2024 Helen Uzamere DR V Helen Uzamere DR SUMMONS COMPLAINT 1

FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 02/29/2024 01:19 PM INDEX NO.
57807/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 02/29/2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF WESTCHSTER
---------------------------------------------------------------------x
HELEN UZAMERE, Index No.
Plaintiff, SUMMONS
Plaintiff designates
- against -
Westchester County as the
place of trial. The basis of
THE CITY OF MOUNT VERNON and
SHAWYN PATTERSON-HOWARD, venue is where Defendant
The City of Mount Vernon is
Defendants. situated
---------------------------------------------------------------------x
To the Defendants named above in the caption:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED to answer the
complaint in this action and to serve a copy of your answer on Plaintiff’s attorney at the address
indicated below within 20 days after service of this Summons or within 30 days after the service
is complete if this Summons is not personally delivered to you within the State of New York.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT should you fail to answer, a judgment will be
entered against you by default for the relief demanded in the complaint.
Dated: January 11, 2024

New York, NY
TUCKNER, SIPSER, WEINSTOCK & SIPSER, LLP
/s/ William J. Sipser________________

Attorneys for Plaintiff
535 Fifth Avenue, 4th Floor
New York, NY 10017
(212)-766-9100
To: The City of Mount Vernon

Shawyn Patterson-Howard
1 Roosevelt Square N.
Mount Vernon, NY 10550
1 of 15
FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 02/29/2024 01:19 PM INDEX NO. 57807/2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF WESTCHSTER
---------------------------------------------------------------------x
HELEN UZAMERE,
Plaintiff, VERIFIED COMPLAINT

