Sex Harassment, Discrimination Lawsuit Against New Castle County

Case 1:24-cv-00951-UNA Document 1 Filed 08/15/24 Page 1 of 30 PageID #: 1
IN THE DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
SUSAN OBERLANDER, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
) C.A. No. ________________
v. )
) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
)
NEW CASTLE COUNTY, )
MATTHEW MEYER in his )
official capacity as New Castle )
County Executive; DR. JACQUELINE )
JENKINS in her official capacity as )
Human Resources Officer; )
MICHAEL R. SMITH in his )
official capacity as Chief Financial Officer )
)
Defendants. )
COMPLAINT
INTRODUCTION
1. Plaintiff, Ms. Susan Oberlander (“Plaintiff”) files this action against Defendant,
including New Castle County, Office of Assessment (“Defendant NCC” or “NCC”), Matthew
Meyer, in his official capacity as New Castle County Executive, Dr. Jacqueline Jenkins
(“Jenkins”), in her official capacity as Human Resources Officer and Michael R. Smith (“Smith”)
in his official capacity as Chief Financial Officer, (collectively “Defendant”) for compensatory
and punitive damages for inter alia, violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42
U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.; violations of the Delaware Discrimination in Employment Act, 19 Del. C.
§ 710, et seq.; violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for rights secured by the Fourteenth Amendment;
Negligence; and Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing.
2. New Castle County continues to remain a safe harbor for dominant male employees
in positions of power and authority to sexually harass female employees. Despite prior allegations
and investigations by the Delaware Department of Justice, Defendant NCC, under the direction of
County Executive Matthew Meyer, continues to permit the willful suppression of complaints of
sexual harassment by female employees. As a result, female employees are discouraged from filing
complaints due to continued fear of retaliation and retribution. Defendant Meyer and his
administration continue to turn a blind eye to blatant acts of sexual harassment which includes
male supervisors propositioning female subordinates for sex and naked photos. Defendant Meyer’s
appointee, Defendant Jenkins, failed to ensure that complaints of sexual harassment were
investigated in a timely manner. As a result, Defendant NCC, through the direction of Defendant
Meyer, permitted Plaintiff to be subjected to sexual harassment which has caused her humiliation,
emotional anguish, derailment of her professional career, and significant loss of economic
opportunities.
NATURE OF THE ACTION
2. Plaintiff has been employed with NCC for approximately 6 years. Plaintiff was
initially hired as a Technician on July 2, 2018. Plaintiff was then promoted to Certified Assessor I
on November 29, 2018. Thereafter, Plaintiff was promoted to Certified Assessor II on April 19,
2021. At present, Plaintiff remains employed in the position of Certified Assessor II.
3. Defendant engaged in gender discrimination, fostered a hostile work environment,
including cultivating an environment of accepted sexual harassment and gender discrimination,
and wrongfully retaliated against Plaintiff for her reports of sexual harassment, discrimination and
retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, as amended
(“Title VII”) and the Delaware Discrimination and Employment Act 19 Del. C. § 710, et seq.
(“DDEA”).
2
4. Defendant violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when it deprived Plaintiff of equal protection
under the law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution by
maintaining a policy, custom and practice of intentional sex discrimination as well as a policy of
condoning and promoting a sexually hostile work environment and refusing to adequately
investigate claims of sexual harassment.
5. Defendant further violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in maintaining a policy, custom, and
practice of condoning and promoting a sexually hostile work environment through its failure to
adequately supervise and train its employees and subordinates on adequate investigation and
prevention of claims of sexual harassment.
6. Defendant was negligent in its supervision and retention of employee John Farnan
and further in its training of laws, rules, regulations and policies to prevent sexual harassment and
gender discrimination which resulted in Plaintiff’s harm.
7. Defendant breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, which
under Delaware law, inheres in every contract.
JURISDICTION
9. This Court has federal question jurisdiction over this cause of action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3), and 28 U.S.C § 1331.
10. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over all state causes of action pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §1367.
11. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1331, as well as 28 U.S.C.
§ 1391(b).
PARTIES
12. Plaintiff, Susan Oberlander, is a female resident of Elkton, Cecil County, Maryland,
who at all times relevant to this Complaint was an employee of Defendant NCC.
3
13. Defendant NCC is headquartered at New Castle County Government Center, 87
Reads Way, New Castle, Delaware 19720.
14. Defendant Matthew Meyer (“Defendant Meyer”), the County Executive for New
Castle County, is being sued in his official capacity and is subject to service of process at 87 Reads
Way, New Castle, Delaware, 19720.
15. Defendant Dr. Jacqueline Jenkins (“Jenkins”), the Human Resources Officer, is
being sued in her official capacity and is subject to service of process at 87 Reads Way, New
Castle, Delaware, 19720.
