emotional harm they sustained was and is of a kind and
extent normally expected to occur in any reasonable person subjected to the same
unlawfully discriminatory and hostile workplace as the Plaintiffs were.
9.4 As the Defendants’ negligence directly and proximately
caused significant emotional harm to the Plaintiffs, the Defendants are liable
for committing the tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress under
Indiana common law, and the Plaintiffs are now entitled to recover for that
emotional trauma as general damages, in an amount to be determined at trial.
X. PRAYER FOR DAMAGES
WHEREFORE, having asserted various causes of action and alleging facts in support thereof, the Plaintiffs James Patterson and Lisa M. Coffey each pray for judgment and damages against the Defendants, and each of them:
a. reinstating the Plaintiffs or otherwise making each Plaintiff whole and placing him/her in the same position he/she held or would have held had the Defendants not violated his/her civil rights, retaliated against him, constructively discharged her, or taken other unlawful action against or regarding him/her;
b. awarding the Plaintiffs damages for his/her lost past income (a/k/a back pay) (including lost bonuses, insurance and/or fringe benefits), his/her lost future income (a/k/a front pay) (including lost bonuses, insurance and/or fringe benefits), and any diminished earning capacity (including diminished insurance and/or fringe benefits);
c. awarding the Plaintiffs general and/or compensatory damages, including without limitation damages for his/her pain and suffering, mental anguish, humiliation, and/or general emotional distress, in amounts to be determined at trial;
d. awarding the Plaintiffs special damages, including without limitation reimbursing the Plaintiffs for any out-of-pocket expenses incurred as a result of the Defendants’ discriminatory, retaliatory, or other unlawful conduct;
e. awarding the Plaintiffs punitive damages for the Defendants’ willful and/or malicious violation of his/her civil rights or their reckless indifference to his/her civil rights;
f. awarding the Plaintiffs their costs and attorneys’ fees; and
g. for all other legal and/or equitable relief this Court deems just and proper in the premises.
DATED this _____ day of June, 2005.
Respectfully submitted,
JOHN R. PRICE & ASSOCIATES
By:
John R. Price
Counsel for Plaintiffs
VERIFICATION OF COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
I AFFIRM, UNDER THE PENALTIES OF PERJURY, THAT THE FOREGOING REPRESENTATIONS ARE TRUE AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE.
DATED this _________ day of June, 2005.
_________________________________
JAMES PATTERSON
VERIFICATION OF COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
I AFFIRM, UNDER THE PENALTIES OF PERJURY, THAT THE FOREGOING REPRESENTATIONS ARE TRUE AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE.
DATED this _________ day of June, 2005.
_________________________________
LISA M. COFFEY
REQUEST FOR JURY TRIAL
The Plaintiffs, James Patterson and Lisa M. Coffey, each and jointly request that this cause be tried by jury.
Respectfully submitted,
JOHN R. PRICE & ASSOCIATES
By:
John R. Price
Counsel for Plaintiffs
John R. Price
Attorney No. 5828-49
JOHN R. PRICE & ASSOCIATES
9000 Keystone Crossing, Suite 150
Indianapolis, Indiana 46240
Telephone: (317) 844-8822
Facsimile: (317) 844-7766
E-mail: john@johnpricelaw.com
Patterson/Coffey Complaint/USDC