WITH JURY DEMAND
-against-
THE CITY OF MOUNT VERNON and

SHAWYN PATTERSON-HOWARD,
Defendants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------x
Plaintiff, by her attorneys, Tuckner, Sipser, Weinstock & Sipser, LLP, respectfully
complains as follows:
NATURE OF THE CASE
1. This action arises under specific provisions of the New York State Civil Service Law
(“CVS”) and the New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”). Plaintiff seeks economic
damages for the severe harms and losses she endured due to Defendants’ unlawful discriminatory
and retaliatory employment practices.
PROCEDURAL PREREQUISITES
2. Pursuant to General Municipal Law Section 50-e, a notice of claim was served upon
Defendant the City of Mount Vernon on June 16, 2023.
3. More than thirty (30) days have elapsed since the filing of the notice of claim, yet Defendant
the City of Mount Vernon has neglected and/or refused an adjustment or payment of the claim.
4. This action is commenced less than one (1) year and ninety (90) days from the happening
of the event upon which the claim is based.
2 of 15
PARTIES
5. Plaintiff Helen Uzamere is a natural person and New York resident who was employed by
the City of Mount Vernon from September 14, 2020 until her illegal firing on March 23, 2023.
6. Defendant City of Mount Vernon (“Mount Vernon”) is a covered employer as defined by
statute in CVS §75-b (1) and NYSHRL §292(5).
7. Defendant Shawyn Patterson-Howard, the mayor of Mount Vernon (“the Mayor”), is an
employer as defined by NYSHRL §292(5) and is an aider and abettor under the NYSHRL.
MATERIAL FACTS
8. Plaintiff is a highly skilled Information Technology/Project Management Executive who
holds a master’s degree in Information Systems as well as a doctoral degree in Computing.
9. Prior to her employment with Mount Vernon, Plaintiff amassed over twenty years of
leadership expertise in government, education, and non-profit sectors.
10. Plaintiff has a proven track record of revitalizing technology organizations to attain service
and organizational excellence.
11. Plaintiff commenced employment with Mount Vernon on or about September 14, 2020 as
the Commissioner of Management Services.
12. Plaintiff was responsible for the technology, procurement and project needs of over one-
thousand-one-hundred (1,100) employees and twenty-two (22) departments, including the
Police, Fire, Recreation, and Public Works Departments.
13. Plaintiff was a dedicated, loyal, and hardworking employee who consistently performed
the essential functions of her position in an outstanding manner, and who additionally maintained
an excellent initial reporting and working relationship with Mayor Patterson-Howard.
3 of 15
14. Until her wrongful firing, Plaintiff massively contributed to Mount Vernon’s operations
by increasing productivity; improving constituent services; and growing taxpayer savings.
15. Plaintiff modernized Mount Vernon’s outdated systems, such as the Police Department’s
computer infrastructure.
16. Plaintiff also led the successful redesign of Mount Vernon’s website and significantly
increased efficiency by enabling remote work during the Covid-19 pandemic.
17. Plaintiff also saved Defendant Mount Vernon millions of dollars in revenue enhancement
by leading city projects with successful outcomes; rescuing failing projects; renegotiating vendor
contracts; and implementing streamlined procurement processes and procedures.
18. Notwithstanding Plaintiff’s professional success at Mount Vernon, she was subjected to
retaliatory conduct, ultimately leading to her illegal retaliatory termination by Defendants.
19. This retaliatory backlash began when Plaintiff opposed and refused to participate in what
she reasonably believed were Defendants’ unethical, improper, and illegal activities.
20. These unlawful actions included, but were not limited to, the following.
21. Shortly after Plaintiff was hired, Mount Vernon, through the Mayor, began routinely
demanding that Plaintiff participate in the falsification of employees’ timesheets by inflating the
number of hours worked.
22. On several occasions, Mount Vernon, through the Mayor, improperly added employees to
the headcount of Plaintiff’s department, namely, the Management Services Department, when
such employees did not report to Plaintiff.
23. These employees were unqualified and not formally onboarded into the Management
Services Department.
4 of 15
24. It was apparent that their hiring was done as a quid pro quo favor to constituents and in
exchange for their votes.
25. In one instance, former Mount Vernon spokesperson Daniel Terry was added to the
headcount of Plaintiff’s department, even though he reported directly to the Mayor, so Plaintiff
had no managerial capacity over Terry, and was unaware of his true working hours.
26. As such, on multiple occasions Plaintiff complained about and refused to participate in
the approval of Terry’s timesheets, as she could not accurately attest to his hours.
27. Plaintiff was aware that Terry’s attendance was sporadic, with many no-shows and
persistent tardiness, yet his timesheets reflected otherwise, which was false and would have
resulted in overpayment.
28. Plaintiff complained about this illegal practice several times, both verbally and in writing.
29. On or about October 26, 2021, Plaintiff complained to Darren Morton, Mount Vernon’s
then-Chief of Staff, about being compelled to approve Terry’s hours.
30. The complaint stated, “I am uncomfortable with certifying his hours when I know nothing
of his schedule.”
31. On or about December 9, 2021, Plaintiff further opposed this improper certification
attempt in another email to Morton, which stated, “…I am not comfortable with entering hours
after the fact.”
32. On December 22, 2021, Plaintiff emailed Morton again, copying the Mayor, complaining
about the Mayor’s insistence that Plaintiff improperly certify hours of the Communication team’s
employees who did not report to her.
5 of 15
33. Plaintiff stated, “[a]s I cannot attest to the hours worked for any in the Communications
team, I suggest moving the department under the Mayor's office for the 2022 budget. It is