16. Defendant Michael R. Smith (“Smith”), the Chief Financial Officer, is being sued
in his official capacity and is subject to service of process at 87 Reads Way, New Castle, Delaware,
19720.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS
17. On May 4, 2023, Plaintiff filed a timely Charge of Discrimination (Charge No.:
OBE050523/17C-2023-00321) with the Delaware Department of Labor (“DDOL”) and Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) alleging sexual harassment, gender
discrimination, hostile work environment and retaliation against Defendant.
18. On June 25, 2024, Plaintiff received a “Final Determination and Right to Sue
Notice” and a “Reasonable Cause Determination” from the DDOL for Charge No.:
OBE050523/17C-2023-00321, attached hereto as Exhibit A, which states that the DDOL “found
that there is reasonable cause to believe that an unlawful employment practice has occurred.”
19. On July 11, 2024, Plaintiff received a “Determination and Notice of Rights” with a
Right to Sue from the EEOC for Charge No.: OBE050523/17C-2023-00321, attached hereto as
Exhibit B.
4
20. On October 23, 2023, Plaintiff filed a timely Charge of Discrimination (Charge
No.: OBE102323/17C-2024-00189) with the DDOL and EEOC alleging gender discrimination
and retaliation against Defendant relating to Defendant’s failure to promote Plaintiff to the
Property Assessment Services Administrator (Assessor Supervisor) position.
21. On November 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed a timely Charge of Discrimination (Charge
No.: OBE112023/17C-2024-00160) with the DDOL and EEOC alleging gender discrimination
and retaliation against Defendant relating to Defendant’s failure to promote Plaintiff to the
Assessment Analyst position.
22. On May 17, 2024, Plaintiff received a “Final Determination and Right to Sue
Notice” from the DDOL for Charge No.: OBE112023/17C-2024-00160, attached hereto as Exhibit
E.
23. On June 17, 2024, Plaintiff received a “Determination and Notice of Rights” with
a Right to Sue from the EEOC for Charge No.: OBE112023/17C-2024-00160, attached hereto as
Exhibit F.
24. Plaintiff has filed this action within ninety (90) days after receipt of all issued
Federal Rights to Sue.
25. Plaintiff has satisfied all statutory prerequisites for filing this action.
FACTS
26. Plaintiff began her employment with Defendant on July 2, 2018, in the position of
Technician. Thereafter, Plaintiff was promoted to Certified Assessor I on November 29, 2018, and
then to Certified Assessor II on April 19, 2021.
27. Plaintiff has an excellent reputation and performance history at NCC. She has
received favorable performance evaluations which have continually qualified her for yearly salary
5
raises. In Plaintiff’s most recent annual performance evaluations from 2020 through 2024, she
received ratings of ‘Exceeds Requirements’, which is the highest possible overall rating.
28. At present Plaintiff continues to hold the position of Certified Assessor II, and is
scheduled to be promoted to Assessment Analyst on August 19, 2024.
29. Upon information and belief, on January 25, 2021, John Farnan was promoted to
the position of Property Assessment Services Administrator. At that time, Mr. Farnan became the
direct supervisor of ten (10) Certified Assessors, including Plaintiff.
30. In her role as Certified Assessor II and Mr. Farnan’s subordinate, Plaintiff reported
directly to Mr. Farnan and had daily interactions with him by way of work necessity as well as the
close proximity of their desks.
31. In addition to controlling and monitoring the daily work tasks and activities of
Plaintiff and the other Certified Assessors under his direct supervision, Mr. Farnan conducted and
signed Plaintiff’s annual performance evaluations as her supervisor. Moreover, upon information
and belief, it was Plaintiff’s understanding that Mr. Farnan had authority to reassign her job
responsibilities, discipline her, discharge her employment, or otherwise make decisions causing
changes in her benefits as well as the terms and conditions of her employment.
32. Following Mr. Farnan’s promotion, Plaintiff began to feel singled out and targeted
based on her sex. This included Mr. Farnan crossing professional boundaries which he did not
cross with other male employees.
33. In the course of their employment relationship, Mr. Farnan and Plaintiff often
communicated via text message to quickly communicate regarding work matters.
34. Mr. Farnan repeatedly contacted Plaintiff outside of working hours about non-
related work matters, making Plaintiff uncomfortable and uneasy.
6
35. Plaintiff instructed Mr. Farnan to stop texting her regarding non-work-related
matters on her personal phone because it made her uncomfortable.
36. Mr. Farnan intentionally disregarded Plaintiff’s request and he continued to text her
in inappropriate context which began to become sexual in nature.
37. Plaintiff confided in her co-worker that she wanted Mr. Farnan to stop texting her
and further informed her she wanted the texting to stop.
38. When Plaintiff was in her most vulnerable state, due to divorcing her husband, Mr.
Mr. Farnan took advantage of the situation by ramping up and increasing the aggressive nature of
his sexually explicit text messages to Plaintiff.
