Electronically Filed - St Charles Circuit Div - July 29, 2020 - 09:50 AM

2011-CC00694

IN THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, STATE OF MISSOURI

CIRCUIT JUDGE DIVISION

HOLLY MAGDZIARZ, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No.
)
ST. CHARLES COUNTY, MISSOURI, )
)
Serve: Steve Ehlmann, County Executive )
100 N. Third Street )
St. Charles, MO 63301 )
)
Defendant. ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

PETITION FOR DAMAGES

Sexual Harassment, Hostile Work Environment, and Retaliation

in Violation of the Missouri Human Rights Act

COMES NOW Plaintiff Holly Magdziarz, by and through counsel, and for her Petition for

Damages against Defendant St. Charles County, Missouri, states and alleges as follows:

1. Plaintiff Holly Magdziarz is a female resident of St. Charles County, Missouri.

2. Defendant St. Charles County, Missouri, is a body corporate and politic operating

under a charter form of government as authorized by Article VI, Section 18a of the Missouri

Constitution. Article I, Section 1.501 of the St. Charles County Charter states that Defendant “shall

have all powers possible for a County to have under applicable law,” which includes the power to

be sued as a county.

3. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant has been an “employer” within the

meaning of the Missouri Human Rights Act (“MHRA”), Mo. Rev. Stat. § 213.010(8), in that it is

a political subdivision of the State of Missouri.

4. Venue in this Court is proper pursuant to Mo. Rev. Stat. § 213.111, in that the
 Electronically Filed - St Charles Circuit Div - July 29, 2020 - 09:50 AM
unlawful discriminatory practices alleged in this action were committed in St. Charles County,

Missouri.

5. Plaintiff has been employed by Defendant since September 23, 2013.

6. Throughout her employment with Defendant, Plaintiff has held the position of

Associate County Counselor.

7. At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff performed the duties and

responsibilities of her job in a satisfactory manner.

8. As an Associate County Counselor, Plaintiff reports directly to the County

Counselor.

9. John Watson (“Watson”) has served as Defendant’s County Counselor since

January 1, 2019.

10. Immediately prior to reporting to Watson, Plaintiff reported to former County

Counselor Keith Hazelwood (“Hazelwood”).

11. Defendant’s Charter states that the County Counselor shall hold office at the

pleasure of the County Executive.

12. Steve Ehlmann (“Ehlmann”) currently serves as Defendant’s County Executive and

has held that position throughout Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant.

13. Defendant’s Charter also provides for a Director of Administration, who shall be

appointed by and may be removed by the County Executive.

14. The Director of Administration serves as the principal managerial aide to the

County Executive and performs duties that include supervising all departments, offices, and

agencies of the executive branch and advising the County Executive on all administrative matters.

15. Joann Leykam (“Leykam”) currently serves as Defendant’s Director of

2
 Electronically Filed - St Charles Circuit Div - July 29, 2020 - 09:50 AM
Administration and has held that position throughout Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant.

16. Immediately prior to becoming Defendant’s Director of Administration, Leykam

served as Defendant’s County Counselor.

17. During the time that Leykam held the position of County Counselor, she was the

primary attorney assigned to handle legal matters for the St. Charles County Sheriff’s Department.

18. In 2014, Plaintiff began performing legal work for the St. Charles County Sheriff’s

Department. At that time, David Todd (“Todd”) held the position of Captain with the Sheriff’s

Department and had worked for the Sheriff’s Department for approximately 37 years.

19. Because Leykam had previously performed legal work for the St. Charles County

Sheriff’s Department when she served as Defendant’s County Counselor, she had a longstanding

relationship with Todd.

20. Upon information and belief, Leykam, Todd, and their families have engaged in

social activities outside the workplace and have vacationed together.

21. On January 1, 2015, pursuant to an amendment of Defendant’s Charter, the newly

created St. Charles County Police Department assumed primary responsibility for law enforcement

in unincorporated areas of St. Charles County. Todd was appointed to become the first Chief of

Police for the St. Charles County Police Department.

