Denton County Lawsuit

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SHERMAN DIVISION

NADIYA WILLIAMS-BOLDWARE §Plaintiff §

§v. §

§DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS, § No._______________DENTON COUNTY CRIMINAL §DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CARY §PIEL, SUSAN PIEL and §RYAN CALVERT §

Defendants §

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Plaintiff, NADIYA WILLIAMS-BOLDWARE, files her Original Complaint against

Defendants, Denton County, Texas, Denton County Criminal District Attorney,

Cary Piel, Susan Piel and Ryan Calvert (collectively “Defendants”).

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff, Nadiya Williams-Boldware (“Boldware”), is a Texas resident, living in

McKinney, Texas.

2. Defendant, Denton County, Texas (the “County”), is a governmental entity that

can be served under Rule 4(j)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by serving

County Judge Mary Horn at 110 West Hickory Street, 2nd Floor, Denton, Texas

76201-4168.

3. Defendant, Denton County Criminal District Attorney (“DA”), is a governmental

entity that can be served under Rule 4(j)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

by serving Denton County Criminal District Attorney Paul Johnson at 1450 East

McKinney, 3rd Floor, Denton, Texas 76201.

4. Defendant, Assistant District Attorney Cary Piel (“Cary Piel”), is a Texas

resident who may be served with process at 1450 East McKinney, 3rd Floor,

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 1

Case 4:09-cv-00591-RC-ALM Document 1 Filed 12/01/09 Page 1 of 17 PageID #: 1

Denton, Texas 76201 or his residence of 2408 Cavendish Lane, Argyle, Texas

76226-1586.

5. Defendant, Assistant District Attorney Susan Piel (“Susan Piel”), is a Texas


Denton, Texas 76201 or her residence of 2408 Cavendish Lane, Argyle, Texas

76226-1586.

6. Defendant, Assistant District Attorney Ryan Calvert (“Calvert”), is a Texas


Denton, Texas 76201 or his residence of 4808 Sabine Street, Fort Worth, Texas

76137-5688.

JURISDICTION

7. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. §

1331 because this action arises under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42

U.S.C. § 2000(e), 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

8. Denton County, Texas and the Denton County Criminal District Attorney are

employers within the meaning of the above statutes because they employee

fifteen or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more

calendar weeks.

9. Ms. Boldware has performed all conditions precedent to bringing this lawsuit

and all claims asserted herein as the law requires.

VENUE

10. Venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division, under 28

U.S.C. § 1391 because Defendants reside or are located within the judicial district

of this Court.



FACTS

11. Ms. Boldware is an African-American female presently employed by the

Denton County Criminal District Attorney. Ms. Boldware began such employment

on February 28, 2007.

12. At all times during her employment with the Denton County Criminal District

Attorney, Ms. Boldware has been an Assistant District Attorney assigned to the

Misdemeanor Trial Division with her job duties defined as representing the State

of Texas in pending criminal misdemeanor matters.

13. At all times during her employment with the Denton County Criminal District

Attorney, Ms. Boldware has been supervised by Paul Johnson, Elected Criminal

District Attorney (supervisor to all staff), Jamie Beck, First Assistant District

Attorney (supervisor to all staff other than Paul Johnson) and Defendant Susan

Piel, Misdemeanor Trial Division Chief (supervisor to all prosecutors assigned to

the Misdemeanor Trial Division). Defendant Susan Piel is also the wife of

Defendant Cary Piel and the sister of Defendant Ryan Calvert believed to be the

person best suited to understand the racist-belief motivated behavior of her

husband and her brother upon Plaintiff. Defendant Susan Piel is Plaintiff's direct

supervisor.

14. On or about April 2, 2009, Defendant Cary Piel came into Plaintiff's office at

the Denton County Criminal District Attorney's Office to discuss a case that he

was preparing for trial. The pending case involved a criminal defendant by the

name of Bagley, an African-American female.

15. The Bagley case was to be heard before a local State district judge.

Defendant Cary Piel explained that after viewing the tapes from the arrest of

Bagley he had never been so enraged. He further state that it made him

“understand why people hung people from trees” (referencing lynchings

performed in the past by members of the Ku Klux Klan). Defendant Cary Piel

continued to elaborate by stating that the conduct of Bagley made him “want to



go home and put on his white pointy hat” (referencing the well-known attire of the

members of the Ku Klux Klan).

16. Plaintiff was silent during this conversation, or monologue. For some time,

Plaintiff struggled with the issue of how to respectfully disagree with her direct

supervisor's husband and a senior level felony prosecutor.