39. On July 9, 2022, Mr. Farnan sent sexually explicit and otherwise inappropriate text
messages to Plaintiff.
40. Mr. Farnan’s July 9, 2022 text messages to Ms. Oberlander included:
“I’m straight up not right. Straight up mommas boy”;

“get your boobs checked”;
“It took me like 5 minutes to send that. I’m so out there”;
“If I become an asshole let me know”;
“Haha. You are cute. Give me time Susan. You’ll be like f you”;
“Get your breast checked”;
“Next thing I knew I was calling a hooker”;
“If I get drunk and raunchy please give me a pass”;
“I’m a fuckin mess”;
“Hey I get a little out of hand sometimes. If I do that to you let me know.””;
“I need to take you for a sub or something cause dude I was close to hey, wanna get naked”;
“ARE you like look bitch”;
“wanna get naked”; and,
“You are hot as fuck.”
41. As a direct result of Mr. Farnan’s text messages, Plaintiff experienced severe
emotional distress.
7
42. Thereafter, on July 11, 2022, Mr. Farnan contacted Plaintiff via email and asked
him to respond via text message. In response, Plaintiff emailed Mr. Farnan that she would no
longer communicate with him via text message.
43. On November 8, 2022, beginning at 4:21 A.M., Mr. Farnan sent approximately
sixty-four (64) sexually explicit and otherwise inappropriate text messages, some of which
solicited sexual relations, to Plaintiff’s work phone.
44. Mr. Farnan’s November 8, 2022 text messages to Ms. Oberlander included:
“Give me a dude pass”;

“Can I say fuck people”;
“Say hay fat ass”;
“We’re you able to screw with me?”;
“Who wants a great screw?”;
“Do this. This makes sense you b and bitch”;
“Want to screww around”;
“I’m like, good looking hot girl”;
“Would you ever be John you are drunk but if you pay 500 I’d show you my boobs?”;
“But if people are not like you are gorgeous no one ever knows so I had to ask and if you
are upset? Tough.”;
“Wanna gett stupid? That’s wrong”;
“Wanna fuckka around?”;
“I can’t say hey lets do this, clit?”;
“I’m an dirty guy who just loves naked people”;
“Trust me you do not want to see me naked”;
“I’m 50 and bald and good foor.ypu”;
“Call me. Let’s have fuck it fun!”; and,
“You probably think I’m a drunk asshole and I would go with that but you are cute so go
with that.”
45. Thereafter, on November 9, 2022, Plaintiff reported Mr. Farnan’s sexual
harassment to his supervisor, Denzil Hardman, New Castle County Accounting and Fiscal
Manager.
46. Mr. Hardman informed Plaintiff that the matter would be looked into and instructed
her to work from home until further notice.
8
47. Plaintiff was forced to work from home while Mr. Farnan continued to work in the
office interacting with other female employees unrestricted.
48. Mr. Hardman instructed Plaintiff to inform him of when she would like to come
into the office to work thereafter to “coordinate” when she could come into the office in order to
keep her separate from Mr. Farnan.
49. Upon information and belief, Defendant still allowed Mr. Farnan to come into the
office at his convenience following Plaintiff’s report of sexual harassment.
50. Later in the day on November 9, 2022, Will Jones from Defendant Human
Resources reached out to Plaintiff instructing her to fill out and return a formal complaint form
and to report to Mr. Hardman rather than Mr. Farnan. Mr. Jones further confirmed that Plaintiff
would not have further contact with Mr. Farnan.
51. Defendant failed to take immediate action to protect Plaintiff and therefore, took
no action to instruct Mr. Farnan not to contact Plaintiff. As a result, Mr. Farnan reached out to
Plaintiff via text again on November 17, 2022.
52. Plaintiff thereafter informed Mr. Hardman and Mr. Jones of Mr. Farnan’s contact.
Upon information and belief, at that time, over a week after Plaintiff’s initial complaint, Defendant
informed Mr. Farnan a complaint was made against him and instructed him to cease contact with
Plaintiff.
53. Thereafter, on November 30, 2022, Celia Pagan from Defendant Human Resources
contacted Plaintiff instructing her to fill out a formal complaint despite Plaintiff filling out and
returning the same formal complaint form approximately two weeks prior.
54. On December 8, 2022, approximately one month after her complaint of sexual
harassment, Ms. Pagan met with Plaintiff to review her complaint.
9
55. During this meeting, Plaintiff was informed by Ms. Pagan that the delay in the
investigation process into Plaintiff’s complaint was because there were several other similar
incidents which took precedence over Plaintiff’s.
56. Thereafter, Defendant continued to mishandle and unreasonably delay its
investigation into Plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff received no information pertaining to the status
of her complaint or the investigation from the time of her interview on December 8, 2022 until she
reached out to Human Resources on January 24, 2023. Further, Plaintiff provided two witnesses
in support of her complaint, neither of which were contacted by Defendant in its investigation until
February 14, 2023, over three months after Plaintiff’s complaint
57. On March 23, 2023, over four months after Plaintiff’s complaint of sexual
harassment, Defendant Human Resources concluded its investigation and found that Plaintiff’s
allegations of sexual harassment were substantiated.
