RUTHERFORD COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT CLERK

IN MURFREESBORO

ROSCOE SANDERS, KERRY NELSON, )

RONNIE RALSTON, )
Plaintiffs, ) Case No.
)
v. )
)
RUTHERFORD COUNTY SHERIFF’S )
OFFICE, )
Defendant. ) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

COMPLAINT

VENUE AND JURISDICTION

1. This action alleges discrimination in violation of the Tennessee Human Rights Act, and

specifically T.C.A. § 4-21-401.

2. This action alleges discrimination in violation of the Tennessee prohibition against age

discrimination and specifically T.C.A. §4-21-101.

3. As the claim is based upon a violation of a Tennessee Statute, Circuit Court Jurisdiction

is appropriate.

4. Pursuant to T.C.A. § 20-4-101 venue is appropriate where the cause of action arises, and

the allegations herein claim discrimination that occurred in Rutherford County.

5. The employer has more than 8 employees.

6. A right to sue letter has been issued by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission and is attached hereto as Exhibit A for Roscoe Sanders.

 7. Investigation into the Federal violations is pending in the EEOC for Ronnie Ralston and

Kerry Nelson.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

8. Roscoe Sanders, Kerry Nelson, and Ronnie Ralston (collectively Plaintiffs), have worked

as Deputy Sheriffs within the Rutherford County Sheriff’s Office collectively 30 plus

years.

9. Rutherford County established a civil service system to ensure equitable treatment in

hiring, promotion, and disciplinary procedures.

10. Pursuant to this system, a memorandum and email was circulated on January 14th, 2019,

wherein the Rutherford County Sheriff's announced an opening for promotion from

Deputy to Sergeant, including a job description for the position.

11. Per the Standard Operating Procedure, a committee was formed consisting of five

Lieutenants to interview the candidates. This committee was formed in an objective

fashion to eliminate discriminatory bias.1

12. Per the Standard Operating Procedure, a set of seven questions are created, reviewed, and

approved prior to the applicant interview.

13. Someone provided Deputy McClure the questions in advance.

14. The set of questions were directly related to the leadership role of Sergeant and were

legitimate, “objective interview questions for the position, thereby taking out possible

subjectivity in scoring”.

1
The predominant portion of the allegations herein were formed from the position statement
provided by Rutherford County to the EEOC outlining the purpose of the standard operating
procedures in Charge 494-2019-1928.
15. The interview board compared in applicants’ responses to potential responses that would

be considered best, average, or worse. This step occurs in the promotion process to

promote objectivity and eliminate discriminatory bias.

16. Following each interview, members of the interview board then provided a numerical

grade to the responses provided to the set of questions. The applicants’ communication

skills, appearance, and writing skills were also scored. Promotion board members also

made other notes and comments regarding the applicants’ interview.

17. Following the interviews, the interview scores from each of the applicants were tallied

and averaged. The top five average scores were as follows:

Kerry Nelson 44,

Angela Istvanditsch 41.4,
Ronnie Ralston 41.4,
Casey McClure 41.2,
Roscoe Sanders 40.8.

18. The unbiased selection committee followed the objective selection process pursuant to

the standard operating procedure and chose Kerry Nelson because his score was the

highest.

19. Instead of promoting Deputy Nelson pursuant to the established standard operating

procedure, a second biased “experimental procedure” was formed with a “magic

committee” that selected the only white candidate under the age of forty; who scored

second to last in the unbiased scoring.

The remainder of this page left intentionally blank.

/ / / /

/ / / /
 Experimental, magic committee

20. Instead of following the standard operating procedure and promoting the committee

recommendation that was based on “objective interview questions for the position,

thereby taking out possible subjectivity in scoring”, a magic committee was formed for

the first time in the Rutherford County Sheriff’s Office promotion process.

21. No secondary or magic committee had ever been used by the Rutherford County Sheriff's

Office to undermine the selection process.

22. The magic committee included Sheriff Fitzhugh, Chief Deputy Lowery, Deputy Chief,

Egon Grissom, Deputy Chief Prebel Morton, and Deputy Chief Chris Fly.