17. Plaintiff finally explained to Defendant Cary Piel that, while what Bagley did

appeared to be horrible, Plaintiff did not appreciate racism from either side.

18. Defendant Cary Piel then reiterated his sentiments regarding hanging people

from trees and putting on his white pointy hat.

19. When Plaintiff reached a point where she could no longer tolerate the

situation, Defendant Cary Piel concluded his conversation/monologue, as he could

tell the effect his actions had upon Plaintiff, by providing an example of a Harvard

professor that spoke out against affirmative action and was later terminated.

Defendant Cary Piel stated he hated when that kind of thing happened and those

types of actions also made him mad.

20. All of the comments by Defendant Cary Piel were and continue to be

offensive to an extreme.

21. As Plaintiff left her office, she stated to Defendant Cary Piel “imagine being a

new prosecutor and being told that I am the affirmative action prosecutor by a

defense lawyer and having to move past that and do my best.” Plaintiff then

grabbed her purse and walked out of her office. Plaintiff was visibly shaken by the

conduct of Defendant Cary Piel. Plaintiff cried herself home, pulling over once

because she was too upset to drive and was afraid of causing a collision.

22. Plaintiff called a co-worker shortly after leaving work that same evening and

asked if she was being unreasonable in being upset about the comments that

Defendant Cary Piel had made. That co-worker assured Plaintiff she was not being



unreasonable, and then that co-worker told Plaintiff that earlier that same day

Defendant Cary Piel came into that co-worker's office with John Rentz (a felony

level prosecutor in the Denton County Criminal District Attorney's Office presently

assigned to the same State district court as Defendant Cary Piel) and expressed

the same sentiment about hanging individuals and putting on his “white pointy

hat.” That co-worker stated that she was also offended, but reluctant to voice her

opinion as she is also supervised by and reports to Defendant Cary Piel's wife,

Defendant Susan Piel.

23. That co-worker stated that during that same conversation in her office, John

Rentz joined in and indicated that he understood Mr. Piel's point as he Mr. Rentz is

from Louisiana so he “really understood.”

24. That same evening Plaintiff told her chief (a designation provided to a senior

misdemeanor prosecutor assigned to the same State county court), who felt he

had an affirmative duty to report it to his supervisors. Plaintiff was unaware at the

time that her chief reported the foregoing events to Matt Shovlin (a felony level

prosecutor presently assigned to the Family Violence unit of the Denton County

Criminal District Attorney's Office). As a result of the report by Plaintiff's chief, the

situation ultimately proceeded through the administration of the Denton County

Criminal District Attorney's office and was ultimately made aware to Paul Johnson

(elected Criminal District Attorney), Jamie Beck (First Assistant to Paul Johnson),

and possibly Tom Whitlock (Felony Trial Division Chief and Defendant Cary Piel's

direct supervisor).

25. Plaintiff was unaware for a day or two that Paul Johnson and Jamie Beck were

aware of the situation. During this short time period, Plaintiff was attempting to

decide how to handle the situation by stepping back from what was an

emotionally charged situation for her when John Rentz, whose office is located

less than five (5) feet away from Plaintiff's office passed by twice calling Plaintiff a

“troublemaker.”



26. Mr. Rentz, at the time, was a felony prosecutor working directly with

Defendant Cary Piel and the same person who expressed agreement with Mr.

Piel's personal sentiment as set forth above. Plaintiff initially ignored it, realizing

that she was too upset to respond professionally. The second time the comment

was made by Mr. Rentz, Plaintiff asked Mr. Rentz “Me a troublemaker? Why do

you say that?” There was no response by Mr. Rentz.

27. Plaintiff then e-mailed Defendant Cary Piel and requested a meeting to

discuss the situation. By this time Plaintiff had been informed that the

administration knew about what had happened and she and the administration

individuals met to discuss matters.

28. Plaintiff explained to Paul Johnson and Jamie Beck the April 2, 2009

conversation and also mentioned that there were two people (Defendant Cary Piel

and John Rentz) expressing similar ideas/philosophies regarding lynching and

referencing the Ku Klux Klan.

29. In this conversation Plaintiff was asked what she wanted to do with it by Paul

Johnson.

30. Plaintiff explained that she felt that, as the elected official, it was Paul

Johnson's place to make a decision to fire or discipline his prosecutors. Plaintiff

further explained that she had been, as a result of the foregoing conduct, put in a

position where she was already overwhelmed and did not feel comfortable in

making any decision concerning employment issues and/or discipline regarding

the husband of the person that supervised her.