58. In its findings, Defendant Human Resources determined Mr. Farnan’s behavior
toward Plaintiff was unwelcomed, unprofessional, inappropriate, and interfered with her work
performance.
59. Defendant Human Resources assured Plaintiff that appropriate action would be
taken against Mr. Farnan.
60. Defendant did not take appropriate action following the substantiation of Plaintiff’s
allegations of sexual assault. Mr. Farnan continued to remain employed by NCC Government.
Eventually, Mr. Farnan was demoted to an equal position with Plaintiff, thereby making her
harasser Plaintiff’s co-worker. Mr. Farnan’s working location remains in close proximity to
Plaintiff’s desk and Plaintiff is still subject to continued contact with Mr. Farnan by way of
department meetings, internal communications, work events, and other such means.
10
61. Upon information and belief, even after Plaintiff’s allegations of sexual harassment
were substantiated, Defendant continued to allow Mr. Farnan to come into the office at his own
convenience. Meanwhile, Plaintiff was still instructed to notify Mr. Hardman when she would like
to come into the office and wait for permission to come in when Mr. Farnan was not in the office
until June 20, 2023.
62. Additionally, on May 15, 2023 through May 17, 2023, after Plaintiff’s allegations
of sexual harassment were substantiated, Defendant allowed Mr. Farnan to attend an overnight
work conference in Ocean City, Maryland with other female employees.
63. Contrary to NCC polices and Federal and State Plaintiff was retaliated against for
making her reports of sexual harassment against her supervisor.
64. Since making her report of sexual harassment Plaintiff applied for two promotional
positions. However, on both occasions, Plaintiff was not selected even though she was qualified.
The positions were both offered to employees who did not engage in protected activity.
65. In or around June 30, 2023, Defendant posted a promotional opening for the
Property Assessment Services Administrator (Assessor Supervisor) position.
66. The open Property Assessment Services Administrator position was previously
held by Plaintiff’s former supervisor, John Farnan.
67. Plaintiff applied for the Property Assessment Services Administrator position on
July 10, 2023.
68. On or around September 8, 2023, Plaintiff interviewed for the Property Assessment
Services Administrator position. This interview was conducted by Denzil Hardman, Laura
McDermott, Rafat Kille, and an unknown individual from NCC’s Finance Department.
11
69. Thereafter, on or around September 18, 2023, Erin Drysdale, a female employee
who upon information and belief had not engaged in protected activity, was promoted to the
Property Assessment Services Administrator position over Plaintiff.
70. Plaintiff was more qualified for the Assessment Services Administrator position
than Erin Drysdale.
71. Upon information and belief, Erin Drysdale was not certified as a Certified
Assessor II when she was hired for the Assessment Services Administrator position, which was
one of the qualification requirements for the position. Defendant NCC allowed Drysdale to curtain
this qualification by obtaining her certification after she was promoted to the Assessment Services
Administrator position. In contrast, Plaintiff met this qualification as she already had her
certification as a Certified Assessor II.
72. Moreover, Plaintiff was more qualified for the Assessment Services Administrator
position because Plaintiff had more management experience than Erin Drysdale. Upon information
and belief, Erin Drysdale did not have any prior management experience while Plaintiff had
approximately five (5) years of management experience prior to beginning her employment with
NCC.
73. As a result of the continued discrimination and retaliation, Plaintiff filed a Charge
of Discrimination with the Delaware Department of Labor and Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission on October 23, 2023 (Charge No. OBE102323/17C-2024-00189).
74. In or around September 21, 2023, Defendant posted a promotional opening for an
Assessment Analyst position.
75. The open Assessment Analyst position was previously held by Erin Drysdale prior
to her promotion to Property Assessment Services Administrator.
12
76. Plaintiff applied for the Assessment Analyst position on October 2, 2023.
77. On or around October 25, 2023, Plaintiff interviewed for the Assessment Analyst
position. This interview was conducted by Denzil Hardman, Rafat Kille, Erin Drysdale, and an
unknown individual from NCC’s Human Resources.
78. Thereafter, on or around November 9, 2023, Jason Warren, a male employee who
upon information and belief had not engaged in protected activity, was promoted to the Assessment
Analyst position over Plaintiff.
79. Plaintiff was more qualified for the Assessment Analyst position than Jason
Warren.
80. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff had more experience than Jason Warren as
she had been working at the Office of Assessment for longer than him. Moreover, during their
tenure, Plaintiff had higher productivity than Jason Warren and consistently received high
performance ratings. Additionally, Plaintiff had increased job responsibilities in comparison to
Jason Warren, including training more Assessors.