unethical for me to certify hours for a team that I do not manage.”
34. Plaintiff also refused the Mayor’s demand that she provide attestations to sickness and
vacation accruals of the Communications team, called “green sheets.”
35. Plaintiff never met these new hires, they never reported to her, and she had no knowledge
of their accruals.
36. The Mayor further demanded that Plaintiff deceptively write off expenses under false
pretenses, such as demanding that she illegally pass off funds that were clearly ineligible
expenses under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (“ARPA”) as tax deductible ARPA funds.
37. In March 2022, the Mayor attempted to add Daniel Terry, who was no longer an employee
of Mount Vernon, into the Premium Pay Roster.
38. The Premium Pay Roster provided relief, pursuant to ARPA, of up to $5,000 to staff who
worked in the office during the height of the pandemic.
39. Plaintiff therefore refused to add Terry to the list of eligible employees.
40. In an email dated March 24, 2022, to Deputy Chief of Staff Malcolm Clark and copied to
both Darren Morton (Mount Vernon’s then-Comptroller) and the Mayor, Plaintiff stated,
“[u]nder my supervision, his attendance was sporadic. Entering hours for him will mean me
falsifying records.”
41. On another occasion, the Mayor improperly instructed Plaintiff to claim the expense of a
new ID system as ARPA funds, despite such expense clearly being ineligible pursuant to ARPA.
6 of 15
42. Plaintiff opposed other improper procurement practices that were rampant at Mount
Vernon.
43. The department heads bypassed the proper process of channeling all purchases through
the Management Services Department, and instead awarded contracts outside of the guidelines.
44. Plaintiff refused to sign the Request for Personnel Change form (“RPC”) regarding Keith
Eversley, a close personal friend of the Mayor, who was hired by the Mayor as the Purchasing
Agent in Plaintiff’s department, despite his obvious lack of qualifications for the position.
45. Upon Eversley’s hiring, Plaintiff, as his department head, also refused to approve a
proposed increase in his salary above the approved budget for the position he shouldn’t have had.
46. On or about March 16, 2023, the Mayor instructed Plaintiff to falsify the nature of a work
event in a letter, to improperly obtain approval and city funding for Eversley’s attendance.
47. When Plaintiff opposed this blatantly illegal demand, she was berated, pressured to
compose the letter, and faced increasing hostility by the Mayor and the Chief of Staff.
48. The Mayor wrongfully opined, “[t]his does not harm taxpayers as it is only a couple
hundred dollars. I don’t see the big deal.”
49. Plaintiff disclosed the falsification of timesheets to the Westchester District Attorney.
50. As a result of her whistleblower activities, Plaintiff was subjected to overt retaliation.
51. The Mayor publicly berated Plaintiff, levelled plainly retaliatory and baseless false
accusations against her.
52. The Mayor also cancelled important meetings that were scheduled with Plaintiff and began
her campaign of ostracization through limiting all professional interactions with Plaintiff.
7 of 15
53. Mount Vernon divested Plaintiff of her parking spot to punish her, and she was banned
from working remotely, despite the Mayor’s previous approval of remote work before Plaintiff
opposed employer acts that she reasonably believed constituted improper governmental action.
54. Finally, Plaintiff was wrongfully and illegally terminated on or about March 23, 2023.
55. Plaintiff was also subjected to overtly discriminatory and retaliatory conduct because of
her disability and/or perceived disability.
56. During her employment, Plaintiff suffered from severe headaches due to un-remediated
toxic mold in her work office that was caused by a leak in the roof.
57. Defendants’ retaliatory actions in response to Plaintiff’s whistleblower activities
exacerbated Plaintiff’s disability, as the workplace stress she was suffering due to Defendants’
illegal actions intensified her extreme work and mold-related headaches.
58. Plaintiff disclosed her medical impairments to Defendants and in January 2023, Plaintiff
formally requested the reasonable accommodation of a hybrid, partially remote work schedule.
59. Plaintiff’s protected request for a reasonable accommodation for her bona fide disability
was made to both the Mayor and Mount Vernon’s Human Resources Department (“HR”).
60. Defendants entirely failed to engage with Plaintiff in the required interactive process,
much less a reasonable accommodation analysis, and without basis denied her protected requests.
61. Thereafter on March 17, 2023, Plaintiff became severely ill and was hospitalized.
62. Plaintiff promptly notified Defendants of her medical condition and her resulting need for
time to convalesce from her temporary disabilities, which included an intracranial hemorrhage
and sciatic nerve damage.
8 of 15
63. Plaintiff was advised by her treating physician that she needed to take additional time off
to recover from and fully address these serious health conditions.
64. Plaintiff requested protected leave and on March 23, 2023, she submitted the required
Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) form by email to HR, notifying Defendants of her
need for a brief FMLA and short-term disability leave due to her own serious health condition.
65. Two hours later, in a final and blatantly illegal act, Plaintiff was summarily terminated.
66. Plaintiff was also treated differently by Defendants as she suffered hostile and degraded
terms and conditions of employment because of her Nigerian national origin, as Plaintiff was the
sole African-born employee of color working for Defendants during the relevant time frame.
HARMS AND LOSSES
67. Due to Defendants’ glaringly abusive, discriminatory, retaliatory, and illegal employment
actions, Plaintiff suffered substantial financial harms and loses; severe emotional distress; injury
to her reputation; ongoing corroborated pain and suffering; and rising costs and attorneys’ fees.
AS A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR

RETALIATORY ACTION UNDER THE NEW YORK STATE CIVIL SERVICE LAW
68. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all allegations contained in this Complaint.
69. The New York Civil Service Law §75-b, provides in relevant part that a public employer
shall not take disciplinary personnel action against a public employee because such employee:
“2(a)… discloses to a governmental body information: (i) regarding

a violation of a law, rule or regulation which violation creates and
presents a substantial and specific danger to the public health or
safety; or (ii) which the employee reasonably believes to be true and
reasonably believes constitutes an improper governmental action.”
9 of 15
70. Defendant Mount Vernon engaged in an unlawful retaliatory personnel action by firing
Plaintiff in retaliation for disclosing information regarding a violation of a law, rule or regulation
which violation creates and presents a substantial and specific danger to the public health or
safety, or which Plaintiff reasonably believed to be true and reasonably believed constituted
improper governmental action.
AS A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR

DISCRIMINATION UNDER THE NEW YORK STATE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW
72. The NYSHRL §296(1)(a) provides that it shall be unlawful discriminatory practice:
“For an employer . . . because of an individual's . . . disability . . . to

discharge from employment such individual or to discriminate
against such individual in compensation or in the terms,
conditions or privileges of employment.”
73. Defendants engaged in an unlawful discriminatory practice in violation of NYSHRL
§ 296(1)(a) by terminating and otherwise discriminating against Plaintiff because of her
disability.
AS A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR

75. NYSHRL §296(1)(h) provides that it shall be unlawful discriminatory practice:
“(h) For an employer…to subject any individual to harassment because

of an individual’s…disability…regardless of whether such harassment
would be considered severe or pervasive under precedent applied to
harassment claims…”
10 of 15
76. Defendants engaged in an unlawful discriminatory practice in violation of the NYSHRL
§296(1)(h) by subjecting Plaintiff to harassment that resulted in inferior terms, conditions and/or
privileges of Plaintiff’s employment because of her disability, thereby creating a hostile work
environment for Plaintiff based on her disability.
AS A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR

78. The NYSHRL §296(1)(a) provides that it shall be unlawful discriminatory practice:
“For an employer . . . , because of an individual's . . . national origin

. . . to discharge from employment such individual or to
discriminate against such individual in compensation or in terms,
conditions or privileges of employment.”
79. Defendants engaged in an unlawful discriminatory practice in violation of NYSHRL
§ 296(1)(a) by terminating and otherwise discriminating against Plaintiff because of her national
origin.
AS A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR

81. NYSHRL §296(1)(h) provides that it shall be unlawful discriminatory practice:
“(h) For an employer…to subject any individual to harassment

because of an individual’s…national origin …regardless of whether
such harassment would be considered severe or pervasive under
precedent applied to harassment claims…”
§296(1)(h) by subjecting Plaintiff to harassment that resulted in inferior terms, conditions and/or
10
11 of 15
privileges of Plaintiff’s employment because of her national origin, thereby creating a hostile
work environment for Plaintiff based on her national origin.
AS A SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR

84. NYSHRL §296(3) provides that it shall be unlawful discriminatory practice:
“(a) It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice for an

employer…to refuse to provide reasonable accommodations to the
known disabilities… of an employee...”
§296(3) by refusing to provide Plaintiff with reasonable accommodations with respect to
Plaintiff’s known disabilities.
AS A SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR

RETALIATION UNDER NEW YORK STATE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW
87. The NYSHRL §296(7) provides that it shall be unlawful discriminatory practice:
“for any person engaged in any activity to which this section applies
to retaliate or discriminate against any person because he or she has
opposed any practices forbidden under this article or because he or
she has filed a complaint, testified or assisted in any proceeding
under this article.”
88. Defendants violated NYSHRL §296(7) by retaliating against Plaintiff because she opposed
practices forbidden under Article 15 of the NYSHRL.
11
12 of 15
AS A EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR

DISCRIMINATION UNDER NEW YORK STATE HUMAN RIGHTS LAW
90. The NYSHRL §296.6, provides that it shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice:
“for any person to aid, abet, incite, compel or coerce the doing of
any of the acts forbidden under this article, or to attempt to do
so.”
91. Mayor Patterson-Howard engaged in unlawful discriminatory practices in violation of the
law by aiding, abetting, inciting and compelling discriminatory treatment.
REMEDY
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests a judgment against Defendants.
A. Awarding future income to Plaintiff in an amount to be proven at trial, representing loss of
future earnings, including reasonable and expected increases, loss of retirement income and
all other benefits she would have earned during her lifetime had it not been for Defendants’
illegal conduct;
B. Awarding economic damages to Plaintiff for back pay and to otherwise compensate her for
losses suffered because of illegal employer practices;
C. Awarding Plaintiff compensatory damages for her corroborated emotional distress, pain and
suffering, and for the severe injury to her reputation;
D. Awarding Plaintiff punitive damages for Defendants’ outrageous, willful conduct;
E. Awarding Plaintiff attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses incurred in the prosecution of the
action;
12
13 of 15
F. Awarding Plaintiff such other and further relief as the Court may deem equitable, just and
proper to remedy Defendants’ unlawful employment practices.
DEMAND
Plaintiff demands a trial by jury.
Dated: January 11, 2024