31. After talking with Paul Johnson and Jamie Beck as set forth above, Plaintiff, at

a later date, spoke with Defendant Susan Piel. Defendant Susan Piel said she did

not want to get involved because Mr. Piel was her husband. Defendant Susan Piel

also indicated that she was only made aware that there was a “disagreement”

between Plaintiff and Defendant Cary Piel, but did not know what her husband



had said. Plaintiff informed Defendant Susan Piel that Plaintiff was going to speak

with Defendant Cary Piel about the situation. Plaintiff stated to Defendant Susan

Piel that she had no idea what the conversation would entail, but Plaintiff doubted

that she could be polite. Defendant Susan Piel gave Plaintiff her blessing to say

whatever Plaintiff needed to Defendant Cary Piel.

32. Plaintiff went to Defendant Cary Piel's office and told him that she believed

Defendant Cary Piel went beyond discussing the facts of a case and was

expressing personal feelings during his monologue regarding Bagley involving the

hateful and discriminatory remarks.

33. Defendant Cary Piel responded that he hated that about himself.

34. Plaintiff told Defendant Cary Piel that she expected more out of someone of

his level and from whom she was supposed to be learning.

35. Plaintiff stated that she saw irony in his complaint about Bagley and the

feelings he expressed in her office. Rather than acknowledge the situation,

Defendant Cary Piel indicated that Plaintiff would be a better prosecutor if she got

in touch with her inner feelings. Defendant Cary Piel then vaguely attempted an

apology which Plaintiff did not believe.

36. Plaintiff was informed in various e-mails from Jamie Beck that documenting of

Defendant Cary Piel's personnel file would occur by the Felony Chief, Tom

Whitlock, and Defendant Cary Piel would be required to attend a “sensitivity”

class. No such documentation has been seen.

37. Mr. Whitlock has never spoken to Plaintiff about the situation. As a result,

Plaintiff was and is uncertain as to the full disclosure of the April 2, 2009

conversation to Mr. Whitlock. Plaintiff was provided information after the e-mails

from Ms. Beck that the DA made the decision to send Defendant Cary Piel to a

“diversity class.”



38. Plaintiff revisited the situation with Defendant Susan Piel, her supervisor and

Defendant Cary Piel's wife. Plaintiff asked Defendant Susan Piel why, in every

other situation in her department, she had stepped in to resolve major conflicts,

but she had a hands off approach to this one involving her husband.

39. Plaintiff explained to Defendant Susan Piel that for the first forty-eight hours

she felt totally lost. Plaintiff provided Defendant Susan Piel examples of other

employee conflicts and how proactive she had been.

40. Defendant Susan Piel indicated to Plaintiff that she thought that her

involvement might silence Plaintiff and she wanted Plaintiff to feel free to voice

her opinion.

41. Plaintiff explained to Defendant Susan Piel that she felt like she was left to

fend for herself as a result of Defendant Susan Piel's choice to not involve herself

in a situation involving one of her prosecutors as she had done in the past.

42. Defendant Susan Piel again reiterated that she still really did not know the

content of her husband's statements that were the source of the Plaintiff's worry

and anxiety.

43. At this point, Plaintiff was surprised of this claim of lack of knowledge and

took the opportunity to inform Defendant Susan Piel that Defendant Cary Piel

spoke about hanging people from trees and putting on his pointy hat both direct

references to the Ku Klux Klan.

44. Defendant Susan Piel then said her husband was just very disturbed by the

case, which Plaintiff understood to mean the Bagley matter, with no reference to

the treatment Defendant Cary Piel had visited upon Plaintiff.

45. Defendant Susan Piel, in an apparent echo of the sentiments of her husband,

then asked Plaintiff if she ever felt, as a black person, that it was “us against

them,” and that possibly that is how Defendant Cary Piel felt. Plaintiff then told



Defendant Susan Piel that that was not the purpose of the conversation.

46. On or about, April 27, 2009 the Bagley case went to trial. Defendant Cary Piel

was not removed by Paul Johnson, Jamie Beck or Tom Whitlock from the case

even after the disclosure of his personal biases was made known to each of them.

47. Plaintiff was informed by an employee of the Denton County Criminal District

Attorney's office during the voir dire in the Bagley case, Defendant Cary Piel

expressed something to the potential jurors about being a ‘redneck’.

48. Defendant Cary Piel struck all the African-Americans from those potential

jurors in the Bagley matter. There was a Batson challenged made by Bagley's

defense counsel that was overruled when non-racial justifications for the strikes

were made by Defendant Cary Piel.

