NO.

ANGELA FIGURA,
Plaintiff,
VS.
CITY OF ROWLETT,
Defendant.









IN THE DISTRICT COURT
DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
JUDICIAL DISTRICT

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION AND JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff Angela Figura ("Figura" or "Plaintiff') files her Original Petition complaining of
Defendant City of Rowlett and for causes of action would respectfully show the court and jury:
I.
DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN
1. Discovery in this case should be conducted under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure
190.3 as a Level II case.
II.
PARTIES
2. Angela Figura is an individual residing in the City of Rowlett. She formerly
worked for the City of Rowlett in Dallas County where her causes of action accrued.
3. The City of Rowlett ("Rowlett") is a Texas municipality located primarily in
Dallas County, Texas. Rowlett can be served with Citation by serving its Mayor, Todd W.
Gotel, or its Secretary, Laura Hallmark at 4000 Main St. Rowlett, Tx 75088 or wherever they
may be found.
1 1

NO. ____________


ANGELA FIGURA, IN THE DISTRICT COURT
Plaintiff,

VS.
DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS


CITY OF ROWLETT,
Defendant. _______ JUDICIAL DISTRICT


PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL PETITION AND JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff Angela Figura (Figura or Plaintiff) files her Original Petition complaining of
Defendant City of Rowlett and for causes of action would respectfully show the court and jury:
I.
DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN

1. Discovery in this case should be conducted under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure
190.3 as a Level II case.
II.
PARTIES

2. Angela Figura is an individual residing in the City of Rowlett. She formerly
worked for the City of Rowlett in Dallas County where her causes of action accrued.
3. The City of Rowlett (Rowlett) is a Texas municipality located primarily in
Dallas County, Texas. Rowlett can be served with Citation by serving its Mayor, Todd W.
Gotel, or its Secretary, Laura Hallmark at 4000 Main St. Rowlett, Tx 75088 or wherever they
may be found.




Teresa J ones
DC-14-06786
FILED
DALLAS COUNTY
6/26/2014 12:10:15 PM
GARY FITZSIMMONS
DISTRICT CLERK
III.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4. Jurisdiction is proper in this court since Plaintiffs damages exceed its minimum
jurisdictional amounts.
5. Venue is proper in Dallas County, Texas, because Plaintiff worked primarily in
Dallas County when her causes of action accrued.
IV.
FACTS
6. Plaintiff Angela Figura started working for the City of Rowlett as a police officer
trainee in September 2012.
7. As part of her police academy training paperwork, Figura completed a medical
questionnaire form on September 20, 2012. The form included information about Figura' s
allergies. One of the allergies she listed was an allergy to cayenne pepper.
8. Due to her allergy, Figura refused to participate in training involving being
sprayed with mace, whose ingredients include cayenne pepper
9. On April 3 and April 9, 2013, Chief of Police W M Brodnax ("Brodnax") sought
information from Figura regarding her sensitivity to cayenne pepper.
10. Figura provided medical documentation indicating that she could perform the
"essential functions" of her job and that being exposed to cayenne pepper was not likely to be
"life threatening" to her though it could cause "respiratory complications" at times.
11. Once Figura proved that she was able to perform the job, Brodnax began to allege
that she was being dishonest with the department about her disability.
12. Figura was terminated from her job due to her sensitivity to cayenne pepper or
based on her gender.
2 2

III.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. Jurisdiction is proper in this court since Plaintiffs damages exceed its minimum
jurisdictional amounts.
5. Venue is proper in Dallas County, Texas, because Plaintiff worked primarily in
Dallas County when her causes of action accrued.
IV.
FACTS

6. Plaintiff Angela Figura started working for the City of Rowlett as a police officer
trainee in September 2012.
7. As part of her police academy training paperwork, Figura completed a medical
questionnaire form on September 20, 2012. The form included information about Figuras
allergies. One of the allergies she listed was an allergy to cayenne pepper.
8. Due to her allergy, Figura refused to participate in training involving being
sprayed with mace, whose ingredients include cayenne pepper
9. On April 3 and April 9, 2013, Chief of Police W M Brodnax (Brodnax) sought
information from Figura regarding her sensitivity to cayenne pepper.
10. Figura provided medical documentation indicating that she could perform the
essential functions of her job and that being exposed to cayenne pepper was not likely to be
life threatening to her though it could cause respiratory complications at times.
11. Once Figura proved that she was able to perform the job, Brodnax began to allege
that she was being dishonest with the department about her disability.
12. Figura was terminated from her job due to her sensitivity to cayenne pepper or
based on her gender.
13. Meanwhile, a Rowlett Police Department officer Bennie Holmes was allowed to
continue working for the Department, despite his intolerance for pepper spray due to LASIK
surgery.
V.
ADMINISTRATIVE PREREQUISITES SATISFIED

