STATE OF MICHIGAN

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF GENESEE

KAREN DOMBROWSKI

Plaintiff, Case No.: CD

Honorable:

v.

GENESEE COUNTY,

GENESEE COUNTY ANIMAL CONTROL,

PAUL WALLACE, an individual, both

Individually and his role as Director of Genesee

County Animal Control;

Defendants.

_______________________________________________________________________/

BURGESS SHARP & GOLDEN, PLLC

Attorneys for Plaintiff

By: Heidi T. Sharp, P69641

43260 Garfield, Suite 280

Clinton Township, MI 48038

(586) 226-2627

Heidi@bsglawfirm.com

______________________________________________________________________ /

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

There is no other pending or resolved civil action arising out of the

transaction or occurrence alleged in the complaint.

________________________________

Heidi T. Sharp

NOW COMES Plaintiff, Karen Dombrowski, by and through her attorneys, Burgess

Sharp & Golden PLLC for her Complaint against Genesee County, Genesee County

2

Animal Control and Paul Wallace, an individual and in his role as Director of Genesee

County Animal Control states the following:

1. Plaintiff is a resident of the City of St. Clair Shores, County of Macomb,

Michigan.

2. Defendant Genesee County is a county organized under the laws of the

State of Michigan and governed by the Genesee County Board of

Commissioners.

3. Defendant Genesee County Animal Control is a division of Genesee

County and is authorized and controlled by the Genesee County Board of

Commissioners.

4. Defendant Paul Wallace, was appointed the Interim Director of the

Genesee County Animal Control by the Genesee County Board of

Commissioners on or about January 7, 2015.

5. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Wallace was employed by and an

appointed employee in a directorship position of Genesee County.

6. Defendant Wallace is a resident of the State of Michigan and at all

material times was an agent of Defendant Genesee County within the

meaning of MCLA 15.361(b), MSA 17.428(1)(b) in that he had the power

to terminate Plaintiff.

7. The events giving rise to this cause of action occurred in the City of Flint,

County of Genesee, Michigan.

8. The amount in controversy exceeds $25,000, exclusive of interest, costs,

and attorney fees.

3

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

9. Plaintiff was hired by Genesee County on or about January 7, 2015 via

resolution passed by the Genesee County Board of Commissioners on or

about that same date.

10. Plaintiff was hired to be the Deputy Animal Control Director, a newly

created position within the County.

11. Plaintiffs role was to oversee the Animal Control Department, in

conjunction with Director Paul Wallace.

12. Plaintiff has decades of experience in animal control and welfare and in

addition is a certified animal control officer (ACO), is certified in

euthanasia by injection by the American Humane Association, and FEMA

certified regarding animals in disaster.

13. In her new role Plaintiff was tasked with assessing the needs of the animal

control department, managing employees, volunteers, ACOs and kennel

staff, and ensuring that all state and federal guidelines and applicable

policies are followed regarding animal control and welfare.

14. Shortly after beginning in her position, within the first two weeks of her

employment, Plaintiff learned of various practices and actions within the

Animal Control department which were in violation of state and federal

law.

15. Particularly, Plaintiff learned of an emaciated husky not being properly

cared for which was in the possession and control of the Genesee County

Animal Control (GCAC).

4

16. Plaintiff learned of a black dog which had been kept in a cage for

approximately seven (7) months at the Genesee County Animal Control

without proper food, water and adequate exercise.

17. Plaintiff observed a Shitzu dog left in a cage in the Animal Control facility

garage for several hours while the dog suffered in the cold environment

and from pain. Allowing the dog to suffer unattended was inhumane

treatment. The dog was later euthanized due to its condition.

18. Plaintiff observed puppies of a mixed-breed dog, shortly after birth, in the

Animal Control facility repeatedly falling down a drain hole in the garage

floor of the facility shortly after their birth. Because the facility did not

have a box or other receptacle to contain the puppies, they repeatedly fell

down the drain. No arrangements were made to contain the puppies until

the Plaintiff requested and received a small childrens pool as a donation.

She placed the mother and puppies in the pool to contain them for their

safety.

19. Plaintiff learned of a dog which had been euthanized by an ACO was

alive and alert in the morgue cooler 24 hours later. Because the dog had

not been properly euthanized according to state, federal and veterinary

guidelines it was discovered alive and suffering in the cold in the cooler

the next day.

20. Plaintiff learned of a dog which had been accepted at the front intake

counter with a bone protruding and put into the ICU unit. No immediate

PTS was performed on the dog and it suffered unnoticed for several hours.