81. Furthermore, Plaintiff ranked higher than Jason Warren and was selected for
promotion over him in two prior promotional cycles.
82. Plaintiff was denied a promotion by Defendant in retaliation for her reports of
discrimination.
83. Denzil Hardman, an interview panel member and a decision maker in Defendant’s
promotional processes, was aware of Plaintiff’s prior complaints of sexual harassment,
discrimination, and retaliation.
84. Despite Plaintiff’s qualifications and performance history, Defendant
discriminatorily and retaliatorily failed to promote Plaintiff in its subsequent promotional cycle
13
following her protected activity of filing Charges of Discrimination with the Delaware Department
of Labor and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
85. As a result of the continued discrimination and retaliation, Plaintiff filed a Charge
of Discrimination with the Delaware Department of Labor and Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission on November 20, 2023 (Charge No. OBE112023 / 17C-2024-00160).
86. On June 25, 2024, after the DDOL’s investigation into Plaintiff’s Charge (Charge
No. OBE050523/17C-2023-00321) alleging sexual harassment, gender discrimination, hostile
work environment and retaliation against Defendant, the DDOL issued a “Reasonable Cause
Determination” citing that in its investigation the DDOL had “found that there is reasonable cause
to believe that an unlawful employment practice has occurred.”
87. As a result of Defendant’s continued discrimination and retaliation Plaintiff has
experienced and suffered from low self-esteem, lack of self-confidence, humiliation, feelings of
betrayal, powerlessness and mistrust.
CLAIMS AND DAMAGES
Based upon the above allegations, Plaintiff maintains the following legal claims against
Defendant:
COUNT I
Violations of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 2000(e), et seq.) and the
Delaware Discrimination in Employment Act (19 Del. C. § 710, et seq.) –
Discrimination Based on Sex–
Sexual Harassment and Hostile Work Environment
88. The allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 87 are incorporated by reference as if fully
restated herein.
14
89. Defendant NCC employs fifteen or more employees within the State of Delaware
and is an “Employer” as defined by Title VII (42 U.S.C. § 2000(e)(b)) and the DDEA (19 Del. C.
§ 710(7)).
90. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff was employed by Defendant NCC and is an
“Employee” as defined by Title VII (42 U.S.C. § 2000(e)(f)) and the DDEA (19 Del. C. § 710(6)).
91. For Charge No. OBE050523/17C-2023-00321, Plaintiff received a Right to Sue
letter from the DDOL on June 25, 2024 (Exhibit A) and a Right to Sue letter from the EEOC on
July 11, 2024 (Exhibit B).
letter from the DDOL on May 17, 2024 (Exhibit C) and a Right to Sue letter from the EEOC on
June 17, 2024 (Exhibit D).
94. Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff in the terms and conditions of her
employment on the basis of her sex by way of subjecting her to sexual harassment and a hostile
work environment.
95. Plaintiff was subjected to sexual harassment and a hostile work environment
perpetuated by Defendant, which has continued through her employment at NCC.
96. As stated above, Plaintiff was repeatedly subjected to unwelcome sexual advances,
requests of sexual nature, and sexually explicit text messages sufficient to constitute sexual
harassment from John Farnan which impacted her ability to work in a job she enjoyed.
97. The comments and actions by Defendant, by and through its employee, John
Farnan, were based upon Plaintiff’s sex. The sexually explicit and graphic text messages had
numerous effects on Plaintiff’s work including; making Plaintiff’s working conditions intolerable,
15
creating tension in her professional relationships with her supervisor and co-workers, causing her
severe stress and anxiety, inducing Plaintiff to forgo networking opportunities and other
opportunities for advancement, and causing strain in her personal life. Further, this created and
subjected Plaintiff to a hostile work environment on the basis of her gender.
98. Plaintiff was effectively forced to abstain from several opportunities to participate
in trainings and conferences in order to avoid continued contact with her male harasser, which has
impacted her ability to advance her career.
99. This discrimination detrimentally affected Plaintiff. Moreover, the sexual
harassment and hostile work environment endured by Plaintiff would detrimentally affect a
reasonable person of the same sex in the same position.
100. At the time of such conduct, John Farnan was Plaintiff’s direct supervisor. At all
times relevant to this Complaint, it was Plaintiff’s understanding that John Farnan was empowered
by NCC to take action to change her employment status and that he directed Plaintiff’s daily work
activities. Furthermore, John Farnan is listed as Plaintiff’s supervisor in her annual performance
evaluations spanning from 2021 through 2023.
101. The comments and actions by Defendant, by and through its employee, John
Farnan, were severe and/or pervasive, thus altering the terms and conditions of Plaintiff’s
employment and creating an abusive work environment.
102. The sexually explicit and graphic text messages permeated Plaintiff’s work
environment as they occurred regularly and by her direct supervisor, thereby making Plaintiff’s
working conditions intolerable.
