eg Soerszesapeuesnnaan a =~ ivi. Ee ee — Miia L — Charles: ama Raitt —— — SeIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA, CHARLESTON DIVISION JOYCE SMITH, Civil Action No.: Plaintiff, vs. COMPLAINT (JURY TRIAL DEMANDED) KRISTIN GRAZIANO, in her official capacity as Sheriff of Charleston County and in her individual capacity; AMEED SAD, in his official capacity as Deputy Sheriff of Charleston County and in his individual capacity; and, CHARLESTON COUNTY, Defendant. ‘The Plaintiff above named, complaining of the acts of the above-named Defendant, states as follows: 1, Plaintiff, Joyce Smith (“Plaintiff”), is a resident and citizen of the County of Berkeley, State of South Carolina. 2. Upon information and belief, Defendant Kristin Graziano (“Graziano”) is a resident and citizen of the County of Charleston. Graziano is also the elected Sheriff of Charleston County. 3.. Upon information and belief, Defendant Ameed Sad (“Sad”) is a resident and citizen of the County of Charleston. Sad is also a Deputy Sheriff for the County of Charleston. 4. This Court has federal question jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331, 42 U.S.C. §2000e, ef. seq, (“Title VII”), 29 U.S.C. § 2601 (the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, or the “FMLA” 42Us $1981, and 42 U.S.C, 1983. 5. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state law claims under 28 U. § 1367,6. Venue for all causes of action stated herein lies in the District of South Carolina, Charleston Division (the “District”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), in that the Plaintiff resides inthe District, Defendants conduct business in the District, and a substantial part of the events giving rise to PlaintifP’s claims occurred in the District, 7. Atalll times relevant, Defendant Graziano, in her official capacity as Sheriff of Charleston County, is an employer with 15 or more employees and otherwise subject to Title VIL. 8. Atall times relevant, Defendant Graziano was, and is currently, an employer with 50 or more employees working in 20 or more workweeks in the relevant calendar years and otherwise subject fo the FMLA. 9. Defendants, in their official capacity, are subject to 42 U.S.C. 1981 and 1983 to the extent Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and other relief as codified by statue and caselaw. 10. Defendants, in their individual capacities, are subject to 42 U.S.C. 1981 and 1983 to the extent Plaintiff seeks monetary damages and other relief as codified by statue and caselaw. 11, Plaintiff was employed by Graziano as a Deputy Sheriff on or about January 4, 2021 12, On or about February 14, 2022 Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the “EEOC”) (the “February 2021 Charge”). 13. Plaintiff filed a second charge of discrimination with the EEOC on or about April 21, 2022 (the “April 2022 Charge”). 14. On or about June 6, 2022, Plaintiff received Notice of Right to Sue letters for both the February 2022 Charge and the April 2022 Charge. 15. Plaintiff timely filed the foregoing action within ninety (90) days of the date on which she received the Notice of Right to Sue letters referenced above.16, Plaintiff has exhausted all required administrative remedies and conditions precedent necessary for the maintenance of this action, 17. Plaintiff is an African-American female. 18. While employed with Defendant, Plaintiff performed her Job duties, met or exceeded her employers” expectations, and maintained an acceptable employment record with Defendant. 19. Plaintiff and other employees of Graziano in similar positions as Plaintiff, including Sad, reported Directly to Graziano, 20. Between Februnry 2021 and October 2021 Plaintiff witnessed supervisors and other employees not directly under the supervision of Plaintiff making sexist comments about females While on duty. These comments included, but wete not limited to, supervisors berating other employees by telling them that “all they did was pass out panties and tampons;” commenting that an employee's face “looks like a shaved pussy;” commenting that an employee “complains like a damn woman,” 21, Many of the sexist comments were made in the presence of Graziano and Sad, and Sad ‘made some of these comments, 22. Plaintiff complained to Graziano and Sad on numetous occasions when she heard these Comments, informed Graziano this behavior was diseriminatory, informed Graziano that the Comments created a hostile environment on the basis of sex, and requested it be addressed 25. Graziano dismissed Plaintiff's complaints and refused to adequately address them. 24, Subsequent to making these complaints, Graziano and Sad began a campaign of retaliating against Plaintiff. 25. Sulbsequent to making complaints about sex discrimination, Sad began spreading false and defamatory rumors about Plaintiff. Specifically, Sad Published statements to third partiesincluding, but not limited to, commenting that Plaintiff “was not a team player,” and was “too uptight.” 