Sexual Harassment Suit Filed Against ...
First Prev
of 7
Next Last

Since: May 12

Cleburne, TX

#125 Jan 14, 2013
Up Up and Away wrote:
For the above case, the respondent, City of Huntington, has not answered the charges. I believe they have until 2-11-13 to respond.
Makes you wonder WHAT BM has on the mayor and the council. ANYBODY else would've already been SUSPENDED or FIRED with OR without pay. But him........NOTHING. Really....somebody explain why. Why is he protected. Is he just believed to be innocent 'just because'.
This makes the mayor AND the council just as guilty if you ask me.
But that's just my opinion. That's whats wrong with this town.
If most of the people in this town were to drop their drawers, what would we see..........NOTHING.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#126 Jan 15, 2013
Up Up and Away wrote:
For the above case, the respondent, City of Huntington, has not answered the charges. I believe they have until 2-11-13 to respond.
Well it sounds like more than just off color jokes doesn't it? So I ask the Mayor and Council for a moment, pause and put your wife or mother in D's shoes instead of the usual thought of putting yourself in Bruce's shoes. How do you feel from D's view?

Since: Jul 12

Huntsville, TX

#127 Jan 15, 2013
inacar wrote:
<quoted text>Well it sounds like more than just off color jokes doesn't it? So I ask the Mayor and Council for a moment, pause and put your wife or mother in D's shoes instead of the usual thought of putting yourself in Bruce's shoes. How do you feel from D's view?
Thinking if they put their spouse in D's shoes they would feel very differently about the whole situation! And that is a very good idea inacar!!

Since: May 12

Huntington, TX

#128 Jan 16, 2013
Manuela wrote:
<quoted text>
Thinking if they put their spouse in D's shoes they would feel very differently about the whole situation! And that is a very good idea inacar!!
Exactly, what if it was his step daughter or wife? People might not believe it, maybe they will, but im sure when it all comes out in the wash, the facts will come to surface and all will know the truth. If her lawyer is demanding a jury trial, it should be very interesting.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#129 Jan 16, 2013
I wonder if KTRE will be there reporting? I'm sure LDN already has their reporters hard at work on their version of the story.
I do find it interesting your thoughts on the "what if" it were his step daughter or wife being treated that way by someone in authority over them. I don't believe he would or could ever consider that as a possibility. I wonder if he would consider it still just a "good old boy" having fun?

Since: Jul 12

Huntsville, TX

#130 Jan 16, 2013
inacar wrote:
I wonder if KTRE will be there reporting? I'm sure LDN already has their reporters hard at work on their version of the story.
I do find it interesting your thoughts on the "what if" it were his step daughter or wife being treated that way by someone in authority over them. I don't believe he would or could ever consider that as a possibility. I wonder if he would consider it still just a "good old boy" having fun?
Knowing Bruce, IF it were his wife or step-daughter, then he would blow a gasket and get really ugly with the accused offender I am sure. He can be very protective of his own, shame he can't see things from the other side of the fence.

Since: May 12

Huntington, TX

#131 Jan 19, 2013
Hmm..seems like someone is judging everyone "clueless"...

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#132 Jan 19, 2013
It's the little things in life that brings such joy to some. I am glad we are so "clueless" and see things from a different view of what has happened. Maybe we have "clued" into that "good old boy" mentality better than he wants to admit. Perception is a strange dog, you just never know when it will turn and bite you.

Since: Jul 12

Lufkin, TX

#133 Jan 19, 2013
I don't mind being labeled as 'clueless'... it just shows that someone is not doing their homework! We all say what we would do if placed in this or that situation BUT we can only say what our emotions are guiding us to say... If we were actually placed in that situation the way we handle it might be different. Some women will say I would NEVER allow a man to raise his hand to me... I have seen too often those same women not only be physically abused, but stay with the abuser and even have their children there while they (the woman) are being abused. This is just one example of not doing what you say you would in a given situation.

So go on and continue to judge me 'clueless', but while you are at it, you better open your eyes a little wider to make sure you are not the one who is actually clueless.
ratznest

Huntington, TX

#134 Jan 21, 2013
Up Up and Away wrote:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LUFKIN DIVISION
DEADRA LYNN COMBS,§
§
Plaintiff,§
§
v.§ CASE NO._________
§ JURY
CITY OF HUNTINGTON, TEXAS,§
§
Defendant.§
PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
TO THE HON. RON CLARK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:
Plaintiff, Deadra Lynn Combs, files her original complaint against Defendant, City of
Huntington, Texas, and by way of a cause of action states the following:
PARTIES
1. Plaintiff, Deadra Lynn Combs, is an individual who is a citizen of the State of
Texas.
2. Defendant, City of Huntington, Texas, a Class B general law city, may be served
by serving its city secretary, Betsy Gregson, at 802 South U.S. Highway 69, Huntington,
Angelina County, Texas 75949.
JURISDICTION
3. The court has jurisdiction over the lawsuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§§ 1337 and
1343(4) and 42 U.S.C.§ 2000e-5(f) because this is an action arising under Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C.§ 2000e, et seq.
("Title VII").
VENUE
4. Venue is proper in this district under 42 U.S.C.§ 2000e-5(f)(1) because the
alleged adverse employment action relevant to this complaint occurred in this district.
EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES
5. Plaintiff timely filed a charge of discrimination against defendant with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC referred its findings to the
Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division (DOJ), for possible enforcement action. Plaintiff
files her original complaint within 90 days of receiving a notice of the right to sue from the DOJ.
A copy of the notice of the right to sue is attached as Exhibit A to plaintiff's original complaint
and is incorporated by reference herein.
COUNT 1 – SEXUAL HARASSMENT UNDER TITLE VII
6. Plaintiff is a female employee protected under Title VII.
7. Defendant is an employer within the meaning of Title VII. Bruce Milstead is
employed by defendant as the city administrator with the authority to hire and fire employees.
8. Defendant intentionally discriminated against plaintiff in violation of Title VII by
creating a sexually hostile work environment. Bruce Milstead's conduct unreasonably interfered with plaintiff's work performance. Specifically, Bruce Milstead's severe and pervasive sexual conduct caused plaintiff to avoid him and be less productive in her job duties.
9. Defendant's intentional discrimination resulted in an adverse employment action
against plaintiff. Specifically, after plaintiff continuously rejected Bruce Milstead's advances,
confronted her direct supervisor, Betsy Gregson, about his behavior and then filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC. Consequently, she was discharged from her position as the
defendant's municipal court clerk within a week of the defendant's receipt of notice of plaintiff's Charge of Discrimination.
10. Defendant did not exercise reasonable care to prevent and cure allegations of
sexual harassment. Defendant ratified the wrongful conduct by failing to take appropriate
remedial action after becoming aware of the conduct.
COUNT 2 – RETALIATION UNDER TITLE VII
11. Plaintiff is an employee within the meaning of Title VII and belongs to a class
protected under the statute, namely she is a female.
Up where did you see this. I havent seen it. I hope she gets justice