14. On November 14, 2013, less than 300 days after her termination, Figura timely
filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Texas Workforce Commission Civil Rights Division
and EEOC.

15. Figura thereafter obtained her Right to Sue Notice issued April 30, 2014, which is
attached as Exhibit 1 and incorporated by reference.

16. This suit is timely within 90 days after receipt of Plaintiff's Right to Sue Notice
from the EEOC.
VI.
CAUSES OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT

17. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all prior paragraphs, as if fully set forth herein.

18. Defendant harassed, discriminated, and retaliated against Plaintiff, and failed to
provide a reasonable accommodation, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act
("ADA"), because of her disability or perceived disability of being allergic to cayenne pepper.

19. Defendant was at all relevant times Plaintiffs "employer" within the meaning of
the ADA and employed the requisite number of persons to qualify as an employer under that
Act.
3 3

13. Meanwhile, a Rowlett Police Department officer Bennie Holmes was allowed to
continue working for the Department, despite his intolerance for pepper spray due to LASIK
surgery.
V.
ADMINISTRATIVE PREREQUISITES SATISFIED

14. On November 14, 2013, less than 300 days after her termination, Figura timely
filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Texas Workforce Commission Civil Rights Division
and EEOC.
15. Figura thereafter obtained her Right to Sue Notice issued April 30, 2014, which is
attached as Exhibit 1 and incorporated by reference.
16. This suit is timely within 90 days after receipt of Plaintiffs Right to Sue Notice
from the EEOC.
VI.
CAUSES OF ACTION

VI OLATI ON OF AMERI CANS WI TH DISABILI TI ES ACT

17. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all prior paragraphs, as if fully set forth herein.
18. Defendant harassed, discriminated, and retaliated against Plaintiff, and failed to
provide a reasonable accommodation, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA), because of her disability or perceived disability of being allergic to cayenne pepper.
19. Defendant was at all relevant times Plaintiffs employer within the meaning of
the ADA and employed the requisite number of persons to qualify as an employer under that
Act.


VIOLATION OF TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964

20. Defendant harassed, discriminated, and retaliated against Plaintiff in violation of

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

21. Defendant was at all relevant times Plaintiff's "employer" within the meaning of
the Title VII and employed the requisite number of persons to qualify as an employer under that
Act.
VII.
DAMAGES AND ATTORNEYS' FEES

22. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all prior paragraphs, as if fully set forth herein.

23. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's actions, Plaintiff has suffered and
will continue to suffer damages including, but not limited to, humiliation, shame, fright, mental
anguish, lost wages, and lost earning capacity.

24. In addition, because Defendant's conduct was intentional and malicious, Plaintiff
is entitled to recover punitive/exemplary damages from Defendant in an amount to be
determined by the jury.

25. Defendant's wrongful conduct has made it necessary for Plaintiff to retain the
undersigned attorneys to represent her in bringing and prosecuting this action, and, if necessary,
for legal representation on appeal. Plaintiff therefore seeks recovery of all reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to Title VII and the ADA.
VIII.
JURY DEMAND

26. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury and files the appropriate jury fee concurrently with
filing of this Original Petition.
4 4

VI OLATI ON OF TI TLE VI I OF THE CI VI L RI GHTS ACT OF 1964
20. Defendant harassed, discriminated, and retaliated against Plaintiff in violation of
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
21. Defendant was at all relevant times Plaintiffs employer within the meaning of
the Title VII and employed the requisite number of persons to qualify as an employer under that
Act.
VII.
DAMAGES AND ATTORNEYS FEES

22. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all prior paragraphs, as if fully set forth herein.
23. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants actions, Plaintiff has suffered and
will continue to suffer damages including, but not limited to, humiliation, shame, fright, mental
anguish, lost wages, and lost earning capacity.
24. In addition, because Defendants conduct was intentional and malicious, Plaintiff
is entitled to recover punitive/exemplary damages from Defendant in an amount to be
determined by the jury.
25. Defendants wrongful conduct has made it necessary for Plaintiff to retain the
undersigned attorneys to represent her in bringing and prosecuting this action, and, if necessary,
for legal representation on appeal. Plaintiff therefore seeks recovery of all reasonable attorneys
fees and costs pursuant to Title VII and the ADA.
VIII.
JURY DEMAND

26. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury and files the appropriate jury fee concurrently with
filing of this Original Petition.