26. Moreover, subsequent to Plaintiff’ report of sex-based discrimination, Sad expressed to ‘another commander that Plaintiff needed a “man inher life that would fuck her” in order to “calm her down,” and attempted to persuade another person employed with the Sheriff's office to sexually assault her in order to “ealm (Plaintiff down).” 27. In December 2021, under the veil of giving a “gift Graziano presented Plaintiff and PlaintifP’s secretary with wooden dolls. One of the wooden dolls was dressed as an antebellum “mammy" character (the “Mammy Dolt”), 28. During the antebellum and Reconstruction periods in America, the mammy caricature was ‘sed as propaganda fo convey that enslaved black Americans, specifically black women, were contented, even happy, as slaves and servants, The insidious impact of these dolls is specifically addressed in the National Museum of A rican American History and Culture in Washington, D.C. Accordingly the mammy doll represented that black Americans, specifically black women, have Timited value and should not attempt rise above their station or vocalize objections to any perceived wrongs or offenses, 29. Graziano knew the bistory and of mammy dolls and its offensive characterization of black ‘women prior to presenting it to Plaintiff and Plaitif’s secretary, whois also African-American, 30. The “Mammy Doll” itself was ostensibly a “gift” for Plaintiffs secretary. However, Graziano intentionally presented the “gif” to be opened and viewed in front of Plaintiff while she ‘Was al work, Graziano intended this Mammy Doll “gift” to be seen by Plaintiff as a means of intimidating Plaintiff and creating a hostile work environment,31, Graziano’s presentation of the Mammy Doll was designed to communicate to Plaintiff that she should stop making complaints of discrimination and hostile work environment 32. Further, Graziano’s presentation of the Mammy Doll was designed to remind Plaintiff that she was expendable, replaceable with any other person of color, and if Plaintiff continued to make Substantive complaints about discrimination, Graziano would “demote her” to a status similar to that of the “Mammy Doll” presented to Plaintiff's Secretary. 33. Graziano chose this specific presentation to communicate her message because of Plaintiff's race and gender. 34. On or about January 4, 2022, Plaintiff visited Charleston County Human Resources Department (“County HR”) to make a complaint about discrimination, retaliation and hostile work environment, 35. County HR informed Plaintiff they could not assist her with her complaints and she needed {0 file a Complaint with the Intemal Affairs Office of the Charleston County Sheriff (“Internal Affairs”), Plaintiff informed County HI that Sad was the supervisor of Intemal Affairs and was a Sritical source of the diserimination and hostility experienced by Plaintiff. However, County HIR refused to assist Plaintiff. 36. County HR refused to take Plait 's complaint and failed to report it to any division within the Charleston County Sheriff's Department, 37. Plaintiff attempted to schedule a meeting with Graziano between January 4, 2022, and ‘January 17, 2022, in order to file a complaint about the discriminatory, hostile, and offensive nature of the presentation of the “Mammy Dolls,” but Graziano refused to comply,38. On or about January 17, 2022, Graziano scheduled a clandestine “off the record” meeting ata park in North Charleston that only Plaintiff and Graziano attended (the “Clandestine Meeting”). 39. During the Clandestine Meeting, Graziano confronted Plaintiff with a letter informing her {hat Plaintiff's employment would be terminated because of an issue related to Plaintiff's student loans- which Graziano had specifically described as a non-issue, 40. During the Clandestine Meeting Graziano intimidated Plaintiff by telling Plaintiff she should resign before the letter is officially served on her. 41, Further, during the Clandestine Meeting, Plaintiff told Graziano the Mammy Dolls presented to Plaintiff and Plaintiff's secretary were inappropriate and offensive, 42. Plaintiff refused to immediately resign and Graziano would not allow Plaintiff to have a copy of the purported termination fetter. 43. On or about January 25, 2022, Plaintiff applied for coverage under the FMLA through the Process required by Defendant. Plaitiff followed Defendant's usual and customary requirements for requesting leave, 44. In or about February 2022, Plaintiff's request for FMLA leave for her serious health condition was approved, 45. Onorabout April 1, 2022, Graziano terminated Plaintiff's employment while Plaintiff was on FMLA leave, FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF THE FMLA 46. Plaintiff hereby realleges each and every allegation contained in the Paragraphs above as fully as if set forth herein verbatim, 47. Plaintiff, as an employee of Graziano, was eligible for leave under the FMLA,48. Defendant Graziano was, and remains, an employer as defined under the FMLA. 49. Plaintiff was entitled to, and was approved for, FMLA leave. 