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#135 Jan 21, 2013
Together we are much to be reckoned with - when we put the pieces together we have a much better picture of what has happened. That's why we need everyone's input to see the whole story.
ratznest

Huntington, TX

#136 Apr 3, 2013
Yep. I agree. The whole truth of the story should come out.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#137 Apr 13, 2013
I have heard it's time for the first of the process to be started. "Discovery" I wonder if the LDN will provide updates for us? Probably not.........

Since: Jul 12

Lufkin, TX

#138 Apr 13, 2013
inacar wrote:
I have heard it's time for the first of the process to be started. "Discovery" I wonder if the LDN will provide updates for us? Probably not.........
oh I'm sure that IF the LDN decides to provide any updates they will be biased, I have seen that all too often. I have personally typed up the letters for Mr. Quin when he wanted something printed in the editorial section. We (Mr. Quin and I) made sure the letter stayed within the word guidelines, and still, they chose to edit his letters. And this was AFTER speaking with the editor himself in person!
Diddly Squat

Lufkin, TX

#139 Apr 13, 2013
The Iowa SUPREME Court doesn't see it the way you folks do.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/12...

On Friday, the all-male Iowa State Supreme Court ruled that James Knight, Nelson’s boss, was within his legal rights when he fired her, affirming the decision of a lower court.

“Dr. Knight acknowledges he once told Nelson that if she saw his pants bulging, she would know her clothing was too revealing,” the justices wrote.

The messages were mostly mundane, but Nelson recalled one text she received from her boss asking “how often she experienced an orgasm.”

Some Reader Comments at the bottom of the article:

Posted by: Gem | December 23, 2012, 11:48 am 11:48 am

At will employment. You can be fired for any reason, or no reason at all.
Just the facts ma’am.

Posted by: Davidtoo | December 23, 2012, 11:51 am 11:51 am

Considering it’s Dr. Knight’s business, he can hire and fire whomever he chooses. He gave her severence pay. He did not contrevene any law as he hired another woman; most likely one he doesn’t find attractive. If she’s such a great dental assitant, she’ll get another job; no worries there. Move on people… this is not a news worthy item. Just more fodder for the women to complain about.

Posted by: KKale76 | December 23, 2012, 11:55 am 11:55 am

Where the Dr made his mistake was in saying WHY he let her go. In an at-will employment situation it is not necessary to give a reason for termination. Simply,“Your services are no longer required at this establishment.” Period, end of issue, go hire someone else.

It’s odd that he gave that as a reason. Iowa is an at-will employment state,— meaning, an employee can be terminated simply at the whim of the employer (other than protected classes). The dentist could have just terminated her without comment.

Posted by: steve | December 23, 2012, 12:23 pm 12:23 pm

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#140 Apr 13, 2013
I think the problem is the timing of when she was fired. After a complaint is filed is not a good time to fire someone.
Bump

Lufkin, TX

#141 May 30, 2014
http://lufkindailynews.com/news/local/article...

Jury finds that former city of Huntington employee was sexually harassed

Posted: Thursday, May 29, 2014 4:49 pm | Updated: 8:20 pm, Thu May 29, 2014.

By STEVE KNIGHT/The Lufkin News
A civil jury of seven men and two women on Thursday found that a former city of Huntington employee experienced sexual harassment while on the job but that the city did not unlawfully fire her.

After nearly five hours of deliberation, the Lufkin federal district court jury determined that former city administrator Bruce Milstead created a sexually hostile work environment while Deadra Combs was employed as the city’s municipal court clerk.~~~Utility employee John Bridges testified on Wednesday~~ MORE

IN THE FRI MAY 30, 2014 LUFKIN NEWS.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 7
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Lufkin Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Review: El Canon Auto Sales LLC (Jul '14) 2 hr sissyboy 4
Review: Renfro Smoked Sausage 2 hr sissyboy 3
Chase Tidwell 2 hr sissyboy 2
help please 21 hr newbie too 2
Election Who do you support for State Board of Education... (Oct '10) Aug 17 District farts 977
Election Who do you support for State Board of Education... (Oct '10) Aug 15 More farts 790
News Lufkin man on stolen motorcycle arrested after ... Jul '15 By-passed 1
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Lufkin Mortgages