Case 1:22-cv-00027-RGA Document 1 Filed 01/06/22 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

RAUSHAN RICH, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) C.A. No. ________________
v. )
) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
)
)
)
UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE & )
)
CHIEF PATRICK OGDEN, in his )
individual and official capacity as )
Chief of Police of the University of )
Delaware )
)
Defendant. )

COMPLAINT

INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiff, Raushan Rich (“Plaintiff”) files this action against the University of

Delaware (“Defendant”) and Chief of Police Patrick Ogden (“Defendant Ogden”) for back pay,

front pay, compensatory damages, punitive damages and attorneys’ fees for violations of Title VII

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. §1981, 42 U.S.C. §1983 and the Delaware

Whistleblowers’ Protections Act.

JURISDICTION

2. This Court has federal question jurisdiction over this cause of action pursuant to 28

U.S. Code § 1331.

3. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over all state causes of action pursuant to

28 U.S.C. §1367.
 Case 1:22-cv-00027-RGA Document 1 Filed 01/06/22 Page 2 of 12 PageID #: 2

4. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1331, as well as 28 U.S.C.

§ 1391(b).

PARTIES

5. Plaintiff is a resident of New Castle County, Delaware, who at all times relevant to

this Complaint was an employee of Defendant University of Delaware.

6. Defendant University of Delaware is a privately governed, state-assisted institution

of higher education and existing pursuant to Delaware law.

7. Defendant Patrick Ogden, Chief of Police of the University of Delaware, acted both

individually and under color of law as an agent or employee of the University of Delaware at all

relevant times hereto.

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS

8. On July 29, 2021, Plaintiff filed a timely Charge of Discrimination with the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”).

9. On October 8, 2021, Plaintiff received a Right to Sue Notice from the EEOC, hereto

attached as Exhibit A.

10. Plaintiff has filed this action within ninety (90) days after receipt of his Right to

Sue Notice from the EEOC.

11. Plaintiff has satisfied all statutory prerequisites for filing this action.

FACTS

12. Plaintiff began his employment with Defendant on June 18, 2012, in the position

of Police Officer.

13. On July 1, 2020, Plaintiff was promoted to Sergeant.

2
 Case 1:22-cv-00027-RGA Document 1 Filed 01/06/22 Page 3 of 12 PageID #: 3

14. Plaintiff performed highly during his employment with Defendant, consistently

receiving high performance evaluations.

15. On August 26, 2020, Defendant began moving students into the residence halls.

16. Defendant established separate quarantine residence halls for students who were

positive or suspected to be positive for the COVID-19 virus (“COVID”).

17. Defendant’s transportation services were tasked with transporting students with

COVID to the quarantine residence halls.

18. Defendant scheduled the transportation services to start on September 1, 2020, six

days after students moved on campus, in order to train their staff on the proper way to safely

conduct the COVID transports.

19. On August 29, 2020, Plaintiff was advised Defendant now required the Police

Department to transport COVID positive students. At this time, officers were not trained on how

to properly and safely handle the transporting of students with this highly contagious and

dangerous disease.

20. Defendant acquired vans to conduct the COVID transports, however, Defendant

failed to provide officers training on the specific operation and functions of the transport vans.

21. Defendant purchased a decontamination machine, however, officers were not

trained on the proper use of said machine.

22. Defendant provided its officers with personal protective equipment (PPE),

however, Defendant failed to train the officers on how to properly don (put on), doff (take off),

and dispose of the PPE. Proper PPE donning and doffing is critical in preventing one from self-

contaminating.

3
 Case 1:22-cv-00027-RGA Document 1 Filed 01/06/22 Page 4 of 12 PageID #: 4

23. Plaintiff contacted Lieutenant Adrienne Thomas to report his concern over using

the Police Department to transport COVID positive students without out proper training. He stated

it created an unnecessary exposure and health and safety risk to officers for non-law enforcement

purposes.

24. Lt. Thomas agreed with Plaintiff’s legitimate safety reports and stated she knew

using the Police Department for COVID transport would be problematic for officers.

25. Plaintiff was instructed not to brief his squad on the COVID transports.

26. Lt. Thomas instructed Plaintiff to immediately contact her if he received a COVID

transport call.

27. On August 30, 2020, Lt. Thomas advised Plaintiff she brought his health and safety

reports to the attention of Major Evans who advised the Police Department would be required to

conduct transports of COVID positive students until September 1, 2020, regardless of the risk.

28. Plaintiff again reported Defendant’s health and safety violations to Defendant

regarding the COVID transports.

29. On the evening of August 30, 2020, Plaintiff received a dispatch call to transport a

COVID positive student to a quarantine residence hall. Plaintiff advised his squad he did not feel

safe transporting a COVID positive student as they created unnecessary risk and exposure for non-

law enforcement purposes, coupled with the fact neither Plaintiff nor any members of his squad

were trained on how to conduct a COVID transport.

30. Each member of Plaintiff’s squad stated to Plaintiff they also had safety concerns

with transporting the COVID positive student and stated they were unwilling to conduct the

transport.

4
 Case 1:22-cv-00027-RGA Document 1 Filed 01/06/22 Page 5 of 12 PageID #: 5

31. Plaintiff then contacted Lt. Thomas and reported to her the health and safety

violations involved with the requested transport. Despite this, Lt. Thomas advised Plaintiff he

needed to pick someone on his squad to conduct the transport.

32. Lt. Thomas thereafter advised Plaintiff that Corporal Leland Barker will be

conducting the transport. Cpl. Barker, who was also inadequately trained, reluctantly agreed to

conduct the transport.

33. Plaintiff thereafter provided Cpl. Barker with the motor pool keys and offered to

assist Cpl. Barker with his PPE equipment. After Cpl. Barker completed the COVID transport, he

contacted Plaintiff to advise him the plastic barriers in the transport vans had gaps in them, which

created a greater risk of contracting COVID.

34. Later that evening on August 30, 2020, Lt. Thomas advised Plaintiff he was placed

on emergency administrative leave.

35. On August 31, 2020, Plaintiff was advised by Captain Jason Pires and Lieutenant

Ferrill he was subject to an internal affairs investigation and charged with insubordination.

36. As a result of the internal affairs investigation, Defendant substantiated the charge

of insubordination against Plaintiff.

37. On October 20, 2020, Defendant released a personnel order which stated Plaintiff

was terminated pending a CJC hearing. However, at this time, Plaintiff was not yet terminated and

was still receiving his full salary and benefits.

38. On December 4, 2020, a Hearing Board selected by the Criminal Justice Council

was convened who substantiated the charge of insubordination against Plaintiff.

39. In accordance with Defendant’s own discipline matrix, the first offense for

insubordination requires a suspension for forty (40) hours to termination. A second offense for

5
 Case 1:22-cv-00027-RGA Document 1 Filed 01/06/22 Page 6 of 12 PageID #: 6

insubordination ranges from a demotion to a termination. The third offense of insubordination

results in a termination.

40. Plaintiff had no prior disciplinary issues in his eight years of employment with

Defendant.

41. Defendant, through Chief Patrick Ogden, terminated Plaintiff for alleged violations

for which other Caucasian employees were not terminated or even disciplined for.

42. Defendant has engaged in a pattern and practice of disproportionately treating and

disciplining its African American officers, while failing to discipline its Caucasian officers.

43. It is Defendant's practice to issue two personnel orders regarding any officer going

through the disciplinary process: one at the onset and another at the conclusion. In Plaintiff's case,

Defendant released an additional personnel order midway through Plaintiff’s process, stating he

was terminated, although he was not.

44. Prior to conclusion of the disciplinary process related to Plaintiff, Defendant

prematurely issued a personnel order stating Plaintiff was terminated. Upon information and belief,

Defendant has not issued these types of personnel orders regarding its Caucasian employees.

CLAIMS AND DAMAGES

Based upon the above allegations, Plaintiff maintains the following legal claims against

Defendant:

COUNT I
Violation of the Delaware Whistleblowers’ Protection Act
Against Defendant University of Delaware

45. The allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 44 are incorporated by reference as if fully

restated herein.

6
 Case 1:22-cv-00027-RGA Document 1 Filed 01/06/22 Page 7 of 12 PageID #: 7

46. Plaintiff reported a violation as defined in the Delaware Whistleblower Protection

Act when he reported lack of proper safety training and health and safety violations regarding

COVID to Defendant.

47. Plaintiff’s reported acts of health and safety violations, including OSHA

violations, violations of the Center for Disease Control (“CDC”) regulations and guidelines, and

violations of Article XII Safety and Health of Plaintiff’s Collective Bargaining Agreement, are

laws, rules and regulations promulgated to protect employees from health and safety hazards.

48. Defendant was previously aware of the health and safety hazards and violations

relating to the COVID transports, however, Defendant failed to take corrective or protective action.

49. Defendant discharged Plaintiff in retaliation for reporting to his supervisor

violations, as defined by the Delaware Whistleblowers’ Protection Act, which occurred regarding

the transportation of COVID positive students without proper safety training.

50. There is a casual connection between Plaintiff’s reports and the adverse action of

discharge based upon the temporal proximity.

51. Defendant terminated Plaintiff in violation of the Delaware Whistleblowers’

Protection Act.

52. Plaintiff has been injured by Defendant’s violation of the Delaware

Whistleblowers’ Protection Act, and as a result, suffered from economic loss, emotional distress,

and humiliation.

53. Plaintiff is entitled to damages for back pay, front pay, benefits, consequential

damages, and compensatory damages.

54. Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages regarding Defendant’s conduct to prevent

future violations.

7
 Case 1:22-cv-00027-RGA Document 1 Filed 01/06/22 Page 8 of 12 PageID #: 8

COUNT II
Discrimination Based on Race in Violation of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
(42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et al.)
Against Defendant University of Delaware

55. The allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 54 are incorporated by reference as if fully

restated herein.

56. Defendant employs fifteen or more employees and is an “Employer” as defined by

42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b).

57. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff was employed by Defendant and is an

“Employee” as defined by 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(f).

58. Plaintiff received a Right to Sue letter from the EEOC on October 8, 2021.

59. Plaintiff has satisfied all statutory prerequisites for filing this action.

60. Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff in the terms and conditions of his

employment on the basis of his race in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

61. Defendant subjected Plaintiff to disparate treatment based upon his race, including

but not limited to subjecting him to unfair and discriminatory discipline as a result of his race.

62. Plaintiff was qualified for the position he held.

63. Plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action when he was terminated by

Defendant.

64. Plaintiff was treated less favorably than other white officers.

65. Upon information and belief, other white officers engaged in conduct more

egregious and serious than Plaintiff, however, they were not terminated as Plaintiff was.

66. Defendant has intentionally violated Plaintiff’s rights under Title VII, with malice

or reckless indifference, and as a result, is liable for punitive damages.

8
 Case 1:22-cv-00027-RGA Document 1 Filed 01/06/22 Page 9 of 12 PageID #: 9

67. As a direct result of the discriminatory and wrongful conduct of Defendant, Plaintiff

has suffered and continues to suffer from severe emotional distress, humiliation, anxiety,

irreparable damage to his professional career and economic loss.

COUNT III
42 U.S.C. § 1983
Against Defendant University of Delaware and Defendant Ogden

68. The allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 67 are incorporated by reference as if fully

restated herein.

69. Defendants University of Delaware and Defendant Ogden, acting under color of

state law, have engaged in a pattern and practice of disproportionately treating and disciplining its

African American officers, while failing to discipline its Caucasian officers.

70. The incidents of race discrimination described in the above paragraphs had the

effect of substantially interfering with Plaintiff's work performance by creating a hostile,

intimidating and offensive working environment amounting to discrimination in violation of

Plaintiff's right under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment to the United States Constitution.

71. Defendants violated the rights secured to Plaintiff by 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the

Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution to be free

from race discrimination in public employment in that, having actual or constructive knowledge

of the discrimination, Defendants acted with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff's rights, in failing

to intervene to stop the unlawful conduct.

72. These acts constitute a pattern, custom and practice in violation of Plaintiff’s

constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

9
 Case 1:22-cv-00027-RGA Document 1 Filed 01/06/22 Page 10 of 12 PageID #: 10

73. Defendants consciously acquiesced to the known discrimination by willfully failing

to respond to it or take any action.

74. Defendant Ogden knew of the discriminatory conduct, acted with deliberate

indifference and failed to report or investigate the discrimination occurring at the University and

thereby acquiesced to the discriminatory behavior. This allowed Plaintiff to be continually

discriminated against.

75. As a result of Defendants’ deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s rights and

acquiescence of the misconduct outlined above, Plaintiff continued to be discriminated against.

76. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ acts and conduct which caused

Plaintiff to be denied equal protection under the law, Plaintiff has suffered those emotional distress

damages and losses alleged herein and has incurred attorney’s fees.

COUNT IV
Violations of 42 U.S.C. §1981
Against Defendants University of Delaware and Defendant Ogden

77. The allegations of paragraphs 1 through 76 are incorporated by reference as if fully

restated herein.

78. Plaintiff was denied his right to make, enforce and to fully enjoy the rights

established by his contractual employment relationship with Defendant because of his race as an

African American.

79. Plaintiff was denied his rights under his contractual employment relationship with

Defendant that were enjoyed by similarly situated Caucasian police officers and employees.

Plaintiff was denied equal terms and conditions of employment.

80. Plaintiff’s race was a motivating factor in Defendants’ decision to suspend and

terminate Plaintiff.

10
 Case 1:22-cv-00027-RGA Document 1 Filed 01/06/22 Page 11 of 12 PageID #: 11

81. The discriminatory actions of Defendants were intentional, willful and/or reckless.

82. Defendants, acting through other management and administrative personnel of the

University, including Defendant Ogden, are responsible for the discriminatory conduct towards

Plaintiff on account of his race, and have failed to take any action to correct the discriminatory

employment practices directed against Plaintiff.

83. The unlawful discriminatory employment practices proximately caused Plaintiff to

suffer, inter alia, loss of wages, emotional distress entitling Plaintiff to remedies and damages,

including but not limited to compensatory and punitive and equitable damages relief.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Court order the following relief in favor of

Plaintiff:

A. Declare the conduct by Defendants to be in violation of Plaintiff’s statutory

rights and common law rights.

B. Awarding Plaintiff any and all consequential damages, including, but not

limited to lost wages, salary, employment benefits, back pay, front pay, pre and

post judgement interest, equity, liquidated damages, and any or all pecuniary

damages.

C. Awarding Plaintiff all compensation due as a result of Defendants’ violations

herein.

D. Awarding Plaintiff an equal and additional amount as liquidated damages.

E. Awarding Plaintiff costs and reasonable attorney’s fees.

F. Awarding Plaintiff pre and post judgment interest at the legal rate.

11
 Case 1:22-cv-00027-RGA Document 1 Filed 01/06/22 Page 12 of 12 PageID #: 12

G. Any and all such other relief as the Court deems appropriate under the

circumstances.

ALLEN AND ASSOCIATES

12