LawYER

Don High

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND Page 1 of 42
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
DON HIGH,
Plaintiff,
VS.
CITY OF WYLIE, TEXAS, ABERNATHY,
ROEDER, BOYD & HULLETT, A
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, RICHARD
M. ABERNATHY, LISA DAVIS, AND MINDY
MANSON
Defendant.
§
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:18-cv-00364-ALM
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

NOW COMES Don High, hereinafter called “Plaintiff” or “High,” by and through the
undersigned attorney, complaining of and about the City of Wylie (the “City”), Abernathy,
Roeder, Boyd & Hullett (“ARBH”), Richard M. Abernathy (“Abernathy”), Lisa Davis (“Davis”),
and Mindy Manson (“Manson”) hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Defendants”, and for
causes of action shows unto the Court the following:

1. The Plaintiff, Don High, brings this action against the Defendants (*1), for violations
of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) (42 U.S.C. § 2000e), 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
and Declaratory Judgment.

2. At the time of the discrimination and retaliation, High was employed with the
City (*2) as a Municipal Court Prosecutor. Despite High's many achievements and long-term service
with the City and ARBH, he was subjected to discrimination because of his race and age.
Defendants later subjected High to retaliation after having knowledge that he participated in
protected activity by filing a complaint against Davis, Bantz and Manson (*3). High filed three
complaints between February 7, 2018 and March 13, 2018 and the City failed to address his
concerns. The Defendants were aware of High’s previously filed complaints (*4). The City
Council revoked High’s resolution appointing him as city prosecutor after the filing of his
complaint. The City’s rationale is that they were working to further investigate the functions,
terms of service and duties, and compensation of High’s position.

(*1) The specific causes of action (s) directed towards each individual defendant is separately discussed later in this
complaint. See infra.
(*2) On information and belief, ARBH was a joint employer of Mr. High at the time the violations asserted in this
complaint occurred. Accordingly, Plaintiff is seeking a declaratory judgment on that issue.
(*3) Mr. High’s initial complaint was asserted against Davis only, but later amended to include Manson and Bantz due
to following actions that occurred.
(*4) Defendant’s knowledge of these complaints is described more fully, infra.

3. This Court has original jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331,
in that it is a civil action arising under Title VII. This action further arises under the U.S.
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

VENUE
4. Venue in this Court is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), as this is the
judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the asserted
claims occurred. Further, the exercise of personal jurisdiction comports with Due Process under
the United States Constitution.

CONDITIONS PRECEDENT
5. On February 7, 2018, High filed a complaint against Lisa Davis. Mr. High’s
complaint was personally delivered to the City’s Human Resources department (“HR
Department”). The complaint was also emailed to the HR Department.

6. On February 26, 2018, Mr. High filed an additional complaint after the City’s
refusal to consider, review, and investigate his complaint in accordance with their policies. Mr.
High personally delivered a copy of this complaint to the HR Department with a copy sent by
certified mail return receipt requested (“CMRRR”).

7. On March 13, 2018, Mr. High filed his third complaint, supplementing the
previously filed complaints. Mr. High personally delivered a copy of this complaint to the HR
Department with a copy sent by CMRRR.

8. On April 12, 2018, Mr. High filed a Charge with the U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (the “Commission”) on the basis of race, age, retaliation and hostile
work environment. The Commission issued Mr. High a right to sue letter affording him up to 90
days to file suit in U.S. District Court against the Respondent.

9. The City engaged the firm of Adams, Lynch and Loftin to conduct a purported
independent investigation into Mr. High’s complaint.

10. Mr. High has complied with all conditions precedent to raising the claim(s) set
forth in this matter.

11. High adequately exhausted his administrative remedies prior to filing this lawsuit.

12. High has mitigated his damages to at least the extent required by law.

PARTIES & SERVICE
13. Plaintiff Don High is an individual who resides in Plano, Collin County, Texas.
Plaintiff is a citizen of Texas. Plaintiff may be contacted by his undersigned attorney. High is an
employee, as defined by Title VII.

14. Defendant City of Wylie is a municipal corporation and political subdivision of
the State of Texas. The City of Wylie has been served.

15. Defendant Abernathy, Roeder, Boyd & Hullett, is a Professional Corporation
with a principal place of business located at 1700 N. Redbud Blvd., Ste. 300, McKinney, Texas
75069. Defendant Abernathy, Roeder, Boyd & Hullett have been served.

16. Defendant Richard M. Abernathy is an individual who is employed in Collin
County at Abernathy, Roeder, Boyd & Hullett. Defendant Abernathy has been served.

17. Defendant Lisa Davis is an individual who is employed in Collin County at the
City of Wylie as Court Administrator. Defendant Davis has been served.

18. Defendant Mindy Manson is an individual who is employed in Collin County at
the City of Wylie as City Manager. Defendant Manson has been served.

FACTS
19. Abernathy(*5) held a telephone conference with Mr. High on or about April 10, 1995
to inquire whether Mr. High would handle the prosecution duties for the City of Wylie.
Abernathy followed up with a formal letter (*6) to Mr. High confirming his appointment as
prosecutor for the City of Wylie. Although not specifically stated in Abernathy’s letter, he
intended for Mr. High to continue to act as the prosecutor for the City of Wylie for an extended
period of time; as Abernathy attached a listing of the Pre-Trial and Trial dates to his letter to Mr.
High. Since then, Mr. High has continued to serve as the Prosecutor of the City of Wylie for the
past 23 years.

20. On information and belief, Abernathy held his telephone conference with Mr.
High and sent his formal letter without the knowledge and approval of the City Council of
Wylie. At this time, Mr. Abernathy and or his firm of ARBH acted as High’s employer and
continued to do so at relevant times in this complaint when they were a joint employer with the

(*5) Mr. Abernathy and/or ARBH have served as the City of Attorney for the City of Wylie Texas since 1995 and
possibly before that time.
(*6) See, Exhibit A, Letter from Richard Abernathy hiring Mr. High to prosecute cases for the City of Wylie.

City giving rise to the race discrimination, age discrimination and hostile work environment
claims in this complains.

21. On information and belief, the City Charter (“Charter”) for the City of Wylie in
effect on April 10, 1995 is the same Charter for the City that was in effect in for the 2017 – 2018
fiscal year.

22. Since his hiring by Abernathy and/or ARBH, Mr. High has had minimal
communications with Abernathy or representatives of his firm, yet Mr. High was permitted to
continue to serve as Prosecutor for the City of Wylie. Mr. High has been permitted and
authorized to maintain his private practice of law while employed with the City. ARBH and
Abernathy were involved with the September 2017 efforts to prepare a Performance
Improvement plan to discipline High. ARBH and Abernathy effectively stepped out of their role
as City Attorney and acted an employer with respect to Mr. High, even though it was not
expressly authorized by the City’s charter.

23. Mr. High received his first check from ARBH (*7), then the following paychecks
were issued by the City of Wylie. For many years, the City misclassified Mr. High as an
independent contractor, failed to withhold applicable taxes and issued annual 1099s. The City
did not consider Mr. High to be an employee of the City and denied him the ability to participate
in any employee benefit programs that other City employees would otherwise be eligible to
participate in. As of the filing of this lawsuit, Mr. High continues to be denied of the ability to

(*7) In 1995, ARBH went by the name of Abernathy, Roeder, Robertson & Joplin. On information and belief, the
current name is Abernathy Roeder, Boyd & Hullett.

participate in such employee benefits programs. The hours worked between High and Cristales
is 984 per year at the current rate.

24. The City continued to misclassify Mr. High as an independent contractor until the
U.S. Department of Treasury - Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) conducted an investigation or
examination of the City in 2007 for prior tax years. According to the Form 4668 dated June 18,
2007, the examination was discussed with Melissa Beard (Senior Accountant). The City was
assessed a $19,200.64 tax penalty for the 2004 calendar year. Notably, the City “agreed” to the
IRS findings from its examination. The City’s finance director consented to the immediate
assessment and collection of any additional tax and penalties as of July 5, 2007.

25. Attached to the IRS findings for the 2004 year was a document that identified Mr.
High was one of the “employees” who was affected by the City’s violations in the amount of
$18,699.00. It is not clear from the attachment whether this was the amount the City previously
paid to Mr. High as income for that particular tax year or if the figure represents something else.

26. In the Summary of Employment Tax Examination it was stated: “The
examination of your employment tax returns as reflected on this Agreement included an
examination for employment tax purposes of whether elected officials, judges, prosecutors…
should be treated as employees of the taxpayer…..Based on this examination, you may not rely
on the audit of any classes of workers for purposes of the prior audit safe haven for satisfying
reasonable basis requirement of Section 530, because all workers audited were reclassified as
employees (*8).”

(*8) Mr. High was one of the employees audited in this IRS examination. Accordingly, the IRS mandated that the City
reclassify him as an employee.

27. Effective the pay period ending June 29, 2007, the City began withholding
applicable FICA, Federal and other taxes from Mr. High’s paycheck. Initially, Mr. High was
under the impression that he was an independent contractor, so he submitted an IRS Form SS-8
to the IRS for determination of Worker Status concerning his work relationship with the City of
Wylie for the years of 2007, 2008, 2009 (*9).

28. Mr. High received letters dated October 6, 2009 (*10) and October 19, 2010 (*11) from
the IRS, where it was confirmed that the IRS “determined that prosecutors for the City of
Wylie, specifically naming Don N. High, are employees for federal tax purposes.”

29. As additional background facts, when Mr. High first started working with the City
in April 1995, the court personnel comprised of one clerk, one part-time judge, and no bailiff.
Just prior to February 7, 2018, the court is comprised of three (3) clerks, a court supervisor, a
juvenile case coordinator, two bailiffs, two part-time judges and Mr. High as the only prosecutor
(part-time).

30. During the course of Mr. High’s employment with the City there were instances
where he had to miss work (i.e. illness, vacation, etc.). On those occasions, Mr. High located
another attorney to handle his prosecutorial duties in his absence. This was a common practice
during his 23 years of service without any intervention or guidance from the City, Abernathy or
ARBH. (*12)

(*9) Mr. High’s work for the City did not substantially change until February 2017 due to an incident with Lisa Davis.
See, infra.
(*10) See, Exhibit B – Letter from IRS requesting additional information.
(*11) See, Exhibit C – IRS letter confirming Mr. High’s status as an employee of the City of Wylie.
(*12) No intervention occurred until Mr. High filed his complaint against Lisa Davis as further discussed.

31. In 1995, Mr. High spent between six to nine hours a month providing
prosecutorial services to the City. In 2016, those hours had increased to 41 hours per month. In
early 2017, Mr. High’s hours began at the same pace as the 2016 year, but it changed in May
2017. His hours were reduced to 25.59 per month, as a result of an incident involving Lisa
Davis, the Court Administrator. His hours have continued to decrease after his formal
complaints were filed, and even after this lawsuit has been filed. High reported this incident to
Linda Bantz (Finance Director). Since that time, Davis has continued to make High’s job
difficult for him. The reduction of High’s work hours contributed to a hostile work environment
on the basis of race and age. High is a white male over the age of 40.

32. In February 2017, a juvenile truancy case was heard in the City’s court that
involved a dire situation of the well-being of the young person involved. After the matter was
appropriately handled, Davis called Mr. High into her office to admonish and reprimand him
about the juvenile’s situation and that he needed to listen to the juvenile case coordinator. Davis
requested that Preston Skinner leave the room and close the door behind him. Davis permitted
Katonya Johnson (*13) to remain in the office. Davis stated, “Don you must listen to her.” Johnson
stated, “that little girl in there was punking you and jerking your chain … she was lying to you.”
After listening to both, Davis and Johnson, repeatedly reprimanded him---Mr. High refrained
from making any comments and asked, “are you done now?” The meeting abruptly ended.

33. Mr. High brought this matter to the attention of Linda Bantz, the Director of
Finance for the City. Bantz arranged a meeting with Davis, High and Judge Maldonado to further
discuss the incident. During the meeting, Mr. High restated what occurred with Davis and

(*13) Ms. Johnson is the juvenile case coordinator.

Johnson and sought further clarification in his role as City Prosecutor. At the time, Bantz was an
agent of the City and had full knowledge of the hostile work environment that Davis caused to
High. In fact, Davis orchestrated an effort to involve other City employees to assist her in
making High’s work environment difficult for him. To the point that it adversely affected his
work.

34. Bantz confirmed that Davis is not Mr. High’s supervisor. Mr. High inquired with
Bantz and Judge Maldonado, “who is my supervisor?” Both Bantz and Judge Maldonado were
stumped, and all parties concluded that Mr. High did not have a supervisor and he served at the
pleasure of the City Council due to his resolution (*14). The meeting concluded.

35. The next day Davis and Johnson ceased talking to Mr. High. Instead, all
communications were directed to Mr. High in the form of a sticky note or email. Since February
2017, this is how Davis and Johnson have communicated with High. This made Mr. High
extremely uncomfortable and the work environment very tense.

36. On March 14, 2017, the City Council issued Resolution No. 2017-07(R) for Mr.
High for a one-year period, commencing on April 1, 2017 through March 31, 2018 (*15).

37. On March 16, 2017, Davis emailed Mr. High asking him about his job duties and
time requirements as a prosecutor. Although uncomfortable with doing so, Mr. High complied

(14) Mr. High did not have a resolution when he began employment with the City of Wylie. On information and
belief, his first resolution was issued April 10, 2007 via Resolution 2007-15(R) establishing a two-year term. The
resolution was signed by Mayor John Mondy. Mr. High would receive a new resolution every two years. Each new
resolution would renew his term of service for an additional two years, until the March 2017 resolution was
presented. Interestingly, on the City’s March 14, 2017 agenda, Lisa Davis presented this resolution to the City
Council for their action. This occurred the next month after the incident between Davis and High that led to the start
of the hostile work environment.

(15) Usually, a resolution covering a two-year period is issued for Mr. High, with the exception of this year.

with Davis’s email and provided the requested information. Prior to this email, there were
discussions with Bantz about creating an additional prosecutor position to assist Mr. High. It
was discussed that Tyler Edmundson would be an appropriate candidate for the potential
additional prosecutor position. This was based on the fact that, Mr. Edmundson had worked with
Mr. High for over a year learning the prosecutor role.

38. Mr. High preferred to take on additional hours at the City so he could become
eligible to participate in the TMRS retirement. High made it known to Linda Bantz that he was
willing to reduce hours in his private practice in order to do so.

39. After several months, Mr. High followed up with Bantz about the additional
prosecutor position and she confirmed that she has not heard anything about the position, as
nothing had been decided yet. Mr. High informed her of his concerns about the tense working
environment in the court related to the actions of Davis and Johnson. Now other members of the
staff were acting similarly to that of Davis and Johnson. Bantz stated, “well, actually I told them
to act that way.” In other words, Bantz empowered Davis to facilitate a hostile work
environment against Mr. High.

40. On June 6, 2017, Davis emailed Mr. High refusing to provide copies of relevant
information from case files so he could appropriately complete his job tasks. Although Davis is
not an attorney, she said it was too costly, too time consuming and not necessary to provide Mr.
High with the information he requested. Mr. High further clarified to Davis that he needed
enough information on the cases, so he could make a recommendation on the cases prior to
appearing in court. To the contrary, Davis suggested that he make recommendations while
meeting with the defense counsel on these cases. Soon thereafter, Mr. High’s time at work has
been reduced due to docket cancellations. Ms. Davis has succeeded in removing Mr. High from
all attorney dockets by Davis. Ms. Davis has succeeded in removing Mr. High from all jury trial
dockets. Ms. Davis has succeeded in removing Mr. High from all commercial motor vehicle
dockets.

41. On information and belief, Davis stated that she did not expect Mr. High to be
employed with the City past March 2018. She planned for Cristales to take on all prosecutorial
duties.

42. On June 22, 2017, Davis emailed Mr. High to cancel all August 10th dockets;

43. On July 11, 2017, Davis emailed Mr. High that there will be no Wednesday
dockets in July 2017.

44. On July 31, 2017, Davis furthered informed Mr. High that there will be no
morning dockets on Wednesday, August 2nd--instead dockets would begin at 1:30pm.

45. On August 2, 2017, Davis emailed Mr. High that the only docket for him that
week would be August 9th.

46. On August 30, 2017, Mr. High notified Preston Skinner that he was ill and would
have Tyler Edmundson to cover his docket the afternoon of August 31, 2017. Bantz requested
that Davis inquire with Mr. High about how Tyler is compensated for the time he spends
covering Mr. High’s docket(s). Mr. High addressed this matter and confirmed that Tyler bills for
his time and Mr. High compensates him at the same rate of pay that Mr. High would have
received. Davis then arbitrarily notified Edmundson and Mr. High that the cases for August 31,
2017 have been reset and Edmundson no longer needed to appear in court.

47. After inquiry, Davis informed Mr. High that Mindy Manson determined that the
appointment of any additional attorneys to act as the prosecutor should be done by the City
Attorney with approval from the City Council. This is contrary to the longstanding practice that
was in place since April of 1995.

48. On September 11, 2017, Davis notified High by email that his 9 am docket for
that Wednesday was cancelled.

49. On information and belief, Davis was continuing to reduce High’s hours to
adversely impact him. Davis almost single handedly changed the terms and conditions of High’s
employment with the City.

50. At some point, Mr. High had a discussion with Sgt. Coomer of the City’s Police
Department about his experiences with Davis. Additionally, High had previous discussions with
the court’s former bailiff, Shea Pickrill about his experiences with Davis. All three agreed---one
should never cross her. The municipal court is not the place it used to be because of Davis.

51. Mr. High scheduled a meeting with Manson on November 15, 2017, but due to
unforeseen circumstances he could not meet with her in person, but they spoke on the phone.
Mr. High apprised Manson about what had been going on with the court, Davis, Johnson, Bantz
and their actions towards him. Manson informed Mr. High, “you’ve given me quite a lot… I
have some looking into to do on this matter.” Manson stated that she would get back to Mr.
High, but she never did.

52. On November 28, 2017, Bantz informed Mr. High that the City was going to have
another attorney from ARBH to handle some additional hours of prosecution needed in the
court (*16). Mr. High was not consulted on the City’s decision to reduce his hours and give
additional hours to ARBH and one or more of their attorneys.

53. On February 7, 2018, Mr. High was late to court due to car trouble. He was in
constant communication with the Court about his status. Mr. High exchanged text messages
with Ron Spears, Court bailiff at 9:09am. Spears inquired if High needed a ride. High informed
him that he was working to get the vehicle started, but he should be in court by 10:00am. At
9:40 a.m High called Davis on her office phone, but she did not pick up. He left a voicemail
about what happened and informed her that he was on his way and should be there by 10:00am.
At 9:49 a.m. Davis returned High’s call and told him that she discussed the matter with Chris
Holsted and Manson and they contacted Victor (*17) from ARBH. High was told that he did not
need to come in. Mr. High informed them that he was 10 minutes away and told them he would
come in anyway.

54. At 9:59 a.m Mr. High walked in and Davis was waiting for him at the door. She
informed him that Chris Holsted and Manson “wanted to meet with you.” Instead, Davis and
Chris Holsted met with High in Chris’s office. Mr. High informed them that he had car trouble,
but he’s here now and ready to start the docket. Chris said “well since we did not hear from you,
we have already contacted Victor and he’s on his way in.” Mr. High corrected Chris and
informed him of his communication efforts with Spears and Davis. Chris said, “well I disagree.”

(*16) The court had additional hours that needed covering in the court, but instead of giving those hours to Mr. High,
his hours were steadily and consistently reduced since May 2017. Ms. Bantz previously made comments where she
stated, “but … I’ve been thinking, if we are giving additional hours to someone else, why don’t I explore getting
them to you to satisfy your desire to participate in the retirement program.” This never occurred, and Mr. High has
not been allowed to participate in the retirement program. It is likely that if the City had given the additional hours
to Mr. High, then he could meet the eligibility criteria to enter the retirement plan program.

(*17) On information and belief, Victor is the same Victor M. Cristales as presented on the website of ARBH at
http://www.abernathyroeder.com/victor-m-cristales/

Mr. High asked if Chris was going to make the people in the courtroom continue to wait. His
response was, “no, we have already contacted Victor and he is on his way in.” Mr. High
expressed his dissatisfaction to Chris. He left Chris’s office feeling uncomfortable and
disappointed in the actions taken by the City. Afterwards, Mr. High visited with the bailiffs, then
the judge. They all were surprised by the course of action taken by Chris, Manson, and Davis on
behalf of the City. Victor arrived at 10:15am.

55. Mr. High sent his initial complaint on Lisa Davis to HR on February 7, 2018.
This complaint was hand delivered and copies sent to the City Council and Mindy Manson, City
Manager.

56. On February 8, 2018, Manson emailed Mr. High requesting to set up a meeting,
even though she is not the person who was supposed to handle the first level of the complaint (*18).
Mr. High was perplexed as to why he would hear from Manson when his complaint was directed
to the Human Resources department as required by City policy. Mr. High reminded Manson of
this and suggested that she allow the complaint process to take its course. Manson responded:

“Don
I am aware of your actions today and have reviewed the letter you
left with my HR director. I regret your decision to decline to meet.
We will continue our review of all the relevant information and
determine what action is in the City’s best interest.
Regards,
Mindy”

(*18) On page 73 of the City of Wylie’s employee handbook it states in pertinent part: “All complaints of discrimination
or harassment will be promptly and thoroughly investigated, and violations of the policy will be treated as serious
disciplinary infractions…The claim should be presented to the Human Resources Manager. This claim will be
promptly reviewed, investigated and the complaining party will be advised of the disposition.”

57. On February 25, 2018, Mr. High went to HR and spoke with Lety Yanez (*19) to
follow up on the status of his complaint. Yanez informed High that Manson had instructed her to
hold off on his complaint because he was an independent contractor and not a City employee.
Manson was incorrect in her view that Mr. High was an independent contractor. His first
complaint made it clear that he was an employee as per the IRS 2007 investigation or
examination of the City. Manson’s rationale is pretext for discrimination against Mr. High.

58. On February 26, 2018, Mr. High sent his second complaint to HR due to their
failure to take any action on his February 7, 2018 complaint. Mr. High’s second complaint
provided additional supporting documentation to his status as a City employee. Manson
responded in email as follows:

“Don,
We are in receipt of your correspondence on February 7th and February 26th regarding
your complaints. Please know that we take all such complaints seriously and are
committed to a thorough review and investigation. Per your request, this is to confirm
that the investigation has begun. Our HR Director Lety Yanez will be reaching out to you
shortly to set up time to meet with her (*20).
I do want to clarify a couple of points. In your letter February 26th, you reference p. 71
of the Employee handbook, specifically section B. under Grievance Procedure. Please
note that section A under Grievance Procedure states that the procedure relates to
employees who have any “complaint or grievance about demotion, promotion or any
form of disciplinary action” and does not apply in this circumstance (*21). You reference to
section 46 which addresses Discrimination/Harassment is correct in that this section
governs the process to be followed to investigate your complaint as we understand it. As

(*19) Ms. Yanez is the Human Resources Director for the City of Wylie. Per the employee handbook, she is
responsible for handling Mr. High’s complaints.
(*20) Mr. High met with Ms. Yanez on March 16, 2018 for an interview that lasted 1.5 hours or more.
(*21) Manson’s statement is inaccurate. Mr. High’s complaint is based in part on the City’s failure to promote him to a
full-time city prosecutor or the in alternative, to increase his hours instead of disciplining him by decreasing his
work hours.. This makes Section A on page 71 of the employee handbook applicable. The City has failed to
address Mr. High’s complaints in the five (5) day time frame allowed for such matters. Mr. High has raised the
question, many times, “who does he report to?” Mr. High’s complaints are also based in part on discrimination and
retaliation. Section 46 on page 73 of the employee handbook is applicable to that portion of his complaints. The
failure to promote and reduction of hours are applicable under Section 46 as well. The reduction of hours changes
the “terms and conditions” of Mr. High’s employment with the City.

you note the complaint is submitted to HR, with any subsequent appeal being made to
the city manager (*22). The City Council is not involved in this process and I request that
you refrain from further communication with the Council while the investigation and/or
any appeal is under way. Further, we are committed to respecting confidentiality of the
process but cannot ensure that if you continue to include other employees in your
correspondence.
Regards,
Mindy”

59. On February 28, 2018, Mr. High received an email that Abernathy’s firm will
handle the March 8th and 29th dockets. The firm sent a younger Hispanic male to cover these
dockets in place of Mr. High. On information and belief, this male is under the age of 40.

60. Mr. High’s hours and income have decreased (*23). Mr. High has not been allowed to
participate in the City’s health insurance plan or retirement plan after 23 years of faithful service
to the City of Wylie.

61. On March 13, 2018, Mr. High sent his third complaint to HR, which was amended
to specifically include Bantz and Manson.

62. On March 27, 2018, the City Council held its regular meeting. During this
meeting the City Council voted to revoke Mr. High’s current Resolution 2017-07(R). On March
28, 2018, Manson sent Mr. High a letter confirming that the City Council passed a resolution that
affected the terms of his 2017 resolution. Manson stated, “… and did not terminate your
employment. You remain employed on an at-will basis until further notice and are expected to

(*22) Manson is the City Manager and stresses that any appeal related to Mr. High’s complaint will go to her. This
raises the point that Manson should not be communicating with Mr. High through any method. If she does, then she
gives the appearance of bias and unquestionably tainted the investigative process. The investigation has already
been unreasonably delayed compounded with Manson’s acts of tainting the investigation.
(*23) See, Exhibit D for a chart of the decline in Mr. High’s hours.

report to work as requested by the court (*24).” On information and belief, Davis helped to facilitate
the City Council decision to revoke Mr. High’s resolution, hence her expectation that Mr. High
would not be employed with the City after March 2018. On information and belief, if Mr. High
had not filed this lawsuit, the City would have terminated his employment by now.

63. Prior to Manson’s March 28th letter, High was not working in an “on-call” status.

64. On March 28, 2018, Manson sent Mr. High another letter regarding the
appointment or designation of an independent investigator to conduct an investigation related to
his claims. Manson further stated, “All employees may file a grievance in accordance with City
policies. Please note that all grievance timelines will be strictly enforced.” (*25)

65. On April 2, 2018, Davis emailed Mr. High to inform that his “services as a
prosecutor are not needed for the April 12, 2018 docket.”

66. On April 17, 2018, Davis emailed Mr. High that he was not needed for the May
10th docket.

67. On information and belief, the City employs 201 through 500 employees.

(*24) See, Exhibit E – A copy of Manson’s March 28, 2018 letter to Mr. High. This letter clearly and directly changed
the terms and conditions of Mr. High employment with the City. It further changed his employment status that
similar to an ‘on-call’ status since he is to only report to work ‘as requested by the court.’ Manson acted in concert
with others including, but not limited to, the City Council to silence Mr. High, reduce Mr. High’s work hours,
prevent Mr. High from becoming eligible to participate in the City’s health plan and retirement plan, and retaliated
against Mr. High for engaging in protected activity when he opposed unlawful employment practices of the City and
certain actors who represented the City in carrying out these acts.
(*25) Past history has shown that the City does not take complaints seriously and the City does not follow its own
grievance policy and applicable timelines. One of the reasons this case was filed for litigation is the failure of the
City to follow such protocols, as Mr. High’s grievance/complaint has been pending since February 7, 2018, which
was plenty of time for the City to address, further prevent and possibly cure some of the issues presented to this
Court. It is clear that Mr. High cannot receive due process at the hands of the City. Manson’s March 28th letter
regarding the independent investigation is nothing more than a “hush letter.” Mr. High cannot and will not be
silenced on these important issues.

68. The City was aware of the conduct of Davis, Bantz, Manson and others
employees within the Municipal Court, but did not take any action to prevent these employees
from furthering a hostile work environment against Mr. High. The City’s inaction demonstrates
negligence and should be viewed as the City’s adoption of the offending conduct towards Mr.
High. The City’s inaction and results that stem from such, is the same as if the City affirmatively
authorized the employee conduct towards Mr. High as the City’s policy.

69. Davis’ conduct towards Mr. High was not isolated events, but ongoing in nature.

70. High was never informed that a performance improvement plan (“PIP”) dated
September 1, 2017 was drafted with the intent to be presented to him by Manson (City Manager)
and Abernathy (City Attorney). High never signed the PIP because he was not presented with
this actual document. On information and belief, the PIP stated “You will be closely monitored
by the City Manager, Human Resources Director and City Attorney…”

71. On information and belief, since the February 2017 incident with High, Davis
went on a letter writing campaign to write internal documents since that time to document her
alleged concerns about High. Davis wrote internal memoranda dated June 5, 2017, June 15,
2017, July 20, 2017, July 13, 2017 and other dates. To show the level of pretext the City
presents through Davis, she starts her July 20, 2017 memo off with “This statement is based on
ongoing issues and concerns over the last 6 years that I have worked with Don High.”

72. Why after six years is Davis suddenly concerned with what Don High does at
work? The answer is simple—create a hostile work environment on the basis of age and race
discrimination and eventually retaliation. Davis was in a position to influence the decision
makers in the City to take adverse employment action against High.

73. If Davis is not High’s supervisor then why is she taking copious notes through
internal memorandums about Mr. High? On information and belief, Davis further complains that
High does not follow statute when making plea recommendations to defendants, but fails to
admit that the Judge of the court approved recommendations made by High.

74. Davis continues her letter writing campaign to Linda Bantz in January 2018
where she conveyed to Bantz how Mr. High handled a case with a defendant. Nowhere in
Davis’ email does she mention that High mishandled the case. The point of Davis’ email is to
continue provide insult and ridicule to High to cause others to treat him differently in the work
place.

75. On information and belief, Davis recited alleged incidents from years prior to
report to Levy Yáñez about Mr. High. Specifically, Davis sent an email dated August 25, 2016
to Yáñez on May 23, 2018 about the “Coconut song.” Regardless of the content of the song, an
event that occurred two years prior to her sending this email to Yáñez has no bearing on Mr.
High’s performance at that time. Moreover, Davis and the City did not address the alleged issue
with Mr. High at or near the time of the alleged incident. Davis’s motivation is to facilitate the
ouster of High.

76. In an email dated May 24, 2018, Davis admitted that the City changed their
monthly trial dates back in March 2018 and intentionally did not tell Mr. High. The City also
revoked High’s resolution in March of 2018, but allowed him to remain “employed.” The City
stated they expected High to report to work “as requested by the court.” This is an outright
contradictory position. Specifically, Davis’s statement confirms that she and City did not want
High to work in the Court, hence not providing him with critical information regarding the
change of trial dates. By this time, High had already filed in internal complaints related to
hostile work environment and discrimination. High had engaged in protected activity.

77. In an email dated November 30, 2017, Davis informs Bantz that High requested a
jury “shuffle” and took a long time questioning the jurors. Davis expressed her concern that she
would not be able to take a lunch simply because High was performing his job conducting what
may have been an effective voir dire based on the needs of the case. Considering that Davis is
not an attorney, she is not expected to understand what is required of High to perform his duties
as an attorney.

78. High has never signed a job description with the City. High has not signed a
contract for employment with the City.

79. During the course of High’s employment with the City, he has never been written
up, counseled or in serviced on any issues raises in the memos set forth by the Defendants. High
has never had any person file a complaint against him based on time management, skills and/or
legal conclusions, actions, abilities or ethics while serving at City Prosecutor.

80. High has not been told that there is a separate grievance process for independent
contractors versus that of employees.

81. Davis did not carry the title of “supervisor” with the City of Wylie, but her
conduct demonstrated that she was supervising High’s work conduct and performance. Davis
further demonstrated her authority to take tangible employment actions against High when
provided reports about High’s alleged conduct and performance to other City employees,
including Lety Yanez, Linda Bantz, Mindy Manson, Ketonya Johnson, and Preston Skinner.

82. Davis further demonstrated her supervisory authority when she made the decision
not to inform High about the changes in the court’s trial calendar. Davis acted as High’s
supervisor when she continually reduced the amount of hours that High be scheduled to work in
the Municipal Court.

83. Davis harassed High directly and indirectly through her conduct towards High
and conduct with other employees that affected High in the course of his performance of duties
with the City of Wylie.

84. The City of Wylie was fully aware of Davis’ harassing and hostile conduct, but
failed to take any preventative or corrective actions against Davis to prevent her from harming
High. Davis had the authority to affect a significant changes in High’s employment status,
including but not limited to disciplining High, failing to promote High, reassignment of High to
perform different duties, and to cause a significant change in benefits that High would receive
from working at the City.

85. Specifically, Davis drafted a performance improvement plan in an effort to
discipline High. High lost a portion of his compensation benefits when Davis reduced his hours.
High was reassigned with respect to his responsibilities, as he is no longer able to handle certain
dockets within the Municipal Court. Victor Cristales handle the dockets that were previously
handled by High.

86. Davis compiled a memo dated July 20, 2017 to document her converns about
High that covered the previous six years.

87. High was interested in joining the retirement plan through TMRS (Texas
Municipal Retirement System), which would have required him to work more hours with the
City. High expressed his desire to the City, as he was fully qualified to perform the work. On
information and belief, Davis put in a request to the City to authorize additional hours for an
additional prosecutor for the City. The City rejected High’s interest and chose Cristales, a
younger Hispanic male to fill the additional hours for prosecutor, when those hours give have
been given to High to allow him to received the retirement benefits through TMRS.

COUNT ONE
Discriminatory Failure to Hire and Change in Terms and Conditions of Employment
Based on Age in Violation of The Age Discrimination In Employment Act 29 U.S.C. §§
12201 et seq. Against the City of Wylie and ARBH

88. High repeats and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 87 hereof, as if fully set forth
herein.

89. On information and belief, the City has engaged the law firm of Abernathy,
Roeder, Boyd and Hullett as their City Attorney with Richard Abernathy appointed as the
Attorney from the firm to serve as City Attorney to the City. The City Attorney is on the City’s
organizational chart (*26) as a department of its own and operates as such by providing legal services
to the City as a legal department would do. ARBH, as City Attorney, did not have the authority
to render discipline to an employee of the City.
(*26) See, Exhibit F – FY 2015 Organizational Chart for the City of Wylie

90. Pursuant to the City Charter, the City Attorney has the authority to appoint
additional attorneys to act for him and the city in its representation and litigation---just as Mr.
High has done for the past 23 years.

91. During this time, the City and ARBH has also allowed Mr. High to appoint other
attorneys to cover court dockets for him in times where he needed to be absent.

92. On information and belief, ARBH acted as a “Joint Employer” as it relates to the
employment of Mr. High. In the event that ARBH is not a joint employer under Title VII, then
the City discriminated against Mr. High on the basis of age by virtue of selecting a younger and
less experienced attorney to cover court dockets instead of Mr. High. The City also allowed the
younger and less experienced attorney to receive additional work hours instead of Mr. High. The
hours received by this attorney were hours that were taken away from Mr. High.

93. ARBH contracted with the City of Wylie, but retained sufficient control of the
terms and conditions of employees where were employed by the City of Wylie. Specifically, the
employee where there was shared control between ARBH and the City of Wylie is Mr. High.
Mr. High performed prosecutorial duties within the City of Wylie Municipal Court. Mr. High
reported to the City Attorney and to the City of Wylie. Even though ARBH and the City of
Wylie are separate---not an integrated enterprises--- they share or co-determine the matters
governing the essential terms and conditions of Mr. High’s employment. In this respect, the
ARBH acted outside their role as attorneys when it affected the terms and conditions of Mr.
High’s employment.

94. ARBH was aware of Davis’ conduct towards Mr. High, but failed to take
preventative or corrective actions.

95. ARBH and Abernathy were involved with the September 2017 efforts to prepare a
Performance Improvement plan to discipline High. ARBH and Abernathy effectively stepped out
of their role as City Attorney and acted an employer with respect to Mr. High, even though it was
not expressly authorized by the City’s charter.

96. High suffered damages as a result of Defendant's unlawful retaliatory actions,
including emotional distress, past and future lost wages and benefits, attorney fees, and the costs
of bringing this action.

COUNT TWO
Race Discrimination in Violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
(42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et al.) Against the City of Wylie and ARBH

97. High repeats and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 96 hereof, as if fully set forth
herein.

98. On information and belief, the City has engaged the law firm of Abernathy,
Roeder, Boyd and Hullett as their City Attorney with Richard Abernathy appointed as the
Attorney from the firm to serve of City Attorney to the City. The City Attorney is on the City’s
organizational chart as a department of its own and operates as such by providing legal services
to the City as a legal department would do.

99. Pursuant to the City Charter, the City Attorney has the authority to appoint
additional attorneys to act for him and the city in its representation and litigation, just as Mr.
High has done for the past 23 years.

100. During this time, the City and ARBH has allowed Mr. High to appoint other
attorneys to cover court dockets for him in times where he needed to be absent.

101. On information and belief, ARBH acted as a “Joint Employer” as it relates to the
employment of Mr. High. In the event that ARBH is not a joint employer under Title VII, then
the City discriminated against Mr. High on the basis of race by virtue of selecting a younger,
Hispanic, male who is a less experienced attorney to cover court dockets instead of Mr. High.
The City also allowed Mr. Cristales to receive additional work hours instead of Mr. High.

102. ARBH and Abernathy were involved with the September 2017 efforts to prepare a
Performance Improvement plan to discipline High. ARBH and Abernathy effectively stepped out
of their role as City Attorney and acted an employer with respect to Mr. High, even though it was
not expressly authorized by the City’s charter.

103. High suffered damages as a result of Defendant's unlawful retaliatory actions,
including emotional distress, past and future lost wages and benefits, attorney fees, and the costs
of bringing this action.

COUNT THREE
Retaliation in Violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
(42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et al.) Against the City of Wylie

104. High repeats and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 103 hereof, as if fully set forth
herein.

105. In February 2018, High engaged in protected activity by initiating various
complaints to the City’s HR department in opposition to unlawful employment practices. High
asserted his claim of a hostile work environment in his internal complaints to the City. High
further asserted that his work hours had been reduced since early 2017.

106. High’s work hours continued to reduce even more after he filed the complaints
and even after the filing of this litigation against the Defendants.

107. The City was aware of High’s complaints and protected activity as confirmed in
writing by its City Manager, Mindy Manson. Ms. Yanez was also aware of Mr. High’s protected
activity. On information and belief, Linda Bantz and Lisa Davis were also aware of Mr. High’s
complaints.

108. Only one month after High complained about Lisa Davis, Defendant summarily
failed to promote High to a full-time prosecutor and thereby started reducing Mr. High’s work
hours while giving additional hours to another attorney from ARBH.

109. Defendant's alleged reason for not selecting High for promotion to the position of
full-time prosecutor and reducing his hours is pre-textual and baseless. High was well qualified
for the position, more so than Victor Cristales who has been admitted to practice law in Texas
since 2016. Whereas, High is a seasoned, board certified attorney who has practiced law for the
past 30 years. Defendant did not promote High and reduced his hours because he had previously
complained of age discrimination, hostile work environment/harassment and retaliation in his
complaints to the Defendant. No negative performance reviews were ever provided to Mr. High
regarding his employment during his tenure with the City.

110. High did not request that the members of the Court staff to stop communicating
with him.

111. High suffered damages as a result of Defendant's unlawful retaliatory actions,
including emotional distress, past and future lost wages and benefits, attorney fees, and the costs
of bringing this action.

112. Defendant intentionally violated High's rights under Title VII, with malice or
reckless indifference, and, as a result, is liable for punitive damages.

COUNT FOUR
Hostile Work Environment Against the City of Wylie and ARBH

113. High repeats and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 112 hereof, as if fully set forth
herein.

114. High was a member of at least two protected classes—age and race that are most
applicable in this case. High was subjected to continuous harassment through the acts of Davis.

115. Through its agents, the City changed the terms and conditions of Mr. High’s
employment when it reduced his hours, failed to consider him for additional hours as prosecutor,
and instead gave those additional hours to a less experienced attorney. The City allowed Lisa
Davis to continually cancel or reset court dockets thereby causing Mr. High to lose work hours
and compensation (*27).

116. The City further made the work environment hostile by informing other
employees not to communicate with Mr. High and if they do, then only to do so by email or a
sticky note. The City was aware of Davis’ and the other employees conduct towards High and
failed to take remedial action.

(*27) Mr. High was paid an hourly rate of $130.00/hour as of his 2017 Resolution.

117. Even if the City did not intentionally discriminate against High, they adopted
facially neutral employment practices that created such disparities against Mr. High as a white
male over the age of 40 that the City’s employment practices were the functional equivalent to
intentional discrimination.

118. Specifically, the City’s practice of reducing Mr. High’s hours without providing
him a reason affected his ability to work and changed the terms and conditions of his
employment. The City’s practice of changing the method of communicating with Mr. High
isolated him from other employees within the Municipal Court. The City’s practice of
permitting Lisa Davis to constantly observe Mr. High’s conduct while he was at work has
negatively affected Mr. High’s work. The City’s practice of allowing Lisa Davis to recruit other
employees to report any fact findings to her that pertains to Mr. High further singled him out
based on his protected class of age and race. On information and belief, Davis and City did not
do this to any other employee but Mr. High.

119. Mr. High was the only employee in his position over the age of 40 and a white
male. On the contrary, the City’s practice permitted Mr. Cristales to have more work hours than
Mr. High in the Municipal Court. Mr. Cristales is a Hispanic male under the age of 40. The
City’s practice to give more work hours to Mr. Cristales over Mr. High was not based on a
reasonable factor other than age and race. The City’s practice of the continual reduction of Mr.
High’s work hours was not based on a reasonable other than age and race.

120. At no time prior to the filing of this lawsuit did the City make Mr. High aware of
any legitimate performance issues related to his work with the City. The City never counseled
Mr. High regarding any performance issues with his work in the Municipal Court. The City
never informed Mr. High that he made any type of inappropriate comments to members of the
City’s staff or the public. Mr. High has never attended work or City functions intoxicated.

121. Davis’s acts towards Mr. High were tantamount to intimidate, ridicule and insult
him. Davis is not a licensed attorney. Davis behavior exhibited an attempt to control Mr. High
with respect his performance of duties, his conduct and insulted him in front of other coworkers.
Davis’s insults are readily on display throughout the many emails she circulated amongst City
employees discussing things that she believed High to be doing. Davis essentially mocked and
disparaged High to his peers and other City employees.

122. In furtherance of Davis’ conduct, the City has permitted her poor display of
behavior to be filed amongst the records of this court on display to the public. Davis’s conduct is
severe and pervasive enough to where it altered High’s conditions of employment and created an
abusive working environment.

123. As a result of these acts, the work environment was difficult, unpleasant and
uncomfortable for Mr. High. Mr. High has been employed with the City for the past 23 years,
but the City treated him differently when he opposed the unlawful change in the terms and
conditions of his employment.

124. A combination of the previously aforementioned claims constitute a hostile work
environment against Mr. High’s employer(s).

COUNT FIVE
First Amendment Retaliation and Section 1983 Claim Against Mindy Manson

125. High repeats and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 124 hereof, as if fully set forth
herein.

126. In Mr. High’s initial complaint he requested eight (8) things for the City to take
action on: “1) An investigation be conducted into Lisa Davis, her inter-relations with other City
of Wylie employees; and 2) as a result of that investigation, a recommendation be made as to
whether she should be censured, reprimanded, re-assigned or even terminated; 3) Further to see
if there is evidence of a conspiracy between her and Linda Bantz and/or Mindy Manson with
respect to their dealings with me, and my future with the City; 4) A clarification of the role of the
City Attorney and his relationship with the City Prosecutor, and further; 5) Is the City Prosecutor
an employee of the City? Or a subordinate of the City Attorney, who happens to not be an
employee of the City? … ; 6) A policy developed and put in place so that there is no
misunderstanding with respect to who can act as a substitute when the city prosecutor is unable
to attend to court business; 7) A reinstatement of my hours, or has been necessary for many years
now, consideration as a full-time employee, so that I may obtain benefits; and 8) A meeting
scheduled among all the parties to discuss the results of the investigation and any further
recommendations to be made.”

127. Mr. High suffered an adverse employment action when the City reduced his
hours, failed to consider or promote him to a full-time prosecutor now that additional hours were
available and when the City Council revoked Mr. High’s resolution prior to its expiration.

128. The speech in Mr. High’s initial, second and third complaints involved matters of
public concern, especially to the citizens of the City of Wylie who have a right to know what’s
happening in their Municipal court (i.e. docket cancellations, resetting of court dates, court
inefficiency which can lead to additional and unnecessary costs to taxpayers). Admittedly, some
of Mr. High’s speech is related to his duties in public employment. Mr. High is asserting this
claim based on the speech that is not in furtherance of his public duties. In other words, a good
segment of Mr. High’s complaint is as a citizen who is entitled to First Amendment protection.
As a citizen, Mr. High expressed specific concerns about the City of Wylie’s municipal court.
The public makes use of the Municipal Court to address any traffic citations or truancy matters
that are issued by the City of Wylie through its agent. Mr. High’s concerns in his complaints
about the Court are not limited to those matters that adversely affected his employment, but also
included those concerns of a private citizen. As a result of this, Manson attempted to silence
High through her internal communications on City letterhead and through her City issued email
account.

129. Mr. High’s interest in speaking out about the matters of public concern
outweighed the City’s interest in promoting efficiency or maintaining confidentiality of an
investigation.

130. Manson was motivated to silence Mr. High due to his protected speech, part of
which requested an investigation into whether a conspiracy existed between Manson, Davis and
Bantz with respect to their dealings with Mr. High. Ms. Manson had already instructed Ms.
Yanez not to conduct an investigation due to Mr. High’s purported status as an independent
contractor (*28). Manson was interested in keeping the lid on the inner problems that existed within

(*28) The IRS examination had resolved this question in 2007, 11 years ago. It is extremely disturbing that Manson
arbitrarily instructed her subordinate not to conduct an investigation on a matter in which she is one of the subjects.
the City of Wylie Municipal court. On information and belief, there was not a separate grievance
procedure in place for independent contractors.

131. Manson would not have taken these actions against Mr. High but for his exercise
of free speech as a citizen.

132. Manson is a public employee who acted in her official capacity as City Manager.
Manson also exercised her responsibilities pursuant to state law. In fact, Manson abused the
authority of her position when she attempted to silence Mr. High, instructed Ms. Yanez not to
conduct an investigation into his complaints and when she influenced the City Council to revoke
Mr. High’s resolution prior to its original expiration date.

133. High took his concerns about the City of Wylie outside of the workplace when the
matter was published in The Wylie News (*29). High also took his concerns outside of the
workplace when he filed this lawsuit. High attempted to raise his concerns up the chain of
command, but made it Manson before she prevented him from going to the City Council of the
City of Wylie. The City of Wylie’s Municipal court is open for matters involving the public, so
those are matters of public concerns. The Court’s efficiency of lack thereof are matters of public
concern.

(*29) See, Exhibit G.

COUNT SIX
Federal Declaratory Judgment Action Against Abernathy, Roeder, Boyd and Hullett and
Richard Abernathy
28 U.S.C §§ 2201 and 2202

134. High repeats and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 133 hereof, as if fully set forth
herein.

135. Mr. High files this Declaratory Judgment Action against Abernathy and his law
firm of Abernathy, Roeder, Boyd and Hullett to declare and confirm three things: A) Whether
Mr. Abernathy or his law firm is the City Attorney for the City of Wylie; B) Whether Mr. High
directly reports to the City Attorney or the City Council of Wylie; and C) Whether Abernathy,
Roeder, Boyd and Hullett is a “joint employer” for purposes of Title VII.

136. An actual controversy exists between the parties within the jurisdiction of this
court. Mr. High was hired by Abernathy and his law firm in April 1995 (*30) and continued serving
in the role of Municipal Court Prosecutor for the City of Wylie some 23 years later.

137. Mr. High served in a capacity where he provided legal services for the City, but
presumably under the auspices of the City Attorney. Per the City’s Charter, “The City Attorney
acts as legal advisor, and counselor for the City and all of its offices in matters relating to their
official duties. It is the City Attorney’s function to advise the City Council, and the various
departments of the City, as to the scope of the City’s authority and to counsel the City of Wylie
in legal issues.”

(*30) See, Exhibit A.

138. The City Attorney is slated on the organizational chart for the City of Wylie (*31).
However, the organizational chart does not state whether Abernathy or his law firm is the actual
City Attorney. This scenario is unique in that the City Attorney is a part of a legal entity that is
separate from the City. Yet, the City Attorney appears to maintain the ability to hire employees
of the City and influence personnel matters involving the city involving the employee hired by
the City Attorney. In this instance, that employee is Mr. High.

139. The City and ARBH have an interrelation of operations regarding the attorneys
who can provide legal services to the City in the municipal court. Both control which attorney
can appear in court to prosecute cases on behalf of the City.

140. The City and ARBH have the ability the make final decisions regarding
employment matters of Mr. High whether it be directly or indirectly. When the City Council
decided to revoke Mr. High’s resolution, it was done behind closed doors during the executive
session of the City Council meeting. On information and belief, Abernathy was present during
the meeting and played a significant role in the City Council’s decision to revoke Mr. High’s
resolution thereby affecting his employment status.

141. The City and ARBH has common management over the attorneys who can
provide legal services to the City in the municipal court.

142. Mr. High is entitled to know who all of his employers are. He has inquired
numerous times as to whether he directly reports to the City Council or the City Attorney. If it’s
the City Attorney, then Mr. High needs know who is the “true” City Attorney.

(*31) See, Exhibit F – FY 2015 City of Wylie Organizational Chart.

143. In light of the previous claims asserted under Title VII, Mr. High is entitled to a
declaratory judgment to ensure that he has named all possible employers that may have liability
under Title VII.

COUNT SEVEN
Section 1983 Discrimination Claim Against Lisa Davis

144. High repeats and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 143 hereof, as if fully set forth
herein.

145. Davis repeatedly acted under the color of state law when she cancelled Mr. High’s
court dockets or hearings. Davis stated that she was acting with the consent of the Judge through
his standing order which was promulgated through state law.

146. Davis repeatedly acted under the color of state law each time to reset Mr. High’s
court dockets or hearings in an effort to reduce his work hours and then provide those hours to an
attorney from the ARBH firm. Davis again stated that she was acting with the consent of the
Judge through his standing order which was promulgated through state law.

147. Davis committed these acts against Mr. High depriving him of his right as an
employee of the City of Wylie to be free from discrimination and retaliation.

148. Davis knew that Mr. High engaged in protected activity when he initiated and
filed multiple complaints on her related to her actions and treatment towards him, as well as
creating a tense, uncomfortable and hostile work environment for Mr. High. Davis rallied other
employees to provide her information in an effort to work towards getting High terminated. This
negatively impacted High in at least two protected classes, namely race and age.

149. Davis further acted under the color of state law due to her status a public
employee in performance of her official duties. She presented information to the City Council,
the policymaker for the City, which led to the City Council issuing Mr. High only a one-year
resolution. Ms. Davis did this just one month after Mr. High complained that Davis
inappropriately reprimanded him in front of another employee.

150. Davis further acted under the color of state law with a discriminatory animus
when she followed the direction of Linda Bantz to only communicate with Mr. High by email or
sticky note, thereby further contributing to a hostile work environment.

151. Davis is the Court Administrator for the Municipal Court in the City of Wylie.
Davis facilitated this discriminatory scheme against Mr. High for so long that it spread through
to, and affected other employees in how they treated Mr. High. This is clearly demonstrated in
the exhibits filed by the Defendants in their Appendix to their Motion for Summary Judgment.
Once can see from reading these exhibits, numerous inflammatory and defamatory e-mails
directed at Mr. High, that were either written or directed by her and published to other employees
at the City. Unfortunately, Davis’ conduct became the municipal policy or custom for the
Municipal Court of the City of Wylie.

COUNT EIGHT
Cat’s Paw Liability

152. High repeats and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 151 hereof, as if fully set forth
herein.

153. On information and belief, Davis, Bantz, and Manson engaged in a conspiracy to
facilitate the removal of Mr. High as prosecutor of the City. The conspiracy started with the
incident with Davis in February 2017, which led to the “silent treatment” with Mr. High where
communication in the court resorted to sticky notes and emails only.

154. Bantz further confirmed that she instructed Davis, Johnson and other court staff to
treat Mr. High in that regard. As Manson’s position of City Manager, it is presumed that she had
knowledge of these incidents at the time they occurred. The City Manager is higher on the
organizational chart and Bantz directly reported to Manson and Davis directly reported to Bantz.

155. Even if Manson was not aware of acts of Davis and Bantz early on in the process,
she confirmed later in writing that she was aware of Mr. High’s complaints and instructed him
not to communicate with the City Council. Yet, Manson influenced the City Council and likely
the City Attorney to revoke Mr. High’s resolution, which effectively ended his tenure as a
prosecutor with the City because he’s only to report to work “as requested by the Court.” The
Court could decide to not call Mr. High to work due to hours being given to Mr. Cristales and
possibly other attorneys at ARBH.

156. Through it all, Davis was in a position to influence Bantz about her dealings with
Mr. High. Bantz was in a position to influence Manson related to dealings with Mr. High.
Manson thereby influenced the City Council who made the final decision to revoke Mr. High’s
resolution.

157. It is well documented through emails and memorandum that Davis went on a
letter writing campaign to Lety Yanez (HR), Linda Bantz (Finance Director) and Mindy Manson
(City Manager) to express her concerns related to Mr. High. Davis’ motivation was retaliatory
in nature and had been continuing since early 2017 when she initially created a hostile work
environment for High. It continued to well after High engaged in protected activity in February
2018. It continues to this day, as she has been successful in reducing High’s work hours and
maintaining it at the lowest level. If not for the reduction in hours and given the additional hours
to Cristales, High would be eligible to participate in TMRS. Davis definitely exerted leverage or
influence over Bantz, Yanez and Manson, who took their concerns to the City Council, who were
key decision makers with respect to Mr. High. Bantz, Yanez and Manson were key decision
makers with respect to Mr. High as well.

COUNT NINE
Violations of Federal WireTap Act as amended by the Electronic Communications Privacy
Act (ECPA) of 1986 Against the City of Wylie

158. High repeats and re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 157 hereof, as if fully set forth
herein.

159. As a governmental entity, the City of Wylie can be held liable for civil damages
for violations of the Federal Wiretap Act and ECPA.

160. An employee with the City of Wylie recorded an interview with Mr. High without
his knowledge or consent. As admitted by the Defendants in their Motion for Extension of
Time (*32), the recording runs more than 90 minutes in duration.

161. The recording unlawfully intercepted an electronic communication through the
use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device. The City did not have a legitimate business
purpose to record Mr. High’s interview with this City employee. The City did not provide Mr.
High with any type of advance notice that he could be recorded. The City employee was not

(*32) See, ECF Dkt. No. 15, p.3, para. 5.

authorized by law intercept this communication. The interception was not necessary to protect
any rights or property of the City.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests judgment as follows:
A. Accept jurisdiction over this matter;
B. Award Plaintiff for his past and future loss of wages, seniority and benefits, plus interest as a
result of the violations;
C. Award Plaintiff front pay (including benefits);
D. Award to Plaintiff all costs and reasonable attorneys' fees incurred in connection with this
action. Such fees may be awarded under Title VII, the Back Pay Act, 42 USC § 1988--- or if
under none of those----the Equal Access to Justice Act.;
E. Award to Plaintiff compensatory damages;
F. Award to Plaintiff punitive damages;
G. Equitable relief, such as a declaration that Defendant violated Title VII;
H. An injunction prohibiting the Defendant from further violating the law against Plaintiff;
I. An order requiring the Defendant to regularly report to the Court on future efforts to reduce
the likelihood of others suffering such violations; and
J. Award Plaintiff a Declaratory Judgment;
K. Grant Plaintiff such additional or alternative relief as the Court deems just and proper.
L. Statutory damages in the amount of $10,000 for violation of the ECPA

JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all claims properly triable by a jury.
Dated: 5 OCTOBER 2018
Arlington, Texas
Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Lantis G. Roberts
Lantis G. Roberts
Texas Bar No. 24057463
E-Mail: Lantis@kreativelaw.com
THE LAW OFFICE OF LANTIS G.
ROBERTS, PLLC
1166 West Pioneer Parkway
Arlington, TX 76013
Tel. (817) 768-1819
Fax. (817) 704-4529
Attorney for Don High