5

21. Plaintiff learned of Ana, a dog which was inappropriately and not

according to state, federal and veterinary guidelines euthanized by an

ACO. Because expired, improper narcotics were used to attempt the

euthanasia, Ana woke up several hours later in a small crate in pain and

shock. She thrashed about in the cage and injured herself further. Plaintiff

found the dog in the cage at 8:30 p.m. after the other ACOs had left the

facility without properly caring for Ana. Plaintiff stabilized her until she

could be transferred to a veterinary clinic in the morning via an ACO

truck.

22. On several occasions in her first two weeks of employment, Plaintiff

found that all of the animals in the building were not receiving minimal

care food, water and a clean crate on a daily basis. This minimal level

of care is mandated by state statute. Employees of Genesee County

Animal Control were leaving the building at the end of the day without

performing all of their duties for humane treatment of the animals at

GCAC.

23. Approximately two weeks after she began her employment, Plaintiff

approached Defendant Paul Wallace in person and told him about each of

the following incidents above. She told him that the practices at GCAC

were inhumane, illegal and out of date practices which needed to end.

24. Defendant Wallace diminished Plaintiffs concerns and took no action.

25. During approximately the next two weeks Plaintiff observed or learned of

additional inhumane and illegal practices taking place at the GCAC.

6

26. These included but are not limited to:

a. A blood sport dogs body being found and disposed of without

proper investigation into where it was found and the person(s) who

were fighting the dog - a violation of local and state law(s); when

Plaintiff showed the dogs body to Defendant Wallace he told her that

it had been hit by a car and no investigation was needed - despite the

dogs neck and front leg tissue being torn from the bone and bite

marks on the dog and Defendant Wallace having no training in

investigating criminal animal cases.

b. Dogs were removed from their owners possession during a police

investigation at a home. The owner of the dogs was not read their

rights regarding removal of the dogs and due process was not

followed.

c. An employee of the GCAC was promoted to Animal Control Officer,

despite not being certified by the State of Michigan as an Animal

Control Officer. Plaintiff made Defendant Wallace aware that the

employee was not certified and he promoted him anyway, ignoring the

certification requirement.

d. Dogs were being euthanized via heart stick method. This means that

an alert dog, without sedation, was being stuck directly in the heart

with a needle of narcotics. Often this procedure was conducted by an

employee of GCAC who was not certified as a Michigan ACO or

certified in humane practices for euthanasia by the American

7

Veterinary Medical Association and therefore not trained in proper

euthanasia methods.

e. Plaintiff observed GCAC failing to follow state and federal law

regarding narcotics, including expired narcotics being kept and used

on premises, narcotics not being locked up or secured, narcotics not

being properly labeled, narcotics located in open areas accessible to

any employees, and narcotics not being properly tracked or accounted

for.

f. Feral cats were being euthanized in a gas chamber. The use of a gas

chamber to euthanize animals is a prohibited practice. When Plaintiff

approached Defendant Wallace about this inhumane and illegal

practice, he simply responded whats wrong with that? and not put a

stop to it at GCAC.

27. In addition, Plaintiff received repeated resistance from Defendant Wallace

in her management techniques.

28. Defendant Wallace treated Plaintiff differently than other males within the

the GCAC and undermined her abilities and management style because

she was a woman.

29. Defendant Wallace belittled Plaintiff in front of other staff members, by

stating to her in a loud, shouting voice Stand Down Officer or Dont

Speak when she was trying to give direction on animal care practices.

8

30. Defendant Wallace told Plaintiff on an almost daily basis that he did not

trust her and allowed other male employees who were subordinate to the

Plaintiff to scream at her and to enter her personal space.

31. On one occasion, Defendant Wallace told Plaintiff that he hazed her

because he wanted to add a little drama to a situation by screaming at

her in front of other staff members and demeaning her.

32. During an interview of a potential employee, Defendant Wallace

demeaned and disrespected the Plaintiff by stating in front of the potential

employee, I dont believe yorre f***ing FEMA trained.

33. When Defendant Wallace observed the GCAC break room was messy and

needed cleaning after employees had not cleaned up after themselves, in

referring to the Plaintiff, he said that it could use a womans touch to get

it back in order.

34. Prior to interviews, Defendant Wallace also asked Plaintiff to make coffee

for him and potential job applicants.

35. Plaintiff was repeatedly disrespected by Defendant Wallace because she

was a woman, despite her training and credentials in animal control and

care.