49. Anyone with knowledge of Defendant Cary Piel's dealing with the case would

know that there was a clear cut Batson issue; that Defendant Cary Piel held deep

seated racist views; that had these views been disclosed to the defense or Judge

there would have been increased scrutiny of the strikes by the trial Judge.

50. The top administrators of the Denton County Criminal District Attorney’s

Office were present at the closing of the Bagley case. Their attendance was

unusual because the Bagley matter was what would normally pass as a low profile

case not meriting their attention or attendance. As of the filing of this lawsuit, no

disclosure of the racial bias of the Defendant Cary Piel has been made to the

Court or the defense Attorney by the State.

51. After taking the “sensitivity” class, allegedly in April 2009, Defendant Cary

Piel was preparing for a case that was notorious in Denton County which was a

high profile murder case being extensively covered by the media when, on July

16, 2009, the Thursday before the start of that trial, Defendant Cary Piel walked

down the misdemeanor hall of the Denton County Criminal District Attorney Office

and had not fully entered the office of Plaintiff's next-door co-workers office when



he stated within Plaintiff's hearing, “I guess I better watch what I say or else I will

have to take another one of those classes again.” Prior to making reference to the

class, Defendant Cary Piel was discussing the use of a “boom box” presumably

knowing full well the nature of both such statements as hostile, discriminatory

and directed towards Plaintiff.

52. It was approximately 4:30 p.m. and Plaintiff was finishing up a call with a

probation officer when the foregoing intimidating statements were made by

Defendant Cary Piel indicating that, if, in fact, he had taken a “sensitivity” class it

was entirely ineffective. Defendant Cary Piel left Plaintiff's co-worker's doorway.

Plaintiff then went to the co-worker's doorway and expressed to those present

how upset she was that Defendant Cary Piel would joke in such a manner about

the situation.

53. On Plaintiff's way out of the office for the day, she told her chief that she

might not be at work the following day because she needed time to think. Plaintiff

took July 17, 2009 off.

54. Plaintiff delayed informing any administration official of this additional hostile

discriminatory conduct out of professional courtesy and because Plaintiff felt like

the victim in the pending high profile murder case deserved a proper trial. Plaintiff

believed her obligation to that victim and the Denton County Criminal District

Attorney was to remain patient and insure the efforts of Defendant Cary Piel and

his wife Defendant Susan Piel (both of whom had been assigned to prosecute

same) were not impeded in bringing that murder trial to its conclusion.

55. Shortly after the above trial was concluded, Plaintiff delivered a memo to Paul

Johnson which included all of the foregoing information.

56. Paul Johnson asked Plaintiff not to report the above (deliver the same memo)

to the Denton County Human Resources Department.

57. Plaintiff informed Paul Johnson that she would have to do what was in her



best interest at this point as a result of the lack of support she had received from

the administration and the nature of the increasingly hostile work environment.

Paul Johnson then asked that Plaintiff at least avoid going to the Denton County

Human Resources Department when he was unavailable. Plaintiff responded to

him that everything she had done had been up front. Plaintiff ultimately made the

decision that her report/complaint needed to be made with the Human Resources

Department.

58. The hostile, discriminatory comments made by Defendant Cary Piel in July

2009 were known to the Denton County Criminal District Attorney's office and,

therefore, Paul Johnson, Jamie Beck and Defendant Susan Piel knew or should

have known, prior to Plaintiff's ultimate complaint about those additional

comments of their existence, but all elected not to further discipline or seek

further discipline of Defendant Cary Piel for his illegal, harassing conduct.

59. Paul Johnson checked to see if Plaintiff was in court whenever she was away

from her desk by calling the court administrator to confirm Plaintiff's presence in

court. Once again, showing his support for the discriminatory, harassing conduct

of Defendant Cary Piel.

60. While considering the decision to report the discriminatory conduct to the

Denton County Human Resources Department, she rounded the corner near Paul

Johnson's office (going to the break room) and saw Paul Johnson and Defendant

Cary Piel with their arms around each other. Defendant Cary Piel gestured in

Plaintiff's direction and said, “Oh and I will talk to you about that situation.” Once

again, an act of intimidation and another indication of Paul Johnson's support and

affirmation of the discriminatory and hostile conduct of Defendant Cary Piel.

61. As a result, Plaintiff was convinced that she was on the losing side and the

hostility she was experiencing would not change. In fact, Plaintiff experienced an

increase in hostility as set forth below.



62. Shortly prior to August 5, 2009, Plaintiff went to Denton County Human

Resources Department for the purpose of delivering her complaint. Plaintiff asked

to deliver the complaint directly to Amy Phillips, the Director of Human Resources

for Denton County, Texas. Ms. Phillips was allegedly not available. Plaintiff then

delivered the complaint to an individual introduced to her as Ms. Phillips' second-

in-command.

63. Plaintiff informed Ms. Phillips' second-in-command at that time that Paul

Johnson asked Plaintiff not to report the incident.

64. Plaintiff also informed Ms. Phillips' second-in-command that the complaint,

setting forth the above information, gave a broad overview but did not exhaust all

of the details. Plaintiff requested that, due to Plaintiff having some questions

about the documentation provided to the Human Resources department, she be

allowed to discuss her questions with Ms. Phillips after the delivered complaint

was reviewed by those in the Human Resources Department of Denton County,

Texas.

65. No one from the Human Resources Department of Denton County, Texas ever

called Plaintiff to discuss the situation with her. Instead, on August 5, 2009, Amy

Phillips forwarded an e-mail to Plaintiff with an attached letter with both the e-

mail and its attached letter indicating that they had been copied to Kim Gilles,

Chief of the Civil Division for the Denton County Criminal District Attorney.

66. It is presumed that Ms. Gilles was aware of the discriminatory remarks made

by Defendant Cary Piel at that time, if not before. It is also believed that

communications took place by and between Ms. Gilles and Paul Johnson and,

possibly, Jamie Beck after the receipt of the e-mail from Amy Phillips. It is

unknown the full extent of Ms. Gilles' involvement in the lack of appropriate

disciplinary steps taken with regards to Defendant Cary Piel.

67. Plaintiff received an e-mail on August 27, 2009 from Jamie Beck stating that



no further action would be taken by Defendant Denton County, Texas or

Defendant Denton County Criminal District Attorney against Defendant Cary Piel

but that John Rentz would be required to take the same “sensitivity” class

Defendant Cary Piel had taken implying that no further disciplinary action would

be forthcoming against Mr. Rentz either. This was done with full knowledge of the

additional hostile, discriminatory conduct of Defendant Cary Piel in July 2009.

68. On August 26, 2009, Plaintiff witnessed Paul Johnson enter Defendant Cary

Piel's office late in the afternoon. Due to the proximity between the receipt of the

foregoing e-mail and the August 26th conversation, it is believed that the purpose

of this conversation was to inform Defendant Cary Piel of the “outcome” of the

“investigation” resulting in no adverse action being taken against Defendant Cary

Piel and, again, indicating a solidarity between Paul Johnson, Jamie Beck,

Defendant Cary Piel and his wife, Defendant Susan Piel. Again, this August 26th

conversation occurred clearly with the knowledge by Paul Johnson of the

additional hostile, discriminatory conduct of Defendant Cary Piel in July 2009.

69. No one ever spoke to Plaintiff about any investigation regarding the conduct

of Defendant Cary Piel. It is presumed, as a result of this lack of contact and the

above conduct by Jamie Beck and Paul Johnson, that either none was conducted

or one of a sham nature took place.

70. In addition to the foregoing and in furtherance of the same or similar conduct,

on or about October 29, 2009, apparently full of affirmation of the illegal

discriminative conduct, an additional party took the opportunity to, again, direct

hostility and discrimination towards Plaintiff.

71. On or about October 29, 2009, Plaintiff was the subject of an office birthday

party. Defendant Calvert (brother to Defendant Susan Piel) stated in the presence

of Plaintiff and others that he had better leave the party or his tone would have

him going to “one of those classes” (referencing the sensitivity class Defendant



Cary Piel was supposed to have attended). This activity is apparently condoned

and sanctioned by the present administration as, despite being informed of the

conduct of Defendant Calvert (aware of the nature of his conduct and its

offensiveness) no disciplinary action has been taken by Paul Johnson, Jamie Beck,

the Denton County Human Resources Department or any other entity.

72. Further, upon information and belief, Defendant Susan Piel has knowledge of

her brother's actions set forth above and, again, has failed to act to protect

Plaintiff from the harassing, discriminatory conduct.

73. One can infer from the conduct of Defendant Calvert that Defendant Cary Piel

maintains the correctness of his inappropriate, hostile and discriminatory conduct

as does, apparently, his spouse Defendant Susan Piel.

74. As of the date of the filing of this complaint, Plaintiff is unaware of whether

any individual has actually attended any “sensitivity” class, but it is apparent that

the Defendant Cary Piel and Defendant Ryan Calvert persist in their discrimination

and no real effort has been made by any Defendant to prevent Plaintiff from being

exposed to and suffer from further conduct of both a harassing and discriminatory

nature.

75. Plaintiff has suffered under the hostility the solidarity and sanctioning of

Defendant Cary Piel, Defendant Susan Piel, Defendant Calvert, Paul Johnson and

Jamie Beck has created and continues to so suffer.

CAUSES OF ACTION

RACE, COLOR, HARASSMENT AND DISCRIMINATION UNDER 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000(e), 1983, 1981

76. Ms. Boldware sues the County and the DA for race and color harassment and

discrimination under 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000(e).

77. Ms. Boldware sues Cary Piel, Susan Piel and Ryan Calvert in their individual



capacity for race and color harassment and discrimination under § 1981 through §

1983.

78. Ms. Boldware is a member of a racial minority and a protected class.

79. Ms. Boldware was and is subjected to unwelcome harassment and

discrimination based on her race and color.

80. Ms. Boldware is qualified for the position she held.

81. Defendants Cary Piel and Ryan Calvert intentionally and knowingly harassed

and discriminated against Ms. Boldware based on her race and color.

82. Defendants Denton County and Denton County Criminal District Attorney

knew or should have known of the harassment, and they failed to take prompt

remedial action.

83. Defendants treated Ms. Boldware differently from other similarly situated

employees.

84. Defendants Cary Piel, Susan Piel and Ryan Calvert harassment and

discrimination concerned Ms. Boldware’s employment contract.

85. Ms. Boldware suffered an adverse employment action; she was denied

promotions―employment for open positions for which she was qualified.

HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT

86. Ms. Boldware sues the County and the DA for a hostile work environment

under 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000(e).

87. Ms. Boldware sues Cary Piel, Susan Piel and Ryan Calvert in their individual

capacities for a hostile work environment under § 1981. Ms. Boldware brings these

causes of action through § 1983.



88. Ms. Boldware is a member of a class of persons 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000(e), 1983,

and 1981 protect.

89. Cary Piel, Ryan Calvert, the County, the DA and the DA’s employees and

agents subjected Ms. Boldware to unwelcome harassment.

90. Susan Piel, by her inaction, demonstrated and continues to demonstrate a

deliberate indifference to Ms. Boldware's constitutionally protected rights and

further allowed Cary Piel's and Ryan Calvert's subjecting Ms. Boldware to known

unwelcome harassment to continue unabated.

91. The harassment was based on her race and color.

92. The harassment was so severe and pervasive that it affected a term,

condition and/or privilege of Ms. Boldware’s employment with the County and the

DA, thus creating an abusive work environment.

93. All the Defendants either knew or should have known of the harassment, but

they failed to take prompt remedial action.

94. By subjecting Ms. Boldware to an abusive work environment, all the

Defendants intentionally or recklessly engaged in an extreme and outrageous

course of conduct that caused Ms. Boldware significant emotional distress.

95. Ms. Boldware sues all the Defendants for creating and maintaining a hostile

work environment pursuant to the statutes set forth above.

DAMAGES

96. Ms. Boldware seeks actual, compensatory, consequential, special, punitive,

and exemplary damages, including the damages described specifically below. Ms.

Boldware seeks recovery of her reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees.



CONDITIONS PRECEDENT

97. To the extent necessary, Ms. Boldware has performed all conditions

precedent to bringing this lawsuit and all claims asserted herein as the law

requires.

JURY DEMAND

98. Plaintiff hereby requests a trial by jury.

PRAYER

Plaintiff, Nadiya Williams-Boldware, requests that Defendants, Denton County,

Texas, the Denton County Criminal District Attorney, Assistant District Attorney

Cary Piel, Assistant District Attorney Susan Piel and Assistant District Attorney

Ryan Calvert be cited to appear and answer herein, and that, upon final trial of

this cause, Plaintiff have and recover:

a. actual damages;b. punitive damages;c. exemplary damages;d. consequential damages;e. compensatory damages;f. special damages;g. interest before and after judgment as provided by law; h. reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees; i. lost wages, if any;j. costs of court; andk. all other and further relief to which Ms. Boldware is justly entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ William E. Trantham William E. TranthamSBN:20187000Chris RaeszSBN: 164601501710 West University Dr., Suite ADenton TX 76201(940) 380-1016(940) 387-2849 fax



Documents

Denton County Lawsuit