50. Graziano, terminated Plaintif?'s employment because Plaintiff exercised her right to use FMLA leave. 51. That asa result of the above, Plaintiff has suffered damages in the form of lost back and Future wages, income and benefits, expenses associated with finding other work, and has suffered “evere psychological harm, emotional distress, anxiety, pain and suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, embarrassment, humiliation, loss to professional standing, character and reputation, physical and personal injuries, and further secks attorney's fees and costs and prejudgment interest. 52, ‘That the Graziano’s actions as set forth above were undertaken intentionally, willfally, ‘wantonly, recklessly, maliciously and with utter disregard forthe federally protected tights of the Plaintiff and, therefore, Plaimitt is entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendants, FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: VIOLATION OF TITLE VII RETALIATION 53. Plaintiff hereby realleges cach and every allegation contained in the Paragraphs above as fully as if set forth herein verbatim. $4. Asalleged above, Plaintiff complained to Graziano on several occasions that she was being harassed and discriminated against based on her sex and race and for making complaints about discrimination, 5S. That Plaintf’s complaints were made in good faith, and constitute protected activity under Title VII,56. Subsequent fo.and in retaliation for Plaintiff making complaints, Graziano and others employed by Graziano created and allowed the work environment to be so hostile that no reasonable person could have continued to endure it, 57. That the actions of Defendants in engaging in offensive verbal conduct, intimidation, fbreats, and defamatory remarks, constitute retaliation against Plaintiff in violation of Title VIL 58 Subsequent to and in retaliation for Plaintiff making complaints about race and sex discrimination, Graziano illegally terminated PlaintifP s employment, 59. That as a result of the above, Plaintiff has suffered damages in the form of lost back and future wages, income and benefits, expenses associated with finding other work, and has suffered Severe psychological harm, emotional distress, anxiety, pain and suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, embarrassment, humiliation, loss to professional standing, character and reputation, physical and personal injutis, and further seeks attorney's fees and costs and prejudgment interest, FOR A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: VIOLATION OF TITLE VII HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT 60. Plaintiff hereby realleges each and every allegation contained in the Paragraphs above as fully as if set forth herein verbatim, 61. Defendants’ actions as alleged above created a work environment that a reasonable person would find to be harassing, hostile, and abusive. 62 Plaintiff, on numerous occasions, complained to Graziano and Charleston County about the above-described discrimination, harassment, and hostile work environment and Graziano was on notice that the conduet was occurring,63. Despite being notified of the harassing conduct, Defendant Graziano failed to take prompt and effective remedial action to end the harassment and Defendant continued to harass Plaintiff. 64. That the actions of Defendants in engaging in offensive verbal conduct, intimidation, threats, and defamatory remarks, constitute retaliation against Plaintiff and a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII. 65, ‘That as a result of the above, Plaintiff has suffered damages in the form of lost back and future wages, income and benefits, expenses associated with finding other work, and has suffered severe psychological harm, emotional distress, anxiety, pain and suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, embarrassment, humiliation, loss to professional standing, character and reputation, physical and personal injuries, and farther seeks attomey’s fees and costs and prejudgment interest, FOR A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION: VIOLATION OF TITLE VII SEX DISCRIMINATION 66. Plaintiff hereby realleges each and every allegation contained in the Paragraphs above as fully as if set forth herein verbatim, 67. Throughout her employment, Graziano’s employees made offensive jokes, comments, and statements about females, 68. The behavior of Graziano’s employees humiliated Plaintiff, unreasonably interfered with her work performance, affected the terms, conditions, and privileges of her employment and otherwise caused Plaintiff severe psychological and physical harm. 69. Defendants’ actions as alleged