STEVE ROBERT,
Plaintiff,
v.
Defendants,
_________________________________/
Introduction
Plaintiff, Steve Robert, brings this action pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000 et seq., the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992, 42 U.S.C. §§
1981, 1983, 1985, 1986, and U.S Constitutional amendments XIII and IIV. This action is brought
to remedy acts of discrimination perpetrated against him by the City of Boca Raton, Florida’s
Police Department (“BRPD”). Plaintiff contends that BRPD officials discriminated against him
by terminating him because of his race, subjected him to a hostile work environment due to his
1. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this civil action pursuant to
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16, 42 U.S.C. § § 1981, 1983, 1985,
1
Case 9:18-cv-81227-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2018 Page 2 of 10
2. Venue is proper in this judicial district as Plaintiff was employed by the City of
Boca Raton, Florida at the time of his termination, Plaintiff’s employment records are maintained
in this judicial district, and the decisions adverse to Plaintiff’s employment that are the subject of
Parties
3. Plaintiff, Steve Robert, a black male, is a citizen of the United States and a resident
of the State of Florida. Mr. Robert was employed by the BRPD from December 2015 until his
4. Defendant is the City of Boca Raton, Florida, which was Mr. Robert’s employer
Statement of Facts
5. Mr. Robert was employed by the City as a Police Officer Candidate (“POC”) for
the BRPD beginning on December 4, 2015. He was subsequently sworn in on July 27, 2016.
6. Mr. Robert was praised by both citizens and previous supervisors on several
occasions.
record, Mr. Robert was transferred to work under the supervision of Sergeant Jeremy Codling.
8. On Mr. Robert’s first day working under Sergeant Codling, he was subjected to
racist comments. Sergeant Codling asked Mr. Robert if he “owned a mule” to go along with
acreage he had just acquired. These remarks were also observed, ignored and tolerated by other
officers.
2
Case 9:18-cv-81227-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2018 Page 3 of 10
his animosity toward Mr. Robert based on his race. Sergeant Codling began to attack Mr. Robert
for minor paperwork errors. In fact, the paperwork errors were a pretext for his real goal, which
10. In spite of the fact that other probationary officers – white officers – made far more
egregious errors while employed as rookie officers, including errors that jeopardized the safety of
11. Sergeant Codling warned Mr. Robert that he had him “under a microscope”,
12. Zero errors or disciplinary matters were ever recorded in writing in Mr. Robert’s
employment file between the time Mr. Robert first became a rookie officer and the date of his
13. On May 31, 2017, Sergeant Codling issued a written reprimand to Mr. Robert. This
14. In spite of the fact that Mr. Robert had no prior reprimands on file, Sergeant Codling
advised Mr. Robert that he must resign or be terminated that same day.
15. Although Mr. Robert initially resisted, another officer, Sergeant Shifflett, indicated
17. Mr. Robert was terminated within 10 working days of being supervised by Sergeant
Codling.
3
Case 9:18-cv-81227-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2018 Page 4 of 10
18. Tellingly, white officers committed far worse infractions than the paperwork errors
for which Mr. Robert was reprimanded in May of 2017 – including safety violations such as the
running of red lights; failing to follow policy that allowed a suspect to evade apprehension; and a
19. Only after Mr. Robert filed a complaint with the EEOC did the BRPD first contend
that Mr. Robert has other errors – errors which never appeared in his employment file.
20. Even if Mr. Robert did commit errors, the BRPD weighed the severity of the errors
committed by white officers with far less scrutiny than the errors allegedly committed by Mr.
Robert.
21. Upon information and belief, there are other officers who have committed similar
paperwork errors as those allegedly committed by Mr. Robert during the course of their training
period as rookie officers. Those rookie officers were not terminated. These officers were white.
22. Upon information and belief, it is common place for rookie officers to make errors
during their training period as a rookie, as this is the purpose of a “training” period.
23. In this case, Mr. Robert’s alleged errors are a pretext for the real reason for his
24. Shortly after Mr. Robert was terminated, Officer Desir (African American) made a
race discrimination complaint against the BRPD (BRPD Internal Affairs Investigation #201-
7005).
4
Case 9:18-cv-81227-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2018 Page 5 of 10
25. His complaint – and accompanying documentation – strongly illustrate that not
only was Sergeant Codling blatantly engaging in a pattern of hostile behavior toward black
officers, but that many officers within the department were aware of, and condoned, the behavior.
26. Tellingly, the complaint by Officer Desir describes in clear detail just how biased
27. The complaint goes into painstaking detail about the racially charged environment
28. Officers Desir explicitly details racist remarks made against black officers by
multiple officers, including that blacks are “prone to stealing” and that he observed Sergeant
29. Continuing to show his bias, Sergeant Codling indicated that a black male “must”
be the chauffeur of a white man he was accompanying, and has sent memes via text message
30. Sergeant Codling also sent text messages stating that “black people were white
31. The BRPD sustained the investigation against Sergeant Codling, and Sergeant
32. Sergeant Codling was also terminated for lying during his sworn questioning about
33. Incredibly, even after terminating Sergeant Codling for conduct unbecoming an
officer arising out of racially motivated remarks and lying under oath, the BRPD refused to look
5
Case 9:18-cv-81227-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2018 Page 6 of 10
at the circumstances regarding Mr. Robert’s termination, failing to even return his calls or
messages.
34. Instead, in an effort to protect itself, the BRPD has backed the party line on Mr.
Robert.
35. It has become BRPD policy to “back the party line” on decisions in an effort to
protect its reputation. Having had racial discrimination claims in the past against the BRPD, and
bad press recently regarding racial discrimination, the chief decision makers, Chief Daniel
Alexander and Deputy Chief Michele Miuccio have made the decision to continue its story line
36. Both Chief Daniel Alexander and Deputy Chief Michele Miuccio have continued
to defame Mr. Robert’s reputation by telling various individuals and officers that he is incompetent
37. This is all part of the well-known custom of the “blue wall of silence,” which seeks
38. After Mr. Robert filed a complaint with the EEOC, the City continued its custom
of protecting its racist officers and their discriminatory practices against black males, by providing
a litany of small paperwork errors – some so ludicrously tiny that they show pretext in and of itself.
39. Tellingly, none of the errors the City now claims are the reason for his firing are in
40. This “backward scramble” is part of the BRPD’s back pedaling effort to cover up
constitutional violations, rather than admit that a grievous error was made.
6
Case 9:18-cv-81227-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2018 Page 7 of 10
41. It is patently obvious that the City scrambled backwards to find any tiny errors to
cover up the real season Mr. Robert was terminated, which was Sergeant Codling’s animosity
42. Chief Steven Meyer and Deputy Chief Michele Miuccio, who were aware of
Sergeant Codling’s proclivities towards black officers, have aided and abetted Sergeant Codling
by scrambling to cover the real reason that Mr. Robert was terminated.
43. Because this is a “top down” policy, the BRPD has failed to adequately train its
officers on constitutional issues. This is evidenced by the fact that numerous officers received the
racist text messages from Sergeant Codling, but nobody reported the discrimination until Officer
44. The inadequate training of officers, as well as the cover-ups perpetrated by high
rankings officers created a practice and custom that systematically subjected black officers to
45. Since his termination, Mr. Robert has applied – and been turned down – from
46. Moreover, Mr. Robert’s termination, as well as the BRPD continual spreading of
false rumors about his competence and the reason he was terminated, may prevent him from ever
47. Mr. Robert timely filed a formal administrative complaint asserting discrimination.
On June 20, 2018, the EEOC issued its right to sue letter.
7
Case 9:18-cv-81227-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2018 Page 8 of 10
Count One
(Racial Discrimination in Violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.
based on race in violation of Title VII. The stated reasons for the Defendants’ conduct were not
the true reasons, but instead were pretext to hide the Defendants’ discriminatory animus.
Count Two
50. The foregoing paragraphs are realleged and incorporated by reference herein.
51. The Defendants’ conduct as alleged above constitutes hostile and abusive working
environment in violation of Title VII. The stated reasons for the Defendants’ conduct were not the
true reasons, but instead were pretext to hide the Defendants’ discriminatory animus.
Count Three
52. The foregoing paragraphs are realleged and incorporated by reference herein.
53. The Defendants acted under color of law to deny Mr. Robert equal protection of
54. The BRPD created a custom or policy by repeatedly depriving black officers of
their rights by defending known behavior that violated black officers’ rights; by failing to
8
Case 9:18-cv-81227-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2018 Page 9 of 10
adequately train its officers and by its policymakers creating a custom to stand by the decision of
55. The repeated unofficial practice of the BRPD to “stand behind” termination
decisions, even when race is a factor, was the moving force in violating Mr. Robert’s rights.
56. The BRPD has violated other black officers’ rights in similar ways; yet, it continues
57. The BRPD has joined in concert – post termination – to create frivolous claims or
errors against Mr. Robert to defend its policy of “standing by” wrongful terminations and to protect
its reputation.
58. Chief Steven Meyer and Deputy Chief Miuccio have instituted an official policy to
stand by its officers’ termination decisions, even when that involves a cover up of constitutional
violations.
59. The BRPD violated Mr. Robert’s clear constitutional right to receive the same
Count Four
60. The foregoing paragraphs are realleged and incorporated by reference herein.
61. Various officers of the BRPD conspired to deprive Mr. Robert from equal
9
Case 9:18-cv-81227-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2018 Page 10 of 10
(a) A retroactive reinstatement with the BRPD, with all attendant back pay, benefits
(d) Front pay (including pay commensurate with the overtime Mr. Robert’s worked as
a POC);
(e) Costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and any other
applicable authority incurred with this lawsuit with interest thereon; and
Jury Demand
____________________
Richard A. D’Amura
Bar No. 663921
D’Amura & Zaidman, PLLC
609 Josephine Street
Austin, Texas 78704
Tel: (512) 967-1898
Fax: N/A
E-Mail: rdamura@dz-pllc.com
10