23. Said committee did not use the approved “legitimate, objective interview questions for

the position, thereby taking out possibility possible subjectivity and scoring”.

24. The experimental, magic committee selected the second to last candidate who was white,

and in his mid 30’s over the three higher scoring candidates who were all over the age of

fifty.

25. The magic committee performed no scoring.

26. The magic committee performed no objective test.

27. The magic committee simply selected the person they wished to promote; a young white

male.

28. The magic committee disregarded the scores completely rejecting the highest score,

second highest score, and third highest score, instead opting for the candidate with the

second to last score.

29. The effect was selection of the candidate with the second to last score is in his thirties,

and a white male.

30. The plaintiffs who were not selected and who scored higher than Deputy McClure are all

over the age of 50.

31. The African American candidate had more experience, was not removed from schools for

poor performance, and did not require remedial training.

32. The RCSO cannot rely on the objective scoring pursuant to the standard operating

procedure, when they disregard the scoring.

Pretext argued to the EEOC

Claimed disciplinary issues

33. The Rutherford County Sheriff's Office claims to rely in part on discipline history of

certain candidates as found in personnel files in support of the experimental selection

process.

34. No one in the initial selection committee reviewed personnel files or disciplinary history

prior to the selection.

35. No one in the second experimental committee reviewed the personnel files prior to

selecting the young, white male.

36. No one in either committee considered or reviewed prior discipline, until responding to

the EEOC charge, thus removing discipline from the consideration of either committee.

37. Discipline history has no place in this promotion selection process, when the candidates

were selected for interviews in light of any discipline history.

38. Ronnie Ralston, over fifty, has no discipline history, scored higher and was not selected.

39. In the past year, the Rutherford County Sheriff's Office has promoted less than three

applicants over the age of 50

40. In the past year, the RCSO has only promoted three African Americans from Detention

Officers to Patrol.

The Sheriff’s Office continues to promote discriminatory practices.

41. The current standard operating procedure states, “All vacancies for promotion shall be

announced by a Sheriff’s Office memoranda and Email”.

42. Several positions have been filled without announcing said vacancies per the SOP since

January 2019.

COUNT ONE
TENNESSEE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT
AGE DISCRIMINATION

43. The Plaintiffs were in a protected class in that they were all over the age of 50 at the time

they applied for the promotion.

44. All three candidates were qualified for the promotion as seen by their selection for the

interview process out of eleven that applied, said selection pursuant to the standard

operating procedure.

45. All three candidates were qualified given their score over 40 out of 50 possible points.

46. All three candidates were considered for the promotion, as seen by their selection for the

interview process pursuant to the standard operating procedure.

47. All three candidates were considered for the promotion given their scoring in the SOP.

48. All three candidates were denied the promotion.

49. The selected candidate is not over the age of 40 and not in a protected class.

50. The Office filed a position statement with the EEOC, that provides the reasons said

candidates were not promoted.

51. Any claim that Plaintiff Sanders was not selected based upon his score is pretext, as

Deputy McClure scored second to last.

52. Any claim that Plaintiff’s Nelson or Ralston were not promoted based upon score is

pretext as they both scored higher than the selected candidate.

53. Any claim that the promotion was denied based upon discipline issues is pretext as

neither committee pulled or reviewed the personnel files.

54. The fact that these Plaintiffs were over the age of 50 at the time they applied for a

promotion is the predominant, but-for cause of the Office’s failure to promote any of

them in lieu of a candidate in his 30’s.

55. The candidate in his thirties was less qualified, when he required remedial training from

the other candidate(s).

56. The candidate in his thirties was less qualified, having been removed from assignments at

the principals’ request.

57. The candidate in his thirties was less qualified, having less experience, training, and

certificates.

58. The failure to promote is an adverse employment action that has caused damages in the

form of humiliation, embarrassment, lost wages, and any special damages such as

punitive damages.

COUNT TWO
ADEA 29 U.S.C. §621 et seq.

59. Plaintiffs incorporate all the general allegations and the allegations contained in Count

One in support of the ADEA under Title VII.

 COUNT THREE

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000e et seq.
Discrimination: disparate treatment based on Race.