16
103. The discrimination and sexual harassment Plaintiff endured had the purpose and
effect of unreasonably interfering with Plaintiff’s work performance and creating an intimidating,
hostile and offensive working environment.
104. Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff by imposing a hostile work environment
upon Plaintiff by condoning the sexually harassing conduct of John Farnan.
105. Upon information and belief, Defendant Human Resources had previously received
complaints of a similar nature about John Farnan, placing Defendant on notice of his sexual
propensity and discrimination.
106. Defendant knew, or should have known, about the sexual harassment and the
propensity for continuation of such conduct and failed to take proper corrective action.
107. Defendant failed to promptly investigate Plaintiff’s complaint of sexual
harassment. Plaintiff made Defendant aware of the sexual harassment she endured on November
9, 2022, however despite her various attempts to cooperate with Human Resources and progress
its investigation, an investigation decision was not issued by Defendant until March 23, 2023, over
four months after Plaintiff’s complaint.
108. Moreover, Defendant failed to take proper corrective action against John Farnan,
which impacted and continues to impact Plaintiff’s ability to work in a job she enjoyed.
Defendant’s investigation found that Farnan’s behavior was unwelcomed, unprofessional,
inappropriate, and interfered with Plaintiff’s work performance and advised that action would be
taken, however Defendant merely demoted Farnan to an equal position to Plaintiff within the same
department.
109. NCC did not take prompt or appropriate action to prevent the discriminatory and
harassing behavior.
17
110. Defendant acquiesced in the discriminatory and harassing conduct by creating and
allowing to exist a hostile, intolerable, offensive and abusive workplace that a reasonable person
would consider intimidating, hostile, or abusive.
111. Defendant’s actions stated above are sufficient to support a continuing violation of
sexual harassment and a hostile work environment claim as they are a series of separate acts that
collectively constitute one unlawful employment practice. The discrimination Plaintiff endured
was not isolated or sporadic incidents and therefore are part of the same unlawful employment
practice.
112. Defendant has intentionally violated Plaintiff’s rights under Title VII and the
DDEA, with malice or reckless indifference, and as a result is liable for punitive damages.
113. As a direct and proximate result of the discriminatory and wrongful conduct of
Defendant, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer from severe emotional distress,
humiliation, anxiety, irreparable damage to her professional career and economic loss.
COUNT II
Violations of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 2000(e), et seq.) and the
Delaware Discrimination in Employment Act (19 Del. C. § 710, et seq.) –
Retaliation
114. The allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 113 are incorporated by reference as if
fully restated herein.
115. Defendant NCC employs fifteen or more employees within the State of Delaware
and is an “Employer” as defined by Title VII (42 U.S.C. § 2000(e)(b)) and the DDEA (19 Del. C.
§ 710(7)).
116. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff was employed by Defendant NCC and is an
“Employee” as defined by Title VII (42 U.S.C. § 2000(e)(f)) and the DDEA (19 Del. C. § 710(6)).
18
letter from the DDOL on June 25, 2024 (Exhibit A) and a Right to Sue letter from the EEOC on
July 11, 2024 (Exhibit B).
letter from the DDOL on May 17, 2024 (Exhibit C) and a Right to Sue letter from the EEOC on
June 17, 2024 (Exhibit D).
120. Plaintiff engaged in protected activity on November 9, 2022 when she reported to
Denzil Hardman and Defendant Human Resources that she had endured sexual harassment,
discrimination, and a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 and the Delaware Discrimination in Employment Act in the manners described above.
121. Moreover, Plaintiff engaged in protected activity when she filed a Charge of
Discrimination with the Delaware Department of Labor and Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission on May 4, 2023 (Charge No. OBE050523/17C-2023-00321).
122. Such complaints are a protected activity under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 and the Delaware Discrimination in Employment Act.
123. On or around, July 10, 2023, following Plaintiff’s protected activity, she applied
for the open Property Assessment Services Administrator position.
124. Thereafter, on or around September 8, 2023, Plaintiff interviewed for the Property
Assessment Services Administrator position. This interview was conducted by a panel including
Denzil Hardman, who was aware of Plaintiff’s protected activity.
19
125. Denzil Hardman scored the candidates’ interviews, including Plaintiff’s, and had
decision-making power in the hiring process for the Property Assessment Services Administrator
position.
126. Thereafter, on or around September 18, 2023, Erin Drysdale, a female employee
who upon information and belief had not engaged in protected activity, was promoted to the
Property Assessment Services Administrator position over Plaintiff.
127. Plaintiff engaged in further protected activity when she filed a Charge of
Discrimination (Charge No.: OBE102323/17C-2024-00189) with the DDOL and EEOC on
October 23, 2023, alleging gender discrimination and retaliation against Defendant relating to
Defendant’s failure to promote Plaintiff to the Property Assessment Services Administrator
position.
128. On or around October 2, 2023, Plaintiff applied for the open Assessment Analyst
position.