22. Beginning in 2014 and continuing until 2019, Plaintiff was subjected to unwelcome

and offensive sexual harassment by Todd. The harassment by Todd included, but was not limited

to, the following:

a. introducing Plaintiff to a group of officers on the St. Charles County

Regional SWAT Team when she was eight and a half months pregnant and

stating, “Boys, this is Holly. Get a good look at her and make sure it’s not

3
 Electronically Filed - St Charles Circuit Div - July 29, 2020 - 09:50 AM
yours”;

b. stating that Plaintiff looked great in a dress “and not in an

employer/employee sort of way”;

c. ordering a Police Department polo shirt for Plaintiff and telling her that he

wanted to get the size right so that it would fit over her “ladies”;

d. stating in a text message to Plaintiff that the Police Department was “lucky

to have such a smart lawyer, but smoking hot doesn’t hurt either”;

e. sending text messages to Plaintiff and other female employees of Defendant

that contained inappropriate images and/or had sexual connotations;

f. placing his hand on Plaintiff’s lower back on multiple occasions;

g. placing his arm around Plaintiff, scratching her back, and rubbing her

shoulders during a meeting with other police chiefs;

h. patting or rubbing Plaintiff’s back;

i. helping Plaintiff take off her coat and brushing his hand against the side of

her breast on multiple occasions;

j. making comments about the size of a police officer’s penis and nicknaming

him “tripod”;

k. making gestures indicating that he was looking up Leykam’s skirt;

l. making comments about going to a nude beach with his wife;

m. making comments about Leykam calling him and interrupting him while he

was having sex with his wife;

n. placing his arm around other female employees of Defendant and kissing

their foreheads at meetings;

4
 Electronically Filed - St Charles Circuit Div - July 29, 2020 - 09:50 AM
o. calling female employees of Defendant a “bitch” or a “cunt”; and

p. making statements about the sexual activities of Plaintiff and other

employees of Defendant.

23. Plaintiff was also subjected to unwelcome and offensive harassment by Hazelwood

that was demeaning and degrading toward women. The harassment by Hazelwood included, but

was not limited to, the following:

a. referring to working women as “the ugly ones”;

b. stating that another female employee of Defendant was quitting because

“she wanted to be a good wife and mother;” and

c. giving female employees dish towels as Christmas gifts (without giving dish

towels to any male employees).

24. Plaintiff’s gender was a contributing and/or motivating factor in the harassment to

which she was subjected by Todd and Hazelwood.

25. The harassment to which Plaintiff was subjected by Todd and Hazelwood was

sufficiently severe or pervasive to affect the terms, conditions, or privileges of Plaintiff’s

employment, and the harassment created a hostile work environment for Plaintiff.

26. In 2017 and 2018, Plaintiff complained verbally to Leykam about the harassment

by Todd and Hazelwood.

27. Leykam also had knowledge of some of the offensive comments and conduct by

Todd and Hazelwood because she personally witnessed them or become aware of them from other

sources.

28. Upon information and belief, one or more other female employees of Defendant

were also subjected to unwelcome harassment by Todd and/or Hazelwood and complained about

5
 Electronically Filed - St Charles Circuit Div - July 29, 2020 - 09:50 AM
the harassment to Defendant.

29. Despite Defendant’s knowledge of the offensive comments and conduct by Todd

and Hazelwood, Defendant failed to take appropriate action to stop the harassment from occurring

and Plaintiff continued to be subjected to unwelcome harassment.

30. The unwelcome harassment to which Plaintiff was subjected by Todd and

Hazelwood, and Defendant’s failure to take prompt and effective remedial action to end the

harassment despite having knowledge of it, constitutes unlawful discrimination because of sex in

violation of Mo. Rev. Stat. § 213.055(1)(a).