36. After not receiving any response from Defendant Wallace on the many

inhumane and illegal practices Plaintiff had observed at the GCAC,

Plaintiff emailed Genesee County Commissioner Bryant BB Nolden on

or about February 1, 2015 and detailed the inhumane and illegal practices

taking place within the GCAC and Defendant Wallaces failure to respond

9

or change the practices. In particular, she stated to Commissioner Nolden

that she believed there were many illegal practices in the building

regarding the failure to properly store and secure narcotics and she

believed that the DEA should be called to the facility. Further, she

detailed how Defendant Wallace had been disrespecting her and treating

her differently because she was a woman.

37. On the morning of February 2, 2015, Plaintiff met with Commissioner

Nolden and Chairperson of the Genesee County Board of Commissioners

Jamie W. Curtis in person. During the meeting, Commissioner Nolden

had a printout of the email Plaintiff had sent the prior day.

38. The Commissioners told the Plaintiff that they would speak to Defendant

Wallace about the issues she had raised.

39. On or about February 3, 2015, a representative of one of the narcotics

distributors (drug rep.) which works with the GCAC visited the facility.

The Plaintiff spoke with the drug rep. and showed her the condition the

narcotics were kept in and explained that the sodium pentothal was

expired and not being properly administered to the animals. Plaintiff and

the drug rep. agreed that both the DEA and pharmaceutical board should

be alerted about the conditions of the narcotics at the GCAC. That same

day the Plaintiff told Defendant Wallace about her discussion with the

drug rep. and that the DEA should be immediately contacted regarding the

conditions and that she intended to do so; Defendant Wallace responded

dont worry, I used to work in narcotics; I got this covered with DEA.

10

40. The following day, on February 4, 2015 the Plaintiff was terminated by

Defendant Wallace.

41. A letter was sitting on a chair in front of the Plaintiff. Defendant Wallace

directed her to read the letter stating: [t]his letter is to advise you that

your at-will appointment as Deputy Director of Animal Control ends

effective February 4, 2015 at 4 p.m.. The letter was executed by

Defendant Wallace.

42. When the Plaintiff asked Defendant Wallace whats this about upon

receiving the letter, he simply shrugged his shoulders and said I have no

comment. Plaintiff asked Defendant Wallace if the Board of

Commissioners was aware of her termination, and he again shrugged his

shoulders.

43. The following week, Commissioner Curtis was asked by a reporter why

the Plaintiff was terminated and he stated that there was not harmony

between the Plaintiff and Defendant Wallace.

44. Since the Plaintiffs termination she has learned of other inhumane and

illegal practices taking place within the GCAC facility which have harmed

or put the animals being cared for there at risk.

45. On or about February 10, 2015, just six days after the Plaintiffs

termination, Defendant Wallace was appointed permanent Genesee

County Chief Animal Control Officer and Director of the Genesee County

Animal Control Shelter by the Genesee County Board of Commissioners.

11

COUNT I

VIOLATION OF THE MICHIGAN WHISTLEBLOWERS PROTECTION ACT

46. Plaintiff incorporates all preceding paragraphs by reference.

47. This is an action for violation of the Michigan Whistleblowers Protection

Act, MCLA 15.361 et seq., MSA 17.428(1).

48. At all material times, Plaintiff was an employee and Defendant GCAC

was her employer, covered by and within the meaning of the

Whistleblowers Protection Act, MCLA 15.361 et seq., MSA 17.428(1).

49. Defendants Genesee County, GCAC and Wallace violated the

Whistleblowers Protection Act when they discriminated against Plaintiff

as described above regarding the terms, benefits, conditions and

privileges of her employment because she threatened, and did report a

violation of law, regulation, or rule of the State of Michigan, federal

government, DEA, and opposed practices made illegal by the laws,

regulations, or rules of the State of Michigan and the federal government

of the United States.

50. The actions of Defendants were intentional.

51. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants unlawful actions against

Plaintiff as described, Plaintiff has sustained injuries and damages,

including but not limited to, loss of earnings, loss of career opportunities,

mental and emotional distress; loss of reputation and esteem in the

12

community, and loss of the ordinary pleasures of everyday life, including

the opportunity to pursue gainful occupation of choice.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Honorable Court grant her whatever legal

or equitable relief to which she is entitled that the court finds equitable to compensate her

for her lost wages, front pay, back pay, interest, loss of future employment opportunities,

damages as a result of embarrassment, humiliation and punitive damages as a result of

violations of the Michigan Whistleblowers Protection Act and attorneys fees and court

costs.

COUNT II

WRONGFUL DISCHARGE AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY

OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

30. Plaintiff incorporates all preceding paragraphs by reference.

31. It is the public policy of the State of Michigan that employees be able to

report violations of law committed by their employer and make complaints to

outside agencies about violations committed against them or which they are a

witness to.