above created a work environment that a reasonable person would find to be harassing, hostile, and abusive.70. Plaintiff, on numerous occasions, complained to Graziano about the above-described sex based discrimination, harassment and hostile work environment and Graziano was on notice that the harassment was occurring, 71. Despite being notified of the harassing conduct, Graziano failed to take prompt and effective remedial ion to end the behaviors and Graziano, by way of her employces allowed and continued its campaign of sex-based discrimination against Plaintiff 72. That the actions of Graziano and het employees, by engaging in offensive verbal conduct, ‘unwanted sexual suggestions, conversations, and other unwanted acts of'a sexual nature, constitute sexual harassment and discrimination against Plaintiff in violation of Title VIL, 73. That as a result of the above, Plaintiff has suffered damages in the form of lost back and future wages, income and benefits, expenses associated with finding other work, and has suffered severe psychological harm, emotional distress, anxiety, pain and suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, embarrassment, humiliation, loss to professional standing, character and reputation, physical and personal injuries, and further seeks attorney’s fees and costs and prejudgment interest. 74, That the Graziano’s actions as set forth above were undertaken intentionally, willfully, wantonly, recklessly, maliciously and with utter disregard for the federally protected rights of the Plaintiff and, therefore, Plaintiff is entitled to recover punitive damages from the Defendant, FOR A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION: VIOLATION OF TITLE VII DISCRIMINATION BASED ON RACE/COLOR 75. Plaintiff hereby realleges each and every allegation contained in the Paragraphs above as fully as if set forth herein verbatim. 76. Plaintiff is African-American,77. During her employment, Plaintiff’s immediate supervisor was Graziano, a Caucasian- American. 78. PlaintifP’s supervisors intentionally failed to address Plaintiff's complaints regarding race discrimination due to Plaintiff's race, 79. Plaintiff was discriminated against and discharged in Violation of Title VIL 80. Plaintiff was discriminated against and discharged because of her race. 81. At the time Plaintiff was discharged from her employment, she was performing the functions of her employment in a matter which met her employer's expectations. 82. As result of Defendant's actions, Plaintiff has suffered damages in the form of lost back and future wages, income and benefits, expenses associated with finding other work, and has suffered severe psychological harm, emotional distress, anxiety, pain and suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, embarrassment, humiliation, loss to professional standing, character and reputation, physical and personal injuries, and further seeks attomey’s fees and costs and prejudgment interest. 83. Graziano’s actions as set forth above were undertaken intentionally, willfully, wantonly, recklessly, maliciously and with utter disregard for the federally protected rights of Plaintiff and she is entitled to recover punitive damages from the Defendants. FOR A SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION: VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C, 1983 DISCRIMINATION BASED ON RACE/COLOR 84. Plaintiff hereby realloges each and every allegation contained in the Paragraphs above as fully as if set forth herein verbatim, 85. Plaintiff is African-American,86. During her employment, Plaintiff's immediate supervisor was Graziano, a Caucasian- American, 87. Plaintiff's supervisors intentionally failed to address Plaintif?"s complaints regarding race discrimination due to Plaintif?’s race, 88. Plaintiff was discriminated against and discharged in Violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983. 89. At the time Plaintiff was discharged from her employment, she was performing the functions of her employment in a matter which met her employer's expectations. 90. Asaresult of Defendants’ actions as individuals and in their official capacity, Plaintiff has suffered damages in the form of lost back and future wages, income and benefits, expenses associated with finding other work, and has suffered severe psychological harm, emotional distress, anxiety, pain and suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, ‘embarrassment, humiliation, loss to professional standing, character and reputation, physical and personal injuries, and further seeks attomey’s fees and costs and prejudgment interest, Plaintiff FOR A SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. 