Romulus Police Chief Dickerson lawsuit.pdf - MLive.com

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2:13-cv-10771-JAC-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 02/25/13 Pg 12 of 18 Pg ID 12handcuffed prisoner and when Defendants learned of Plaintiff’s complaints to theAttorney General’s Office.69. At the conclusion of the meeting, Ms. Mayerich asked Plaintiff if he wanted to betransferred to road patrol.70. In response, Plaintiff stated that he did not want to be transferred to road patroland that he only wanted to be able to do his job without being picked on or lied to.71. On January 9, 2013, Plaintiff discovered that Defendant Shelby had been paid fordays which Plaintiff suspected that Defendant Captain Shelby had not worked.72. Specifically, Plaintiff noted that the payroll records indicated that DefendantShelby was paid “D-8” for December 27, 2012 and December 28, 2012.73. Plaintiff had worked those exact shifts and had not seen Defendant Shelby atwork.74. On January 9, 2013, Plaintiff reported his suspicions that Defendant CaptainShelby was being paid for work not performed directly to Defendant ChiefDickerson.75. On January 9, 2013, Lt. Czernik came to Plaintiff at approximately 4:00 pm andtold him that he was to meet with Defendant Chief Dickerson at 4:30 pm. Plaintiffexpected the meeting to be about the payroll discrepancy concerning DefendantCaptain Shelby.76. Defendant Chief Dickerson, Captain John Leacher and Lt. Czernik (Plaintiff’sUnion representative) attended a meeting in Captain Leacher’s office.77. At the time, Defendant Dickerson passed out a memo and stated “This is notdiscipline.”
2:13-cv-10771-JAC-MKM Doc # 1 Filed 02/25/13 Pg 13 of 18 Pg ID 1378. At the meeting, Plaintiff was presented with a memo directed to HumanResources Director Carol Mayerich concerning Plaintiff’s report of payrolldiscrepancies related to Defendant Captain Shelby.79. The memo further stated:Also, as discussed with you and my Executive Command Staff over thepast few weeks of my intention of eliminating the Detective Sergeantsposition from the Investigative Services Bureau and transferring theposition back to the Afternoon Shift-Uniformed Patrol OperationsDivision effective February 1, 2013, is going to be effective immediately.By delaying the transfer any further, will only worsen the already poorcommunication and working relationship of the Captain and the Sergeant.80. Consequently, Plaintiff was relieved of his duties in the Detective Bureau and wastransferred to being a road patrol supervisor, a position far different from that ofthe Detective Bureau.81. Removal from the Detective Sergeant position to Sergeant for road patrol meantthat Plaintiff would lose his 5% pay raise over patrol Sergeants, lose the title“Detective” and the benefits and privileges commensurate therewith, no longerhave an assigned city vehicle which he could take home, would no longer haveuse of the city issued cell phone, would no longer be able to work the day shift,would no longer have weekends and holidays off with pay and lost the privilegeof scheduling his own overtime to keep up with his assigned duties and lost accessto many parts of the building in which Plaintiff worked.82. The past practice of the City of Romulus Police Department is to provideemployees two week notice of any schedule change and to also allow officers tokeep their department issued cell phones for a period of time. Plaintiff did notreceive this notice.
Page 1 and 2: 2:13-cv-10771-JAC-MKM Doc # 1 Filed
Page 11: 2:13-cv-10771-JAC-MKM Doc # 1 Filed

Romulus Police Chief Dickerson lawsuit.pdf - MLive.com

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?