Ts pioTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICTOF TEXAS __FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRIPT COURT. 17 280 j FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT/OF T! On CLERK, U.S, DISTRICT COURT By Deny ‘TONY CASTLEBERG, § § CIVIL ACTION NO, Plain § § § S8090V18 540M CITY OF DALLAS, § Defendant. § JURY DEMANDED PLAINTIFI’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT. Plaintiff, Tony Castleberg, (“Castleberg”) brings this action against Defendant, City of Dallas (“City”), pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. §§ 20006, ef seg., and Tex. LAB. CODE §§ 21.001, et seq., and would show this court as follows: I. PARTIES 1. Plaintiff, Tony Castleberg, a resident of Johnson County, Texas is a Senior Corporal Detective with the City of Dallas Police Department, 2, Defendant, City of Dallas, is a local subdivision of the State of Texas operating pursuant to the Constitution and the laws of the State of Texas. It may be served with process by serving the Registered Agent of Defendant, Mary Suhm, City Manager, 1500 Marilla Street, 4 floor, Dallas, Texas 75201, under the authority of Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code section 17,024(a). ‘PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGELIL, JURISDICTION 3, Federal-question jurisdiction is invoked in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(3) because this controversy arises under “the constitution, laws or treaties of the United States;” specifically, the claims arise under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. 4, On April 17, 2009, the EEOC issued a Notice of Suit Rights. (See Exhibit 1 attached hereto and fully incorporated herein.) Such notice was received by Castleberg on April 20, 2009. Castleborg’s claims are brought within the 90-day limitations period. UL. VENUE 5. Venue is proper in this District and Division pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). IV. FACTS 6. Castleberg, a white male, is a Senior Corporal Detective with the Police Department and was hired on or about January 8, 1999. In September of 2008, Castleberg was. assigned to the narcotics division of the Dallas Police Department, Castleberg became aware that a detective position in the narcotics unit, mid level enforcement would become available, ‘The Dallas Police Department has rules and procedures that are required to be followed in order 40 fill a position within the Department, Upon information and belief, Castleberg’s allegation that the Police Department through the conduct described herein, did not follow such procedures. Castleberg submitted his application to fill such position and on or about September 18, 2008 ‘was interviewed for the opening of such position, Castleberg’s interview was with Sergeant Gemy Westry; Sergeant Eddie Fuller and Sergeant Daniel Avalos. At the time of Castleberg’s interview with these individuals, they had received a copy of Castleberg’s professional resume, which included Castleberg’s qualifications, performance reviews, an IAD resume, and letter of recommendation from DEA Special agent. Further, these individuals were in possession of Castleberg’s commendations and police departmental awards, Sergeant Westry is the sergeant that would be the immediate supervisor of the individuals that were selected for the position that PLAINTIFE'S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE?‘was open and Castleberg was applying for, Based upon Castleberg’s previous experience and understanding in working for Sergeant Westry, Castleberg understood that Sergeant Westry in selecting positiois for previous transfers had put a major emphasis on activities by the police officer above all other qualities when considering an open position. 7. During the interview for this position, Castleberg was advised that Sgt. Westry ‘was now placing emphasis on selecting an officer who was able to work well within a particular squad more than being concerned with the officer's police activity, Castleberg had previously worked under Sergeant Westry’s supervision in 2006 and received a performance evaluation fiom Sergeant Westry of 4.25 with 5 being the highest grade. Further while under Sgt. Westry's supervision, Castleberg graded a 4 on a scale of 1-5, for interpersonal skills. Upon information and belief Casticberg believed this clearly demonstrated his ability to work cooperatively and successfully with others within the various units of the police department, ‘This combined with the fact that Castleberg had one of the highest activities from his division and certainly the highest police activity of any of the individuals applying for the same position, demonstrates his qualifications. On or about September 24, 2008, Castleberg received notice that Castleberg was not selected for the detective position, Castleberg was further advised that the officers who were selected, ae: black male) ond Hispanic female), did not have the experience, the police activity or the qualifications that Castleberg had. Upon information and belief, it is Castleberg’s understanding that Officer SIM, after being selected to the position but prior to the actual transfer to the position, denied accepting the position, The position was subsequently given to another officer within the department, After learning of the selection of = and Officer wa. ‘on or about September 29, 2008, in compliance with the police department rules, Castleberg filed a grievance with the Police Department based upon Offies discrimination, the misapplication of the transfer policy of the Dallas Police Department and retaliation. 8. As aresult of filing such grievance, Castleberg was advised by the Dallas Police Department that his grievance was denied. Castleberg then filed an open records request secking information as it related to the filling of the position he applied for. After receiving open records fiom the Police Department, Castleberg received documents involving the discussions relating to the applicants (including Plaintif?'s) qualifications to fill the midlevel narcotics division, ‘PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGES