Romulus Police Chief Dickerson lawsuit.pdf - MLive.com

2:13-cv-10771-JAC-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 02/25/13 Pg 11 of 18 Pg ID 1163. On October 8, 2012, Defendant Chief Dickerson told Plaintiff that he wished hehad kept the issue in-house rather than going to the Attorney General’s Office.64. Defendant Captain Shelby informed Plaintiff that since Captain Monte had takenover the record bureau duties that Plaintiff would be expected to handle moreduties in the Detective Bureau, including case assignments, payroll andsupervisory duties.65. On October 9, 2012, Captain Shelby provided Plaintiff with a copy of the revisedFOIA response letter and asked Plaintiff if he wanted his name included as thesignatory of the letter to which Plaintiff responded that he did not.66. On December 5, 2012, Plaintiff spoke with Carol Mayerich of the City ofRomulus Human Resources Department and told her that Defendants ChiefDickerson and Captain Shelby had created a hostile work environment for him.67. On December 7, 2012, Ms. Mayerich met with Plaintiff and Defendant ChiefDickerson. Defendant Chief Dickerson told Ms. Mayerich that he was “leery” ofPlaintiff remaining in the Detective Bureau and the property room because of“trust issues”, presumably referring to Plaintiff’s refusal to destroy evidence asordered by Defendant Chief Dickerson.68. At this meeting, Defendant Chief Dickerson also lauded Plaintiff’s work in theDetective Bureau, how Plaintiff had been a “great employee”, that he could counton Plaintiff always getting the job done but that that had changed since the timeperiod when the City of Romulus Police Department had received the FOIArequest concerning the video tape of the assault by a police officer on a