Case 2:24-cv-00084-SPL Document 1 Filed 01/11/24 Page 1 of 6

1 Matthew V. Moosbrugger (035449)

Moosbrugger Law, PLLC
2 2415 E. Camelback Rd. Ste. 700
3 Phoenix, AZ 85016
Telephone (602) 845-973
4 Matthew@Moosbrugger-Law.com
5 Attorney for Plaintiff

6
7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9
10
Matthew Bennett, Case No.:
11
12 Plaintiff, COMPLAINT
13 vs.
14
United States Department of Veteran’s
15 Affairs; Denis McDonough, in his official
16 capacity as United States Secretary of
Veterans Affairs,
17
18 Defendants.

19
20
21
NATURE OF THE ACTION
22
This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (“Title
23
VII”), against Defendants, the United States Department of Veteran’s Affairs (hereinafter
24
25 “VA” or “the Agency”), and Denis McDonough, in his official capacity as United States

26 Secretary of Veterans Affairs, due to unlawful employment practices on the basis of race
27 (African American), to provide appropriate relief for Plaintiff who was adversely affected
28
 Case 2:24-cv-00084-SPL Document 1 Filed 01/11/24 Page 2 of 6

1 by such practices. As alleged with greater particularity in this Complaint, Plaintiff alleges

2 that the Defendants subjected Plaintiff to unlawful discrimination based on his race when
3 he was not selected for the Criminal Investigator position due to his race.
4 JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5
1. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S. Code § 1331, 1337,
6
1343(a)(4), and 1391(e)(1).
7
2. This action is authorized and instituted pursuant to sections 42 U.S.C. §
8
2000e-2(a)(1) and Section 102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a.
9
10 3. The employment practices alleged to be unlawful were committed within the

11 jurisdiction of the United Stated District Court for the District of Arizona.
12 PARTIES
13 4. Plaintiff, Matthew Bennett (hereinafter “Mr. Bennett” or “Plaintiff”), was at
14
all relevant times an employee of the Agency in Maricopa County, Arizona.
15
5. At all relevant times, the Agency has been a Government entity operating in
16
the State of Arizona.
17
6. At all relevant times, Defendant has continuously employed fifteen (15) or
18
19 more persons.

20 ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES
21 7. On October 28, 2022, Plaintiff initiated Formal Complaint with the Agency’s
22 Office of Resolution Management, Diversity & Inclusion (ORMDI), alleging that he was
23
subjected to employment discrimination based on his race when he was not selected for the
24
Criminal Investigator position he applied to, and was further subjected to a hostile work
25
environment.
26
27 8. Mr. Bennett’s formal complaint was assigned VA Case No. 200P-644-2022-

28 147530.

2
 Case 2:24-cv-00084-SPL Document 1 Filed 01/11/24 Page 3 of 6

1 9. On March 15, 2023, Plaintiff received the Agency’s Final Agency Decision

2 substantiating that Mr. Bennett was subjected to an unlawful hostile work environment
3 based on his race, but failed to substantiate his discriminatory non-selection claim, entitling
4 him to pursue this claim in Federal District Court by January 11, 2024.
5
10. All conditions precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been fulfilled.
6
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
7
11. While successfully fulfilling his responsibilities to the Agency, Mr. Bennett
8
applied for the Criminal Investigator position within the Agency and was interviewed on
9
10 July 27, 2023.

11 12. The interview panel consisted of Mr. Joshua Fister, Mr. Frederick Dewerth,
12 and Mr. Joseph Owens, while the selecting official was Mr. Taylor Whitt.
13 13. At the time of events giving rise to Mr. Bennett’s claims, Ms. Fister was Mr.
14
Bennett’s second-level supervisor and held the position of Supervisory Police Officer.
15
14. Beginning in July 2020, Mr. Fister subjected Mr. Bennett to an unlawful
16
hostile work environment based on his race, as substantiated by the Agency’s own Final
17
Agency Decision in VA Case No. 200P-644-2022-147530.
18
19 15. The hostile work environment Mr. Fister subjected Mr. Bennett to, which

20 was substantiated by documentary evidence and witness testimony, included Racially

21 offensive commentary and a detrimental difference in treatment as compared to his
22 similarly situated colleagues outside of his protected class, leading the Agency to recognize
23
their liability for the unlawful hostile work environment.
24
16. The Agency failed to recognize that Mr. Fister’s presence on the interview
25
panel was a detriment to Mr. Bennett based on Mr. Fister’s discriminatory animus toward
26
27 Mr. Bennett based on his race.

28

3
 Case 2:24-cv-00084-SPL Document 1 Filed 01/11/24 Page 4 of 6

1 17. Mr. Fister artificially suppressed Mr. Bennett’s interview score in an effort

2 to discriminate against Mr. Bennett based on his race and prevent him from being selected
3 for the Criminal Investigator position.
4 18. Upon information and belief Mr. Fister influenced the other two interview
5
panel members to score Mr. Bennett lower on his interview, due to Mr. Fister’s
6
discriminatory animus toward Mr. Bennett.
7
19. As a result of Mr. Fister’s presence on the panel, Mr. Bennett’s knowledge,
8
skills, and abilities were demonstrably discounted and mischaracterized in an effort to score
9
10 him lower than he should have been scored in the interview.

11 20. Due to the lower interview score that Mr. Bennett received due to Mr. Fister’s
12 mischaracterization of Mr. Bennett’s knowledge, skills, and abilities to perform the
13 Criminal Investigator position, Mr. Bennett was not selected for position.
14
21. The Agency selected two other candidates to fill the Criminal Investigator
15
position who were both white males.
16
22. At the time of events giving rise to Mr. Bennett’s claims, Mr. Bennett had
17
demonstrably superior qualification for the Criminal Investigator position as compared to
18
19 the two selected candidates who are outside of his protected class.

20 STATEMENT OF CLAIM
21 [Employment Discrimination – Race – 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1)]
22 23. The allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs are hereby
23
incorporated by reference.
24
24. Defendant engaged in unlawful employment practices in Arizona, in
25
violation of Section 703(a)(1) of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), by selecting
26
27 candidates outside of his protected class with demonstrably inferior qualifications to fill

28 the Criminal Investigator position.

4
 Case 2:24-cv-00084-SPL Document 1 Filed 01/11/24 Page 5 of 6

1 25. Mr. Bennett is a member of a protected class based on his race (African

2 American).
3 26. Mr. Bennett was qualified for and applied for the Criminal Investigator
4 position.
5
27. Mr. Bennett was considered for the position but was not selected for the
6
position.
7
28. Two individuals with demonstrably inferior qualifications were selected for
8
the position.
9
10 29. The Agency avers that Mr. Bennett was not selected for the position at least

11 in part due to his lower interview score as compared to the selected candidates.
12 30. The Agency’s proffered explanation is demonstrably pretextual because Mr.
13 Bennett’s interview score was artificially suppressed due to Mr. Fister’s discriminatory
14
animus toward Mr. Bennett based on his race, as evidenced by the demonstrably false
15
statements concerning Mr. Bennett’s knowledge, skills, and abilities to fulfill the Criminal
16
Investigator position.
17
31. The effect of the practices complained of in the foregoing paragraphs has
18
19 deprived Mr. Bennett of the equal enjoyment of terms and conditions of his employment

20 and otherwise resulted in substantial emotional distress.

21 32. The unlawful employment practices complained of in the foregoing
22 paragraphs were done with reckless indifference to Mr. Bennett’s statutorily protected
23
Civil Rights.
24
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
25
Wherefore, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:
26
27
28

5
 Case 2:24-cv-00084-SPL Document 1 Filed 01/11/24 Page 6 of 6

1 A. Order Defendants to make Mr. Bennett whole by providing compensation for

2 past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful practices described above, in
3 amounts to be determined at trial.
4 B. Order Defendants to make the aggrieved individuals whole by providing
5
compensation for past and future non-pecuniary losses, pursuant to Title VII, resulting
6
from the unlawful practices described above, including but not limited to emotional pain,
7
suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life, in
8
amounts to be determined at trial.
9
10 C. Grant such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper in the

11 public interest.
12
13 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 11th day of January 2024.

14
15
MOOSBRUGGER LAW, PLLC
16
17
18
19
___________________________
20 Matthew V. Moosbrugger, Esq.
21 2415 E. Camelback Rd. Ste. 700
Phoenix, AZ 85016
22 Attorney for Plaintiff
23
24
25
26
27
28