1981 RACE DISCRIMINATION 91. Plaintiff hereby realleges each and every allegation contained in the Paragraphs above as fally as if set forth herein verbatim, 92. Plaintiffis African-American, 93. During her employment, Plaintiff's immediate supervisor was Graziano, a Caucasian- American, 94. Plaintiff"s supervisors intentionally failed to address Plaintiff’s complaints regarding race discrimination due to Plaintiff's race.95, At the time Plaintiff was discharged from her employment, she was performing the functions of her employment in a matter which met her employer's expectations. 96. But for Plaintiff's race, Graziano would have properly investigated Plaintif’s complaints, would not have allowed the hostile environment to continue, and would not have terminated Plaintiff's employment. 97. But for Plaintiffs race, Graziano would not have discriminated against Plaintiff. 98. Plaintit ‘was discriminated against and discharged in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1981. 99. Asaresult of Defendants’ actions as individuals and in their official capacity, Plaintiffhas suffered damages in the form of lost back and future wages, income and benefits, expenses associated with finding other work, and has suffered severe psychological harm, emotional distress, anxiety, pain and suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, embarrassment, humiliation, loss to professional standing, character and reputation, physical and personal injuries, and further seeks attomey’s fees and costs and prejudgment interest. Plaintiff further seeks to be reinstated to her position as Deputy Sheriff of Charleston County, 100. Plaintiff hereby realleges cach and every allegation contained in the Paragraphs above as fully as if set forth herein verbatim, 101. That as alleged above, Plaintiff complained to Graziano on several occasions that she was being harassed and discriminated against because of her race. 102, ‘That Plaintiff’s complaints were made in good faith, and constitute protected activity under 42US.C. 1981,103. Subsequent to and in retaliation for Plaintiff making complaints, Defendants created and allowed the work environment to be so hostile that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it, ity, Plaintiff has 104, As aresult of Defendants’ actions as individuals and in their offici suffered damages in the form of lost back and future wages, income and benefits, expenses associated with finding other work, and has suffered severe psychological harm, emotional distress, anxiety, pain and suffering, inconvenii ce, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, embarrassment, humiliation, loss to professional standing, character and reputation, physical and personal injuries, and further secks attorney's fees and costs and prejudgment interest. Plaintiff further seeks to be reinstated to her position as Deputy Sheriff of Charleston County. FOR A NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION: VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C, 1981 HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT 105. Plaintiff hereby realleges each and every allegation contained in the Paragraphs above as fully as if set forth herein verbatim. 106. During Plaintiff's employment, she was subjected 10 unwelcome racist and racially offensive comments and statements made by Defendants and Defendants’ employees. 107. Defendant's conduct as described above was unwelcome. 108, The harassment and hostile work environment described above was because of Plaintiff's race. 109. Plaintiff was subject to additional harassment described above because of Plaintiff's race and because Plaintiff made complainis about race discrimination and retaliation.110. But for Plaintif’s race, Defendants would have properly investigated Plaintift’s complaints, would not have allowed the hostile environment to continue, and would not have terminated Plaintiff's employment. 111. Defendants’ behavior humiliated Plaintiff, unreasonably interfered with her work performance, affected the terms, conditions, and privileges of her employment and otherwise caused Plaintiff severe psychological and physical harm, 112. The hostile environment was. sufficiently severe and pervasive to alter the conditions of her employment. Specifically, Graziano knew about, created, cultivated, and allowed the work environment to be so hostile that no person could be expected to endure it. 113, That as a result of the above, Plaintiff has suffered damages in the form of lost back and future wages, income and benefits, expenses associated with finding other work, and has suffered severe psychological harm, emotional distress, anxiety, pain and suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, embarrassment, humiliation, loss to professional standing, character and reputation, physical and personal injuries, and further seeks attorney’s fees and costs and prejudgment interest, 114. Defendants’ actions as set forth above were undertaken intentionally, willfully, wantonly, recklessly, maliciously and with utter disregard for the federally protected rights of Plaintiff. and, therefore, Plaintiff is entitled (o recover punitive damages from Defendant, FOR A TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION CIVIL CONSPIRACY 115. The allegations of the preceding paragraphs are repeated and incorporated herein by reference. 