Case 1:23-cv-00270 ECF No. 1, PageID.

1 Filed 03/14/23 Page 1 of 16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

KELLY KELLEY,

Plaintiff Case No.

Hon.
v.

ONEKAMA CONSOLIDATED
SCHOOLS, SCHOOL BOARD OF
ONEKAMA CONSOLIDATED SCHOOLS,
SETH PRATT, in his
individual and official capacity,
KIMBERLY BLASZAK, in her individual
and official capacity, GINA HAGEN, in her
individual and official capacity,
LORI GILDERSLEEVE, MARGARET PUNCHES,
GARY MADDEN, and TOM BERARD,
in their individual and official capacities,

Defendants.

________________________________________________________________________

Lisa C. Ward (P38933)

Veronica L. Stachurski (P85110)
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Law Office of Lisa C. Ward, PLLC
4131 Okemos Rd., Ste. 12
Okemos, MI 48864
(517) 347-8100
lisacwardlaw@gmail.com
________________________________________________________________________

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

This is an original proceeding; there is no pending or resolved civil action arising out of the
transaction or occurrence alleged in this Complaint. This is not a class action lawsuit.

1
 Case 1:23-cv-00270 ECF No. 1, PageID.2 Filed 03/14/23 Page 2 of 16

NOW COMES Plaintiff, Kelly Kelley, by and through her attorneys, Lisa C. Ward and

Veronica L. Stachurski, Law Offices of Lisa C. Ward, PLLC, to hereby timely file her Complaint

and Jury Demand. In support of her Complaint, Plaintiff states the following:

PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE

1. This is an action for unlawful discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the

Civil Rights Act (Title VII), 42 USC § 2000e et seq.; the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act,

MCL 37.2101 et seq.; and for unlawful depravation of constitutional rights in violation of

42 USC § 1983.

2. Plaintiff, Kelly Kelley, is a citizen of the United States and the State of Michigan, and

works and resides in Manistee County, Michigan.

3. Defendant, Onekama Consolidated Schools (“Defendant Employer”), is a school district

in the State of Michigan, located in Manistee County.

4. Defendant, Seth Pratt (Defendant Pratt), is a citizen of the United States and the State of

Michigan, and works and resides in Manistee County, Michigan.

5. Defendant, Gina Hagen (Defendant Hagen), is a citizen of the United States and the State

of Michigan, and works and resides in Manistee County, Michigan.

6. Defendant School Board of Onekama Consolidated Schools (“Defendant Board”), is

comprised of seven members;

a. President Lori Gildersleeve; Vice President Chelle Hrachovina; Treasurer Margaret

Punches; Secretary Nick Dye; Trustee Gary Madden; Trustee Tom Berard; and

Trustee Meredith McNabb.

2
 Case 1:23-cv-00270 ECF No. 1, PageID.3 Filed 03/14/23 Page 3 of 16

7. To the best of Plaintiff’s knowledge, all members of Defendant Board reside in Manistee

County, Michigan.

8. Jurisdiction is proper in this court under 28 USC 1331, which authorizes federal courts to

decide cases concerning federal questions; 28 USC 1343(a)(3) and (4), which authorize

federal courts to hear civil rights cases; and 28 USC 1367, which authorizes federal courts

to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims arising from the same core

operative facts.

9. Venue is proper because the parties reside in, and the majority of the events alleged took

place in, the Western District of Michigan, in Manistee County, Michigan.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

10. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 9.

11. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Plaintiff, who is female, was an employee of

Defendant Employer.

12. Plaintiff began her employment with Defendant Employer at or around September 2018 as

a school teacher.

13. At all times, Plaintiff has performed her duties in a satisfactory manner.

14. Defendant Seth Pratt, who is male, is the principal of the school where Plaintiff taught and

was Plaintiff’s supervisor.

15. On or about March 17, 2022, Plaintiff was exercising on a treadmill in the high school

workout room (which is adjacent to the high school gym), as she had done several times

before. On this day, Plaintiff was exercising after classes had ended.

16. To the best of Plaintiff’s knowledge, several other male teachers regularly use the workout

room / exercise equipment after classes had ended.