31. In December 2018, Defendant excluded Plaintiff from attending a training session

that she was entitled to attend and that was relevant to her job.

32. In addition, on or about March 1, 2019, Defendant removed Plaintiff’s

responsibilities for the St. Charles County Police Department and assigned other duties to her.

33. Upon information and belief, Leykam had a significant amount of input into the

decision to exclude Plaintiff from the training session and to have her reassigned from the St.

Charles County Police Department.

34. Plaintiff’s complaints about the unwelcome harassment by Todd and Hazelwood

were contributing and/or motivating factors in Defendant’s exclusion of Plaintiff from the training

session and the removal of Plaintiff’s responsibilities for the St. Charles County Police

Department, and such actions constitute unlawful retaliation in violation of Mo. Rev. Stat.

§ 213.070(2).

35. Despite the removal of Plaintiff’s responsibilities for the St. Charles County Police

Department, she continued to be subjected to unwelcome sexual harassment by Todd.

36. On June 12, 2019, Plaintiff complained in writing to Ehlmann and Watson that she

6
 Electronically Filed - St Charles Circuit Div - July 29, 2020 - 09:50 AM
had been subjected to unwelcome sexual harassment by Todd and retaliated against by Leykam

for complaining about the harassment.

37. Upon information and belief, Defendant investigated Plaintiff’s written complaint

to Ehlmann and Watson, but Defendant did not take any action to remedy the harassment or

retaliation and failed to disclose the results of its investigation to Plaintiff.

38. After Plaintiff complained about the unwelcome harassment and retaliation to

Ehlmann and Watson, Defendant removed some of Plaintiff’s case files from her computer system

and prevented her from accessing them. Defendant also blocked Plaintiff from viewing shared

office files that other employees in her office were able to access.

39. Plaintiff’s complaint to Ehlmann and Watson was a contributing and/or motivating

factor in Defendant’s removal of Plaintiff’s case files and blocking of Plaintiff’s access to shared

office files, and such actions constitute unlawful retaliation in violation of Mo. Rev. Stat.

§ 213.070(2).

40. On November 8, 2019, Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination with the Missouri

Commission on Human Rights (“MCHR”), charge number FE-11/19-31237, alleging

discrimination based on sex and retaliation.

41. On May 12, 2020, the MCHR issued a Notice of Right to Sue to Plaintiff for charge

number FE-11/19-31237, allowing her to bring this action against Defendant.

42. Plaintiff has filed this action against Defendant within 90 days of the issuance of

the Notice of Right to Sue and within two years of the discriminatory and retaliatory actions alleged

herein.

43. As a result of Defendant’s actions as alleged herein, Plaintiff has suffered emotional

distress, humiliation, embarrassment, mental anguish and suffering, and loss of enjoyment of life.

7
 Electronically Filed - St Charles Circuit Div - July 29, 2020 - 09:50 AM
44. As a further result of Defendant’s actions as alleged herein, Plaintiff has incurred

and will continue to incur attorneys’ fees and costs of litigation.

45. Defendant’s actions as alleged herein were outrageous because of Defendant’s evil

motive or reckless indifference to the rights of others, and, therefore, an award of punitive damages

against Defendant is appropriate.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that the Court, after trial by jury, enter judgment in her favor

and against Defendant, in amounts to be determined at trial, for compensatory damages, including

damages for emotional distress; for punitive damages; for injunctive relief to prohibit Defendant

from engaging in further discriminatory and retaliatory employment practices; for attorneys’ fees

and costs of litigation; and for such further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

DOBSON, BERNS & RICH, LLP

By: /s/ Jerome J. Dobson

Jerome J. Dobson, #32099
jdobson@dbrstl.com
Gregory A. Rich, #45825
grich@dbrstl.com
5017 Washington Place, Suite 300
St. Louis, MO 63108
Tel: (314) 621-8363
Fax: (314) 621-8366

Attorneys for Plaintiff