116. Graziano and Sad, in their individual eapacities and as agents of the Charleston County Sheriff, in combination with other persons, combined to injure the Plaintiff by way of the unlawfulacts described in the Paragraphs above by unlawful means. 117. Infurtherance of the conspiracy, Graziano and Sad published defamatory statements about Plaintiff (o agents and employees of the Charleston County Sheriff and published defamatory statements about Plaintiff to civilians. 118. Graziano and Sad, in their individual capacities and as agents of the Charleston County, in combination with other persons, combined (o injure Plaintiff through lawful acts by unlawful means, Such acts include, but are not limited to, frequently harassing, berating, and intimidating Plaintiff in an effort to cause emotional injury to Plaintiff in an attempt to force Plaintiff to resign her employment. 119. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Graziano and Sad, Plaintiff sustained damages in the form of lost back and future wages, income and benefits, expenses associated with finding other work, and has suffered severe psychological harm, emotional distress, anxiety, pain and suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, embarrassment, humiliation, loss to professional standing, character and reputation, physical and personal injuries, and further seeks attorney's fees and costs and prejudgment interest. 120, The allegations of the preceding paragraphs are repeated and incorporated herein by reference, 121. Graziano and Sad, in their individual and official capacities, published false and defamatory statements about Plaintiff to agents and employees of the Charleston County Sheriff and published defamatory statements about Plaintiff to civilians. 122, The statements made by Graziano and Sad, in their individual and official capacities, directly stated and indirectly implied Plaintiff was unfit for her profession as a law enforcementofficer. These statements and actions were defamatory per se. 123. The malicious statements and insinuations made by Graziano and Sad, in their individual and official capacities, were defamatory per quod, 124. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Graziano and Sad, Plaintiff sustained damages in the form of lost back and future wages, income and benefits, expenses associated with finding other work, and has suffered severe psychological harm, emotional distress, anxiety, pain and suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, embarrassment, humiliation, loss to professional standing, character and reputation, physical and personal injuries, and further seeks atforney’s fees and costs and prejudgment interest. A TWELFTH CAUS ACTION INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRE! 125. The allegations of the preceding paragraphs are repeated and incorporated herein by reference. 126. Graziano and Sad, in their individual and official capacities, intentionally and recklessly inflicted severe emotional distress, or was certain, or substantially certain, that such distress would result from their conduct. 127. The conduet by Graziano and Sad, in their individual and official capacities, was so extreme and outrageous that is exceeded all possible bounds of deceney, was atrocious, and is utterly intolerable in a civilized community. 128. The conduct by Graziano and Sad, in their individual and official capacities, Plaintiff to suffer extreme and severe emotional distress such that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it 129. Asa direct and proximate result of the actions of Graziano and Sad, in their individual and official capacities, Plaintiff sustained damages in the form of lost back and future wages, incomeand benefits, expenses associated with finding other work, and has suffered severe psychological harm, emotional distress, anxiety, pain and suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, embarrassment, humiliation, loss to professional standing, character and reputation, physical and personal injuries, and further seeks attorney's fees and costs and prejudgment interest. FOR A THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENCE/GROSS NEGLIGENCE. 130, The allegations of the preceding paragraphs are repeated and incorporated herein by reference, 131. Defendant Charleston County has policies and procedures with respect to investigating, reporting, and otherwise addressing claims of discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment. 132. Defendant Charleston County utilized its policies to assist the Charleston County Sheriffs Office with respect to, employment, human resources, and/or personnel matters of the Charleston County Sheriff, its Deputies, and its civilian employees. 