IX.
PRAYER
27. Plaintiff prays that Defendants be cited to appear and answer in this suit and that,
upon final trial, she be awarded all damages allowed by law, including actual damages, non-
pecuniary damages, exemplary damages, attorneys' fees, costs of court, pre- and post judgment
interest at the maximum lawful rate, and all other relief to which she may be entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
Hessam Parzivand
TBA #24071157
The Parzivand Law Firm, PLLC
10701 Corporate Dr.
Suite 185
Stafford, Texas 77477
T: [832] 349-1776
F: [832] 602-2721
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF,
ANGELA FIGURA
5 5

IX.
PRAYER

27. Plaintiff prays that Defendants be cited to appear and answer in this suit and that,
upon final trial, she be awarded all damages allowed by law, including actual damages, non-
pecuniary damages, exemplary damages, attorneys fees, costs of court, pre- and post-judgment
interest at the maximum lawful rate, and all other relief to which she may be entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

_____________________________________

Hessam Parzivand
TBA #24071157
The Parzivand Law Firm, PLLC
10701 Corporate Dr.
Suite 185
Stafford, Texas 77477
T: [832] 349-1776
F: [832] 602-2721

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF,
ANGELA FIGURA

EXHIBIT 1









EXHIBIT 1
(Date Matted) I ; 7 1
O. 'NT ORTONITN
DISMISSAL AND O TICE OF RIGHTS
To Angela M. Figura
7 505 Westhaven Dr.
Rowlett, TX 7 5089
FrCln- San Antonio Field Office
541 0 Fredericksburg Rd
Suite 200
San Antonio, TX 7 8229


On behalf of person(s) aggnevedi.vhose identity ,s
CONFIDENTIAL (29 CFR 1601.7(a))

EEOC Charge

EEOC Representative
Jaime Valdez,
State & Local Coordinator
Telephone No
(21 0) 281 -7 661

31 C-201 4-001 09

THE EEOC IS CLOSING ITS FILE ON THIS CHARGE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASON:
The facts alleged in the charge fail to state a claim under any of the statutes enforced by the EEOC.
Your allegations did not involve a disability as defined by the Americans With Disabilities Act.
The Respondent employs less than the required number of employees or is not otherwise covered by the statutes.
Your charge was not timely filed with EEOC; in other words, you waited too long after the date(s) of the alleged
discrimination to file your charge
The EEOC issues the following determination: Based upon its investigation, the EEOC is unable to conclude that the
information obtained establishes violations of the statutes. This does not certify that the respondent is in compliance with
the statutes. No finding is made as to any other issues that might be construed as having been raised by this charge.
The EEOC has adopted the findings of the state or local fair employment practices agency that investigated this charge.
- NOTICE OF SUIT RIGHTS -
(See the additional information attached to this form.)
Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, or the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act: This will be the only notice of dismissal and of your right to sue that we will send you.
You may file a lawsuit against the respondent(s) under federal law based on this charge in federal or state court. Your
lawsuit must be filed WITHIN 90 DAYS of your receipt of this notice; or your right to sue based on this charge will be
lost. (The time limit for filing suit based on a claim under state law may be different.)
Equal Pay Act (EPA): EPA suits must be filed in federal or state court within 2 years (3 years for willful violations) of the
alleged EPA underpayment. This means that backpay due for any violations that occurred more than 2 years (3 years}
before you file suit may not be collectible.
On b elf fi the CorTut sion
Enclosures(s)
O. Hicks,
irector
cc:

ROWLETT POLICE DEPT.

c/o Joe C. TooleylAttorneys Counselors
Attn: Joe C, Tooley/Attorney
510 Turtle Cove, Blvd., Ste 112
Rockwell, TX 7 5087