129. Thereafter, on or around October 25, 2023, following Plaintiff’s protected activity,
she interviewed for the Assessment Analyst position. This interview was conducted by a panel
including Denzil Hardman, who was aware of Plaintiff’s protected activity.
130. Denzil Hardman scored the candidates’ interviews, including Plaintiff’s, and had
decision-making power in the hiring process for the Property Assessment Services Administrator
position.
131. Thereafter, on or around November 9, 2023, Jason Warren, a male employee who
upon information and belief had not engaged in protected activity, was promoted to the Assessment
Analyst position over Plaintiff.
20
132. Plaintiff was more qualified than the other candidates that Defendant selected for
promotion.
133. By way of explanation, Plaintiff was more qualified than Erin Drysdale because
she held certification as a Certified Assessor II when Erin Drysdale did not. This certification was
a qualification requirement for the Assessment Services Administrator position. Moreover,
Plaintiff was more qualified for the Assessment Services Administrator position because she had
more management experience than Erin Drysdale.
134. Furthermore, Plaintiff was more qualified than Jason Warren for the Assessment
Analyst position because she had more experience and higher productivity than him. Additionally,
Plaintiff was previously promoted over Jason Warren in two prior promotional cycles for Certified
Assessor I and Certified Assessor II positions.
135. Despite her qualifications, Defendant denied Plaintiff promotion for the Property
Assessment Services Administrator and Assessment Analyst promotional positions in retaliation
for her reports of sexual harassment and discrimination.
136. Thereafter, Plaintiff again engaged in protected activity when she filed a Charge of
Discrimination (Charge No.: OBE112023/17C-2024-00160) with the DDOL and EEOC on
November 20, 2023, alleging gender discrimination and retaliation in Defendant’s promotional
process.
137. Defendant has continuously retaliated against Plaintiff for her engagement in
protected activity by repeatedly failing to promote her.
138. Since Plaintiff’s report of sexual harassment on November 9, 2022, and her first
Charge of Discrimination with the DDOL/EEOC on May 4, 2023, Defendant has failed to promote
21
Plaintiff on two occasions. On both occasions, Plaintiff was denied promotion in favor of
individuals who did not engage in protected activity and were less qualified than Plaintiff.
139. Defendant has intentionally violated Plaintiff’s rights under Title VII and the
DDEA, with malice or reckless indifference and as a result is liable for punitive damages.
140. As a direct result of the discriminatory and wrongful conduct of Defendant, Plaintiff
has suffered and continues to suffer from severe emotional distress, humiliation, anxiety,
irreparable damage to her professional career and economic loss.
COUNT III
Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 –
Sexual Harassment and Hostile Work Environment
142. Defendant’s discriminatory conduct, as set forth herein, deprived Plaintiff of equal
protection under the law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States
Constitution.
143. Municipal bodies are liable for constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C § 1983
when execution of its official policy or custom deprives an individual of her rights protected under
the Constitution.
144. The incidents of sexual harassment as described in the above paragraphs had the
effect of substantially interfering with Plaintiff’s work performance by creating a hostile,
intimidating, and offensive working environment amounting to unlawful sex discrimination in
violation of Plaintiff’s right under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
22
145. Defendant violated the rights secured to Plaintiff by 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution to be free from
sex discrimination in public employment in that, having actual or constructive knowledge of the
sexual harassment committed by John Farnan, it acted with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s
rights in failing to promptly intervene to stop the unlawful conduct, in failing to properly supervise
or control John Farnan, and in failing to promptly remedy John Farnan’s conduct after they learned
of such conduct.
146. Defendant maintained a policy, custom and practice of intentional sex
discrimination as well as a policy of condoning and promoting a sexually hostile work environment
and refusal to adequately investigate claims of sexual harassment. Defendant’s policy, custom and
practice have deprived Plaintiff of her rights protected by Title VII and the Fourteenth
Amendment.
147. John Farnan’s discriminatory actions are representative of an official policy or
custom of Defendant which condones sexual harassment and perpetuates a hostile work
environment.
148. John Farnan, individually and in his official capacity, acted with deliberate
indifference to Plaintiff’s constitutional rights in that he intentionally and continuously sexually
harassed Plaintiff during her employment with Defendant NCC. John Farnan knew he could get
away with his discriminatory behavior as Defendant condoned his behavior.
149. Denzil Hardman knew of John Farnan’s discriminatory conduct as it was reported
to him. Denzil Hardman, individually and in his official capacity, acted with deliberate
indifference and failed to promptly and adequately address John Farnan’s discriminatory conduct,
23
thereby acquiescing to his conduct. This allowed Plaintiff to be continually subjected to sexual
harassment and a hostile work environment.
150. Defendant acted with deliberate indifference in its investigation into Plaintiff’s
claims by delaying interviewing Plaintiff and witnesses and otherwise failing to promptly
investigate Plaintiff’s claims in order to prolong the investigation to protect John Farnan.