133. Defendant Charleston County, with consent of the Charleston County Sheriff, assumes, in whole or in part, the responsibilities of the Charleston County Sheriff's Office with respect to employment, human resources, and/or personnel matters of the Charleston County Sheriff, its Deputies, and its civilian employees. 134, These assumed responsibilities and duties include, but are not limited to, assisting the Charleston County Sheriff's Office with the reporting and investigating claims of discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment made by the Charleston County Sheriff, its deputies, and its civilian employees. 135. Defendant Charleston County continued to assume and carry out the various dutiesmentioned in the Paragraphs above while Plaintiff was employed by Graziano. 136. Defendant Charleston County has a duty to investigate claims of sex discrimination, race discrimination, and/or hostile work environment made by employees of Charleston County or the Charleston County Sheriff's Office, 137, If Defendant Charleston County declines to assist in the investigation of claims of sex discrimination, race discrimination, and/or hostile work environment made by employees of Charleston County or the Charleston County Sheriff’s Office, it has a duty to ensure these claims are reported to the proper entity, 138. Defendant Charleston County knew or should have known that Plaintiff, white employed by Graziano, complained of race discrimination against Graziano or one of her deputies. 139. Defendant Charleston County knew or should have known that Plaintiff, while employed by Graziano, complained of sex discrimination against Graziano or one of her dept 140. Defendant Charleston County knew or should have known that Plaintiff, while employed by Graziano, complained that Graziano or one of her deputies were creating a hostile work environment based on Plaintiff's sex and race, 141, While employed by Graziano, Plaintiff reported claims of sex-based discrimination, retaliation and hostile work environment to County HR. 142. County HR informed Plaintiff they could not assist her with her complaints and she needed to file a Complaint with the Internal Affairs Office of the Charleston County Sheriff (Intemal Affairs), 143. Plaintiff informed County HR that Sad was the supervisor of Intemal Affairs. However, County HR reused to assist Plaintiff and failed to follow its policies and procedures with respect to handling complaints of sex-based and raced-based discrimination, retaliation, and hostile workenvironment, 144, Defendant Charleston County took no steps to ensure Plaintiff's complaints were properly addressed. 145, Defendant Charleston County failed to exercise the slightest care with respect to Plaintiff and its actions were willful, wanton, and were in carless disregard for the safety of Plaintiff. 146. Asa direct and proximate cause of Defendant Charleston County’s breach of its duties, Plaintiff has suffered damages in the form of lost back and future wages, income and benefits, expenses associated with finding other work, and has suffered severe psychological harm, emotional distress, anxiety, pain and suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, embarrassment, humiliation, loss to professional standing, character and reputation, physical and personal injuries, and further seeks attorney’s fees and costs and prejudgment interest. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests a jury trial for each cause of action and prays for the following relief against Defendant: for such amount of actual and special damages as the trier of fact may find, (including lost back and future wages, income and benefits, expenses associated with finding other work, severe psychological harm, emotional disiress, anxiety, pain and suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, embarrassment, humiliation, Joss to professional standing, character and reputation, and physical and personal injuries), punitive damages to the extent allowed by law, injunctive relief, the cost and disbursements of this action, including reasonable attorneys" fees, prejudgment interest and for such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper. (SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE)August 23, 2022 Charleston, South Carolina RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, LAW OFFICE OF SEAN M. WILSON, LLC s/ Sean Wilso ‘Sean Wilson Federal Bar #11881 Benjamin R. Pogue, IIT Federal Bar #10634 219 Calhoun Street Charleston, SC 29401 Telephone: 843-242-7622 Facsimile: 800-987-2501 GAFENEYLEWIS LLC s/Emmanuel J. Ferguson, Sr. Emmanuel J. Ferguson, St. Federal Bar #11941 3700 Forest Drive, Suite 400 Columbia, South Carolina 29204 Telephone (803) 875-1925 Facsimile (803) 790-8841 eferguson@gaffneylewis.com Attorneys for Plaintiff