3
 Case 1:23-cv-00270 ECF No. 1, PageID.4 Filed 03/14/23 Page 4 of 16

17. On March 17, 2022, Defendant Pratt walked toward Plaintiff while she was exercising on

a treadmill in the high school workout room, took a picture of her, and immediately left.

Plaintiff was the only one in the workout room at this time.

18. Plaintiff did not consent to Defendant Pratt taking her picture. Plaintiff felt harassed and

violated by Defendant Pratt’s behavior and actions.

19. To the best of Plaintiff’s knowledge, Defendant Pratt has never taken pictures of any male

teachers while they used the school workout equipment.

20. On March 23, 2022, Defendant Pratt sent an email to the entire teaching staff of Onekama

Consolidated Schools stating that teachers were no longer allowed to exercise in the

workout room during preparation hour.

21. On April 7, 2022, Plaintiff reported Defendant Pratt’s actions to Defendant Gina Hagen,

who was the Superintendent of the school.

22. Defendant Hagen was also the compliance manager for the school. Pursuant to Defendant

Employer’s Policies and Procedures, Defendant Hagen was the individual to whom she

was required to report this issue.

23. During that conversation, Plaintiff explained to Defendant Hagen that she felt that

Defendant Pratt taking her picture was a form of sexual harassment.

24. In response to Plaintiff’s complaint and concerns, Defendant Hagen simply stated that she

believed the incident to be "a misunderstanding.” However, Defendant Hagen did not

promise to investigate any of Plaintiff’s allegations.

25. On April 14, 2022, Defendant Hagen had a meeting with Plaintiff, Defendant Pratt, and

Plaintiff’s Union Representative, Joe Washington.

4
 Case 1:23-cv-00270 ECF No. 1, PageID.5 Filed 03/14/23 Page 5 of 16

26. During that April 14, 2022 meeting, Defendant Pratt denied taking Plaintiff’s picture and

instead claimed that he was taking a picture of a light fixture.

27. During a staff meeting the next day, on April 15, 2022, Defendant Pratt instructed teachers

to come to him directly if they had issues, rather than “go above his head.” During this

meeting, Plaintiff was unfairly singled out because she brought her complaint to Defendant

Hagen.

28. After the meeting, Defendant Pratt continued to harass Plaintiff and retaliate against her

for her complaint to Defendant Hagen. This included telling Plaintiff that parents had

“concerns" about her, but refusing to allow her to address any alleged concerns raised by

the parents. Defendant Pratt also continued to allow male teachers to use the workout

facility while prohibiting Plaintiff from using the facility.

29. Defendant Pratt also interfered with Plaintiff’s ability to run her classroom by giving

students permission to leave her class early. Defendant Pratt then denied that he had

allowed students to leave class early.

30. On May 4, 2022, Plaintiff was singled for a performance evaluation, when no other teachers

received a performance evaluation at this time.

31. On May 18, 2022, during a routine end-of-year performance evaluation with Defendant

Hagen, she discouraged Plaintiff from pursuing any sort of formal investigation into the

March 17, 2022 photo incident with Defendant Pratt.

32. During the new school year in autumn of 2022, Defendant Pratt and Defendant Hagen

continued to harass and retaliate against Plaintiff.

33. This included Defendant Pratt falsely accusing Plaintiff of violating Defendant Employer’s

student backpack policy on October 17, 2022. On October 21, 2022, Defendant Pratt

5
 Case 1:23-cv-00270 ECF No. 1, PageID.6 Filed 03/14/23 Page 6 of 16

falsely accused Plaintiff of advising a student to take a controlled substance during school

hours.

34. On October 21, 2022, Plaintiff became aware of a group chat between students that

discussed Defendant Pratt’s intent to fire Plaintiff. Defendant Pratt’s nephew, who was a

student of Plaintiff’s was part of this group chat.

35. On or about October 28, 2022, Plaintiff’s husband, Shawn Kelley, filed a complaint about

Defendant Pratt’s harassment and retaliation against his wife with Defendant Board.

36. In his complaint, Mr. Kelley complained about Defendant Hagen’s failure to look into or

investigate previous complaints from Plaintiff regarding Defendant Pratt’s harassment and

retaliation.

37. After Mr. Kelley filed this complaint, Defendants Pratt and Hagen escalated their

retaliation and harassment.

38. On or about November 2, 2022, Defendant Pratt sent another employee to sit in Plaintiff’s

classroom and watch her while she was teaching.

39. On or about November 4, 2022, Mr. Kelley emailed Defendant Employer’s School Board

because he had not received a response to his October 28, 2022 complaint. In this email,

he reiterated how the harassment was negatively affecting Plaintiff, and re-stated his

request for an investigation.

40. On or about November 6, 2022, School Board President, Lori Gildersleeve, emailed Mr.

Kelley and told him that Defendant Employer would be launching “an objective third-party

investigation into the allegations” that he lodged in his October 28, 2022 email.

41. Rather than hiring an objective third party to investigate, the investigation was conducted

by an employee in the same law firm that represents Defendant Board.

6
 Case 1:23-cv-00270 ECF No. 1, PageID.7 Filed 03/14/23 Page 7 of 16

42. On November 14, 2022, the investigator, MaryJo Banasik, interviewed Plaintiff regarding

the allegations in Mr. Kelley’s email. Not only did Ms. Banasik not consider evidence

presented by Plaintiff, she refused to interview students and teachers who could corroborate

Plaintiff’s allegations of harassment and retaliation.

43. On November 14, 2022, Defendant Hagen convened a special school board meeting and

failed to notify Plaintiff, in spite of the fact that her performance would be discussed. Thus,

Plaintiff had no opportunity to defend herself regarding her performance.

44. Moreover, during that school board meeting, Defendant Pratt encouraged his sister, Ashley

Rozga, to make inflammatory and false statements about Plaintiff, which were later

published in a local newspaper.

45. The very next day, on November 15, 2022, Plaintiff received a letter from Defendant

Employer and Defendant Board, which stated that Plaintiff was being placed on

administrative leave, pending an investigation into allegations asserted against her.

46. Plaintiff was not given documentation of the charges against her at this time.

47. On or about November 29, 2022, Ms. Banasik released her report determining that she was

unable to find by a preponderance of the evidence that Defendant Pratt violated district

policy or that his behavior constituted retaliation or harassment.

48. On or about December 12, 2022, Plaintiff was again interviewed by Ms. Banasik for a new

investigation into allegations against Plaintiff as a result of the November 14, 2022 school

board meeting.

49. In the December 28, 2022 report, Ms. Banasik concluded that Plaintiff was dishonest and

had violated school policies. Plaintiff had no notice prior to the December 12, 2022

interview what allegations had been made against her and was unable to defend herself.

7
 Case 1:23-cv-00270 ECF No. 1, PageID.8 Filed 03/14/23 Page 8 of 16

50. On or about December 19, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint of discrimination and retaliation

with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

51. Plaintiff received a notice of her right to use from the EEOC on January 20, 2023.

52. On February 20, 2023, Defendant Board voted to terminate Plaintiff’s employment.

COUNT I - UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF TITLE VII

OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, 42 USC 2000e et seq.
against Defendant Employer and Defendant Board

53. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 52.

54. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant Employer at all times relevant to this complaint.

55. Title VII prohibits employers from discriminating against any individual regarding the

compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of the employee’s

gender.

56. Defendant Employer, through its agent, Defendant Pratt, discriminated against Plaintiff on

the basis of her sex when he took her picture and prohibited her from using the workout

room and equipment; while he continued to allow male staff to use the same workout room

and equipment and he did not photograph them.

57. Defendants’ actions were intentional, with reckless indifference to Plaintiff’s rights.

58. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful actions against Plaintiff as

described, Plaintiff has sustained injuries and damages, including, but not limited to, loss

of career opportunities; mental and emotional distress; and loss of reputation and esteem

in the community.

COUNT II – UNLAWFUL RETALIATION

against Defendant Employer and Defendant Board

59. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 58.

8
 Case 1:23-cv-00270 ECF No. 1, PageID.9 Filed 03/14/23 Page 9 of 16

60. Defendant Pratt and Defendant Hagen retaliated against Plaintiff for reporting the

discrimination and harassment that she suffered, as well as, for her husband’s submission

of a complaint on her behalf, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

61. Defendant Pratt accused Plaintiff of policy violations and encouraged parent complaints in

order to terminate her employment.

62. Defendant Pratt also intentionally interfered with Plaintiff’s ability to teach her students,

as well as, encouraging parents, including his sister, to submit false allegations against

Plaintiff.

63. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful actions against Plaintiff as

described, Plaintiff has sustained injuries and damages, including, but not limited to, loss

of career opportunities; mental and emotional distress; and loss of reputation and esteem

in the community.

COUNT III – UNLAWFUL DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF THE ELLIOTT-

LARSEN CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, MCL 37.2101 et seq.
against Defendant Employer, Defendant Board, and against all other Defendants in their
individual and official capacities

64. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 63.

65. The Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (ELCRA) prohibits employers from discriminating

against any individual regarding the compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of

employment because of employee’s gender. MCL § 37.2202(1)(a).

66. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Plaintiff worked for Defendant Employer as a

teacher.

67. As set forth more fully above, Plaintiff was initially harassed by Defendant Pratt, when he

took a picture of her while using the exercise equipment in the school’s workout room.

9
 Case 1:23-cv-00270 ECF No. 1, PageID.10 Filed 03/14/23 Page 10 of 16

68. In response, Defendant Pratt prohibited Plaintiff, a woman, from using the workout room,

but did not stop male employees from using the same room and/or equipment.

69. Defendant Employer, through its supervisor, Defendant Pratt, excluded Plaintiff from the

use and enjoyment of the school’s workout room and equipment because she is a woman.

70. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful actions against Plaintiff as

described, Plaintiff has sustained injuries and damages, including, but not limited to, loss

of career opportunities; mental and emotional distress; and loss of reputation and esteem

in the community.

COUNT IV – UNLAWFUL RETALIATION IN VIOLATION OF THE ELLIOTT-

LARSEN CIVIL RIGHTS ACT
against Defendant Employer, Defendant Board, and against all other Defendants in their
individual and official capacities

71. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 70.

72. Defendants retaliated against Plaintiff for reporting the discrimination and harassment that

she suffered, as well as, for her husband’s submission of a complaint on her behalf, in

violation of the ELCRA.

73. Defendant Pratt accused Plaintiff of policy violations in order to terminate her employment

and encouraged parents to file false allegations against Plaintiff. Defendant Pratt also

intentionally interfered with Plaintiff’s ability to teach her students.

74. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful actions against Plaintiff as

described, Plaintiff has sustained injuries and damages, including, but not limited to, loss

of career opportunities; mental and emotional distress; and loss of reputation and esteem

in the community.

10
 Case 1:23-cv-00270 ECF No. 1, PageID.11 Filed 03/14/23 Page 11 of 16

COUNT V – UNLAWFUL DEPRIVATION OF EQUAL PROTECTION AND DUE

PROCESS OF LAW IN VIOLATION OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
against Defendant Employer, Defendant Board, and against all other Defendants in their
individual and official capacities

75. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 74.

76. Plaintiff’s constitutionally protected rights that Defendants violated include the following:

a. The right to fair and equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth

Amendment of the United States Constitution;

b. the right to substantive due process as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of

the United States Constitution;

c. the right to procedural due process guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of

the United States Constitution.

77. Defendant Pratt, acting under color of state law, denied Plaintiff her constitutional right to

equal protection and substantive due process when he:

a. took a picture of her without her permission while she was exercising in the high

school workout room; and prohibited Plaintiff from using the high school workout

room and exercise equipment because she is a woman, while allowing male staff to

continue use of the same room and equipment;

b. acted in concert with Defendant School Board to terminate her employment in

retaliation for her complaint about his discrimination and harassment.

78. Defendant Employer, acting under color of state law, authorized, tolerated, ratified,

permitted, or acquiesced in the unlawful behavior of Defendant Pratt, as described above,

in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United

States Constitution.

11
 Case 1:23-cv-00270 ECF No. 1, PageID.12 Filed 03/14/23 Page 12 of 16

79. Defendant Employer, Defendant Hagen, and Defendant School Board violated Plaintiff’s

constitutional right to substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment when:

a. Defendant Employer, Defendant Hagen, and Defendant School Board failed to

utilize an objective third-party investigator when investigating the allegations at

issue in this case;

b. Defendant Employer, Defendant Hagen, and Defendant School Board ratified the

investigation that was performed, despite the investigator’s clear bias and

intentional disregard for witnesses;

c. Defendant Hagen withheld information from Plaintiff pertinent to the allegations

against her, including convening a secret school board meeting, which prevented

Plaintiff from any ability to defend herself against the allegations made against her.

80. Defendant School Board, by and through the members of the School Board, including but

not limited to, Defendant Gildersleeve, as well as Defendant Employer and Defendant

Hagen, violated Plaintiff’s constitutional right to procedural due process under the

Fourteenth Amendment when they:

a. refused to inform Plaintiff of the allegations against her before she was interviewed,

and therefore, made it impossible for Plaintiff to prepare a defense;

b. withheld from Plaintiff the names of the individuals who complained against her,

further impeding Plaintiff’s attempt to defend herself.

81. Defendant Employer, acting under color of state law, authorized, tolerated, ratified,

permitted, or acquiesced in the unlawful behavior of Defendants School Board,

Gildersleeve, and Hagen, as described above, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause

of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

12
 Case 1:23-cv-00270 ECF No. 1, PageID.13 Filed 03/14/23 Page 13 of 16

82. Defendant Pratt, Defendant Employer, Defendant Hagen, and Defendant School Board

acting under color of state law and in concert with one another, by their conduct, showed

intentional, outrageous, and reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s constitutional due process

rights.

83. As a direct and proximate result of these actions, practices, and policies, Plaintiff has

sustained injuries and damages, including, but not limited to, loss of career opportunities;

mental and emotional distress; and loss of reputation and esteem in the community.

13
 Case 1:23-cv-00270 ECF No. 1, PageID.14 Filed 03/14/23 Page 14 of 16

RELIEF REQUESTED

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, having been discriminated and retaliated against in violation of

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 USC 2000e eq seq., as well as the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights

Act, MCL § 37.2101 et seq., and having been deprived of her constitutional rights to equal

protection and due process of law in violation of 42 USC § 1983, requests this Honorable Court to

award her the following relief:

1. Damages for the emotional distress, mental anguish, embarrassment and humiliation;

2. Reinstatement and other equitable relief to which Plaintiff is entitled;

3. Economic damages to compensate Plaintiff for any loss of wages, loss of fringe benefits,

and other economic harm;

4. Award Plaintiff punitive damages reflecting the blatant disregard Defendants demonstrated

for Plaintiff’s rights under the Constitution of the United States, Title VII, and the ELCRA;

5. Reasonable attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to MCL § 15.364;

6. Any other legal or equitable relief that Plaintiff is entitled to as a matter of law.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: March 14, 2023 Lisa C. Ward (P38933)

/s/ Veronica L. Stachurski
Veronica L. Stachurski (P85110)
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Law Offices of Lisa C. Ward, PLLC
4131 Okemos Road, Suite 12
Okemos, Michigan 48864
(517) 347 - 8100

14
 Case 1:23-cv-00270 ECF No. 1, PageID.15 Filed 03/14/23 Page 15 of 16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

KELLY KELLEY,

Plaintiff Case No.

Hon.
v.

ONEKAMA CONSOLIDATED
SCHOOLS, SCHOOL BOARD OF
ONEKAMA CONSOLIDATED SCHOOLS,
SETH PRATT, in his
individual and official capacity,
KIMBERLY BLASZAK, in her individual
and official capacity, GINA HAGEN, in her
individual and official capacity,
LORI GILDERSLEEVE, MARGARET PUNCHES,
GARY MADDEN, and TOM BERARD,
in their individual and official capacities,

Defendants.
________________________________________________________________________

Lisa C. Ward (P38933)

Veronica L. Stachurski (P85110)
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Law Office of Lisa C. Ward, PLLC
4131 Okemos Rd., Ste. 12
Okemos, MI 48864
(517) 347-8100
lisacwardlaw@gmail.com
________________________________________________________________________

JURY DEMAND

NOW COMES Plaintiff, by and through her Attorneys, to request a trial by jury.
 Case 1:23-cv-00270 ECF No. 1, PageID.16 Filed 03/14/23 Page 16 of 16

Dated: March 14, 2023 Lisa C. Ward (P38933)

/s/ Veronica L. Stachurski
Veronica L. Stachurski (P85110)
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Law Offices of Lisa C. Ward, PLLC
4131 Okemos Road, Suite 12
Okemos, Michigan 48864
(517) 347 – 8100