32. Plaintiff threatened to and did report Defendant GCAC to its governing body,

the Genesee County Board of Commissioners and/or the DEA for its ongoing

inhumane and illegal acts regarding animal control and lack of care.

33. It is the public policy of the State of Michigan that all employees be able to

report violations of the laws of the State of Michigan, federal government,

13

DEA and/or violations of veterinary practice to the governing body of the

organization.

34. Defendants GCAC and Wallace intentionally discharged Plaintiff for

threatening to and reporting their illegal action to the Genesee County

Commission and/or the DEA,

35. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants unlawful actions against

Plaintiff as described, Plaintiff has sustained injuries and damages, including

but not limited to, loss of earnings, loss of career opportunities, mental and

emotional distress; loss of reputation and esteem in the community, and loss

of the ordinary pleasures of everyday life, including the opportunity to pursue

gainful occupation of choice.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Honorable Court grant her whatever legal

or equitable relief to which he is entitled that the court finds equitable to compensate her

for her lost wages, front pay, back pay, interest, loss of future employment opportunities,

damages as a result of embarrassment, humiliation and punitive damages as a result of

violations of Michigan public policy and attorneys fees and court costs.

COUNT III

HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT/DISCRIMINATION BASED ON SEX IN

VIOLATION OF THE ELLIOT-LARSEN CIVIL RIGHTS ACT (ELCRA)

36. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs by reference.

37. Defendant Wallace was an agent of Defendant Genesee County.

14

38. Plaintiff reported to Defendant Wallace and the Genesee County

Board of Commission.

39. The conduct exhibited by Defendant Wallace was unwelcome to

Plaintiff.

40. The harassment exhibited by Defendant Wallace was sufficiently

severe or pervasive, such that it altered the condition of her

employment to create an abusive working environment.

41. Plaintiff was treated differently by Defendant Wallace because of

her sex, female.

42. Plaintiff was treated differently by Defendant Genesee County

because of her sex female, in that, Defendant Genesee County

chose to terminate her position in whole or in part because she as a

woman.

43. Plaintiffs sex was a factor in Defendants decision to adversely act

against her interests as an employee by refusing to address

Defendant Wallaces conduct after it was brought to Defendant

Genesee Countys attention via email and personal meeting by

Plaintiff.

44. If Plaintiff was a male, she would not have been treated in the

manner described.

45. If Plaintiff was a male, her opinion would not have been

disregarded by Defendants.

46. If Plaintiff was a male, she would not have been terminated.

15

47. Defendants actions were intentional and done with reckless

indifference to Plaintiffs rights and sensibilities.

48. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants unlawful actions against

Plaintiff as described, Plaintiff has sustained injuries and damages, including

but not limited to, loss of earnings, loss of career opportunities, mental and

emotional distress; loss of reputation and esteem in the community, and loss

of the ordinary pleasures of everyday life, including the opportunity to pursue

gainful occupation of choice.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Honorable Court grant her whatever legal

or equitable relief to which he is entitled that the court finds equitable to compensate her

for her lost wages, front pay, back pay, interest, loss of future employment opportunities,

damages as a result of embarrassment, humiliation and punitive damages as a result of

violations of Michigan public policy and attorneys fees and court costs.

Dated: March 3, 2015 Respectfully Submitted,

BURGESS SHARP & GOLDEN PLLC

___________________________

Heidi T. Sharp, P69641

43260 Garfield Suite 280

Clinton Township, MI 48038

(586) 226-2627

Heidi@bsglawfirm.com

16

STATE OF MICHIGAN

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF GENESEE

KAREN DOMBROWSKI

Plaintiff, Case No.: CD

Honorable:

v.

GENESEE COUNTY,

GENESEE COUNTY ANIMAL CONTROL,

PAUL WALLACE, an individual, both

Individually and his role as Director of Genesee

County Animal Control;

Defendants.

_______________________________________________________________________/

BURGESS SHARP & GOLDEN, PLLC

Attorneys for Plaintiff

By: Heidi T. Sharp, P69641

43260 Garfield, Suite 280

Clinton Township, MI 48038

(586) 226-2627

Heidi@bsglawfirm.com

______________________________________________________________________ /

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff requests a jury in the above-captioned matter.

Dated: March 3, 2015 Respectfully Submitted,

BURGESS SHARP & GOLDEN PLLC

___________________________

Heidi T. Sharp, P69641

43260 Garfield Suite 280

Clinton Township, MI 48038

(586) 226-2627

Heidi@bsglawfirm.com