New York, NY
TUCKNER, SIPSER, WEINSTOCK & SIPSER, LLP
/s/ William J. Sipser _________________

William J. Sipser
Attorneys for Plaintiff
535 Fifth Avenue, 4th Floor
New York, NY 10017
13
14 of 15
VERIFICATION
STATE OF NEW YORK

) ss.:
COUNTY OF 6g.ox
Helen Uzamere, being duly sworn, deposes and says: I am the Plaintiff in this action. I
have read the foregoing Complaint and I know the contents thereof and the same are
true to my knowledge, save for matters stated to be alleged on information and belief,
and as to those matters, I believe them to be true.
Helen U •mere
Sworn to before me this

Mr day of juo 2024
- Notary Public
OSA70 =MERE
NOTARY PUBLIC. STATE OF NEW YORK
Registration No. 02020018.595
Clullfiecl In Bmnx County
Commission Tres 12/13/2027
15 of 15

2024 Helen Uzamere DR V Helen Uzamere DR SUMMONS COMPLAINT 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2024 Helen Uzamere DR V Helen Uzamere DR SUMMONS COMPLAINT 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FILED: WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK 02/29/2024 01:19 PM INDEX NO.

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Dated: January 11, 2024

TUCKNER, SIPSER, WEINSTOCK & SIPSER, LLP

/s/ William J. Sipser________________

To: The City of Mount Vernon

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Plaintiff, VERIFIED COMPLAINT

THE CITY OF MOUNT VERNON and

NATURE OF THE CASE

and retaliatory employment practices.

Defendant the City of Mount Vernon on June 16, 2023.

of the event upon which the claim is based.

6. Defendant City of Mount Vernon (“Mount Vernon”) is a covered employer as defined by

statute in CVS §75-b (1) and NYSHRL §292(5).

7. Defendant Shawyn Patterson-Howard, the mayor of Mount Vernon (“the Mayor”), is an

8. Plaintiff is a highly skilled Information Technology/Project Management Executive who

holds a master’s degree in Information Systems as well as a doctoral degree in Computing.

leadership expertise in government, education, and non-profit sectors.

and organizational excellence.

the Commissioner of Management Services.

thousand-one-hundred (1,100) employees and twenty-two (22) departments, including the

Police, Fire, Recreation, and Public Works Departments.

an excellent initial reporting and working relationship with Mayor Patterson-Howard.

by increasing productivity; improving constituent services; and growing taxpayer savings.

increased efficiency by enabling remote work during the Covid-19 pandemic.

contracts; and implementing streamlined procurement processes and procedures.

retaliatory conduct, ultimately leading to her illegal retaliatory termination by Defendants.

number of hours worked.

such employees did not report to Plaintiff.

exchange for their votes.

then-Chief of Staff, about being compelled to approve Terry’s hours.

after the fact.”

employees who did not report to her.

unethical for me to certify hours for a team that I do not manage.”

vacation accruals of the Communications team, called “green sheets.”

of Mount Vernon, into the Premium Pay Roster.

worked in the office during the height of the pandemic.

hundred dollars. I don’t see the big deal.”

accusations against her.

her disability and/or perceived disability.

57. Defendants’ retaliatory actions in response to Plaintiff’s whistleblower activities

illegal actions intensified her extreme work and mold-related headaches.

and sciatic nerve damage.

to recover from and fully address these serious health conditions.

HARMS AND LOSSES

AS A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR

“2(a)… discloses to a governmental body information: (i) regarding

improper governmental action.

AS A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR

“For an employer . . . because of an individual's . . . disability . . . to

73. Defendants engaged in an unlawful discriminatory practice in violation of NYSHRL

§ 296(1)(a) by terminating and otherwise discriminating against Plaintiff because of her

AS A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR

75. NYSHRL §296(1)(h) provides that it shall be unlawful discriminatory practice:

“(h) For an employer…to subject any individual to harassment because

76. Defendants engaged in an unlawful discriminatory practice in violation of the NYSHRL

environment for Plaintiff based on her disability.

AS A FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR

“For an employer . . . , because of an individual's . . . national origin

79. Defendants engaged in an unlawful discriminatory practice in violation of NYSHRL

AS A FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR

81. NYSHRL §296(1)(h) provides that it shall be unlawful discriminatory practice: