By Rosemary K. Otzman

Independent Editor

   On Aug. 5, 2009 Gerald M. Champagne, filed a petition of “superintending control” and a motion requesting a federal court to set a show-cause hearing to put him back in his job immediately, with back pay, benefits, attorney fees, and other financial relief.

   (A superintending control order enforces the superintending control power of a court over lower courts or tribunals.)

   Champagne, who was fired May 27 from his position as Van Buren Township Director of Public Safety, on Aug. 3 sued the township and two elected officials for Civil Rights violations and asked for $1.1 million in compensation.

   The 17-page complaint was filed at the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, in Detroit and will be before Judge Marianne O. Battani or Magistrate Judge Mark Randon.

   Champagne, 51, a resident of Northville Township, had been director of public safety for four years and four months. He is being represented by Raymond Guzall III of the law firm of Seifman & Guzall in Farmington Hills.

   Defendants named are the Township of Van Buren, Supervisor Paul White, and Trustee Al Ostrowski.

   Champagne first filed a complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that he was terminated because he was white and replaced with a less-qualified African-American man. Then he dropped that complaint and obtained a right-to-sue letter from the commission.

   The federal court complaint carries six counts and demands a jury trial.

   Count 1 – Due Process Violations. Champagne charges that he appealed his firing, as provided in the employees’ manual, before the three full-time elected officials. But, he said, White, the one who fired him, was one of the judges that sat on his appeal, which he called a blatant due-process violation.

   Champagne said he then appealed to the full board of trustees, as outlined in the manual, but that appeal also violated his due-process rights, since he said Trustee Ostrowski said he had promised he would vote to maintain the termination, prior to the hearing and then did vote to uphold the firing.

   Also, Champagne claims, that White fired him for blowing the whistle on White’s alleged improper conduct and that the hearings were tainted.

   Champagne also said that White replaced him with another person because that person was African-American.

   The complaint claims Ostrowski said that White told him he was hiring a retired police sergeant to take the place of Champagne, who is white, because that sergeant was black.

   The complaint charges that White put his appointment of Carl McClanahan on the agenda of a special meeting before Champagne had his second hearing to appeal his termination. The meeting was cancelled by White at the advice of the township’s labor attorney.

   The complaint claims Clerk Leon Wright, who is African-American and a neighbor to McClanahan, already had knowledge that White wanted to replace Champagne with McClanahan during the first appeal hearing.

   Count 2 – Discrimination. The complaint claims Champagne was replaced by an African-American. The suit claims Ostrowski publicly stated that White said he was hiring McClanahan because he was black. On May 18, during a meeting with White and in the presence of Wright, the suit claims White said Champagne did not hire enough blacks on the police and fire departments and that he did not promote a black in the police department. Champagne said that is not true.

   The complaint claims that within two hours of Champagne’s termination, White introduced McClanahan to some employees as his selection for an interim public safety director. Champagne claims White knew he was going to replace him with McClanahan before he was terminated.

   The complaint claims Captains Ken Brooks and Greg Laurain were told by Ostrowski that McClanahan was being hired because he is black and that Ostrowski said White told him that.

   White denied making that statement to Ostrowski and said at the July 7 meeting that he believes he may have made a statement to Ostrowski that McClanahan is “an ideal black candidate” or that it was a “plus” that he was black.

   The complaint claims Clerk Wright told Champagne on more than one occasion that his primary reason for running for elected office was because when he would come into the township hall, he did not see enough diversity in the employee staff.

   The complaint claims McClanahan is not qualified for the position.

   Count III – Defamation. Champagne denies that he failed to provide adequate control of overtime expenditures. He said he provided a written overtime action plan on Jan. 9 and a supplemental report on Jan. 16 that showed historical actions taken to reduce overtime.

   The complaint said a report prepared by the payroll clerk shows police overtime was down -42.58% in January, -32.21% in February, -47.6% in March and up 38.48% in April. He said the increase in April was due to some significant training during that month and the board members were made aware verbally in advance.

   In the complaint, Champagne said he was under budget in 2006, 2007, and 2008 and provided figures at his appeal hearing on June 23, but White stated the figures were not true because Champagne was actually given excess funds to meet his budget. This was explained as the difference between public safety tax and the amount approved by the board of trustees.

   The complaint also claimed that White criticized Champagne for failing to properly process a purchase order for a Jaws of Life and did not approve purchase orders for search and rescue equipment, which Champagne says is not true. The complaint also described an email White sent to township officials noting that Champagne’s behavior was less than professional.

   The complaint also outlines disagreements between Champagne and White about a promise to supply free Neighborhood Watch signs and a comparative analysis of various vehicles for police cars. Disagreements about hiring police officers as paid-on-call fire fighters also is explained in detail in the suit, as is White’s charge that Champagne failed to address complaints from fire fighters. Champagne calls both charges untrue. He also denied putting untrained fire fighters on duty crews.

   The complaint claims White said untruths about Champagne in order to replace him with an African-American individual.

   Count IV – Violation of Whistle-blowers Act. In the complaint, Champagne claims that prior to his termination he made a complaint against White for violating the rules and regulations of the township. The suit claims after White heard about the complaints, he fired Champagne, in violation of the Whistleblowers Protection Act.

   Champagne’s complaint was that White looked at a political blog site using a township computer. White agrees he looked at the site, but said he did not participate in the blogging.

   The complaint says that a plaintiff need not show that a violation actually existed to prevail on a whistleblower’s claim.

   Count V – Violation of Open Meet-ings Act. The complaint claims White met with Ostrowski and Ostrowski agreed to vote to uphold Champagne’s termination. The complaint claims the promise to vote for the termination should have taken place in a public meeting.  The complaint also claims White met with Wright to solidify his vote for the first hearing.

   The complaint claimed White tainted the votes of Ostrowski, Wright, and Trustee Denise Partridge with the intent of circumventing the Open Meetings Act.

   Count VI – Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress. Champagne charges that White’s and Ostrowski’s actions against him are “extremely outrageous” and because of that Champagne has “suffered severe emotional distress.”

   The suit alleges, “… White intentionally and maliciously sought to terminate Plaintiff in any way that he could.”

   The complaint said the township is named as a defendant because it “…did have an illegal policy, custom and/or practice in that it permitted discrimination to occur by its highest policy maker, Defendant White, and allowed for retaliation against your Plaintiff [Champagne]… The Defendant Township, by its actions and non-actions, approved the discrimination and retaliatory acts against Plaintiff as stated herein…”

   The complaint also states: “The actions of Defendant White and the Township were so outrageous that they elicited at public hearings cries of outrage from the community, and those have been captured on videotape…”

   Count VII – Conspiracy and Concert of Actions. This count alleges the defendants conspired to violate Champagne’s due process and other rights. Champagne alleges White and others, including Ostrowski, retaliated against Champagne by maintaining his termination and engaged in a “concert of actions” against him.

   As a result of those practices, the complaint alleges Champagne “has been greatly damaged … in that he has suffered and will be forced to suffer great economic and emotional harm, a loss of earning capacity, loss of reputation, salary loss, emotional injures with pain and suffering, including intentional infliction of emotional distress and mental anguish … from which Plaintiff currently suffers and can reasonably be expected to suffer from for the rest of his life…”

   Under law, the township attorney has 20 days to answer the complaint.