60. Plaintiff, Roscoe Sanders, incorporates all the prior general allegations and allegations in

Count one.

61. Plaintiff Roscoe Sanders is in a protected class in that he is African American.

62. Deputy Sanders has been denied 14 promotions in favor of white candidates.

63. Deputy Sanders is qualified for these promotions, has the skills necessary, the training

necessary, and the certificates necessary.

64. The Rutherford County Sherriff Office has a policy and procedure that promotes racial

inequality with a disproportionate number of African Americans in ranks above Deputy.

65. The Sheriff’s Office has only promoted three African American Officers from Detention

to Patrol.

66. In the fifty SRO officers, there are only three Black Officers.

67. Presently, the Sheriff’s Office employs one African American Lieutenant, three African

American Sergeants, and zero African American Corporals.

68. The Deputy’s race of African American is a motivating factor in the failure to promote

him 14 times in that all promotions went to white candidates.

69. The county did not follow the standard operating procedure in their failure to promote

Deputy Sanders.

70. Since he filed his charge of discrimination, several positions have been filled without

following the standard operating procedure to include posting the positions, magic

committees, experimental committees, and falsifying reasons such as discipline.

71. The County claims to deny Sanders’ promotion based upon scores, yet concurrently

issued emails to disregard the scores.

72. Several Chief deputies use vulgar and discriminatory language to describe African

Americans, women, homosexuals, and other members of Title VII protected classes.

73. Deputy Sanders obtained his right to sue letter which is attached herein.

74. Because of the failure to promote him on 14 applications, where whites were promoted

instead, Deputy Sanders suffered damages in the form of back pay, front pay,

humiliation, embarrassment, and asks for punitive damages.

COUNT FOUR
Tennessee Human Rights Act: Race discrimination.

75. Deputy Sanders incorporates the general allegations and County three allegations in

support of this Count.

COUNT FIVE

§1983 and Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

76. Plaintiff’s incorporate all prior counts to include the general allegations.

77. The government treated the plaintiffs disparately as compared to similarly situated

persons when a candidate under the age of 40 was promoted in lieu of similarly qualified

individuals over the age of 50.

78. Such disparate treatment has no rational basis in a legitimate state interest to hire

candidates that are less than forty in lieu of candidates over the age of 40.
 79. There is no rational basis to promote white candidates over black candidates.

80. Plaintiffs are entitled to equal protection to those similarly situated individuals protected

from age discrimination pursuant to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment.2

81. Defendant violated Plaintiff’s right to equal protection under the law, when they

promoted a candidate under the age of 40, who was not more qualified in lieu of

candidates over the age of 40.

82. Defendants violation of the equal protection clause caused damages to be ascertained by

a jury.

WHEREAS, Plaintiffs request the following:

A trial by jury,

Damages of 2.5 million dollars,

Costs and attorney fees,

Any such further relief as the Court deems necessary to make Plaintiffs whole.

s/ Constance Mann
___________________________
Constance Mann
The Law Offices of Constance Mann
TN BPR # 014616

1107 Battlewood Street

Franklin, TN 37069
(615) 724-1800
cmannlaw@msn.com
Attorney for Plaintiffs

2
See, Crawford v. Columbus State Cmty. College, 196 F. Supp 3d 766 (S.D.Ohio 2016) where
ADEA does not replace causes of Action pursuant to §1983 and the Constitution.
 Bond Statement
COST BOND
I, Constance Mann as Principal(s) and as Surety, am held and firmly bound unto the Circuit
Court of Tennessee, for the payment of all costs awarded against the principal. To that end, we
bind ourselves, our heirs, executors and administrators.

The Principal(s) is/are commencing legal proceeding in the Circuit Court of Tennessee. If the
Principal(s) shall pay all costs which are adjudged against them then this obligation is void. If the
Principal(s) fail to pay, then the surety shall undertake to pay all costs adjudged against the
Principal(s).
s/ Constance Mann
___________________________
Constance Mann
The Law Offices of Constance Mann
TN BPR # 014616
CA BPR # 16564

1107 Battlewood Street

Franklin, TN 37069
(615) 724-1800
cmannlaw@msn.com
Attorney for Plaintiffs