151. Defendant’s violation of the United States Constitution included policies, practices,
and/or customs to treat female employees less favorably than male employees and to promote a
policy of sex discrimination, which was committed, directed, implemented and/or ratified by
officials of Defendant in supervisory capacities with policymaking and decision-making authority.
152. The unconstitutional behavior of the Defendant was carried out pursuant to a policy,
pattern of practice, or custom, whether formal or informal, which violates the constitutional rights
of Plaintiff.
153. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s conduct which caused Plaintiff to
be denied equal protection under the law, Plaintiff suffered injuries, damages, and losses alleged
herein and has incurred attorney’s fees.
suffered and continues to suffer from severe emotional distress, humiliation, anxiety, irreparable
damage to her professional career and economic loss.
COUNT IV
Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 –
Failure to Train/Supervise
24
156. Municipal bodies are liable for constitutional violations under 42 U.S.C § 1983
when execution of its official policy or custom deprives an individual of her rights protected under
the Constitution.
157. Defendant maintained a policy, custom, and practice of condoning and promoting
a sexually hostile work environment through its failure to adequately supervise and train its
employees and subordinates on adequate investigation and prevention of claims of sexual
harassment.
158. Defendant acted with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s constitutional rights
when it had actual knowledge of the sexually discriminatory environment perpetuated by John
Farnan and failed to establish appropriate policies and procedures and appropriately train and
supervise its employees, namely Denzil Hardman and John Farnan, on the investigation and
prevention of sexual harassment in the workplace.
159. Upon notice of the sexual harassment of Plaintiff, Defendant had a duty to properly
investigate Plaintiff’s report of sexual harassment and prevent any further sexual harassment.
Instead, due to Defendant’s failure to train and supervise Denzil Hardman and John Farnan, it
failed to take appropriate remedial action and thereby consciously acquiesced to John Farnan’s
conduct.
160. Defendant acted with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s constitutional rights
when it failed to appropriately train NCC supervisory staff and subordinates on the investigation
and prevention of sexual harassment in the workplace.
161. Defendant failed to adequately supervise John Farnan, allowing him to sexually
harass Plaintiff on several occasions.
25
162. Defendant intentionally failed to take measures reasonably calculated to end or
mitigate that harassment of female employees, including Plaintiff. Defendant’s failure to enforce
effective discipline against a harasser, protect female employees, and eliminate or curtail sexual
harassment against them has been so widespread and well-settled as to constitute the de facto
equivalent of a formal policy of sex discrimination.
163. Multiple NCC policy makers, including Denzil Hardman, as well as other high-
ranking members of the New Castle County municipality, implemented a custom and policy of
complacency by looking the other way and failing to take any corrective action to prevent sexual
harassment of its female employees, including Plaintiff.
164. Upon information and belief, Defendant has constructive and/or actual notice that
John Farnan engaged in sexual harassment perpetrated against several female NCC employees,
including Plaintiff, and took no action to stop this conduct.
165. Defendant was complicit in John Farnan’s actions and thereby created a custom
and policy of acceptance of sexual harassment against female employees.
166. Defendant has created a policy and custom to dissuade victims of sexual harassment
from coming forward by failing to take appropriate corrective action against harassers, including
John Farnan.
167. Through its polices, practices, and customs, whether formal or informal, Defendant
deprived Plaintiff of her right to due process as protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution, and 42 U.S.C. §1983.
168. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s wanton, willful, and/or reckless
acts and conduct which caused Plaintiff to be denied equal protection under the law, Plaintiff
suffered injuries, damages, and losses alleged herein and has incurred attorney’s fees.
26
suffered and continues to suffer from severe emotional distress, humiliation, anxiety, irreparable
damage to her professional career and economic loss.
COUNT V
Negligent Supervision, Training, and Retention
171. Defendant failed to exercise ordinary care to prevent an intentional harm suffered
by Plaintiff committed by its employee, John Farnan.
172. John Farnan’s acts of sexual harassment against Plaintiff were done in acting
outside the scope of his employment.
173. John Farnan’s harassment of Plaintiff was committed via a cellular device issued
by Defendant NCC.
174. Defendant knew and had reason to know of the necessity and ability to control John
Farnan. At all times relevant hereto, John Farnan was an employee of Defendant NCC and was
subject to its control and supervision.
175. Plaintiff knew of its need to control John Farnan by way of Plaintiff’s reports of his
misconduct made to Denzil Hardman and Defendant NCC Human Resources.
176. Upon information and belief, Defendant also had reason to know of the necessity
to control John Farnan by way of previous disciplinary concerns and complaints against him.
177. Moreover, Defendant had a duty to train its employees on its sexual harassment and
misconduct policies, which prohibit sexual harassment as well as retaliation against individuals
involved in reporting or investigating alleged sexual misconduct violations. These policies further
outline requirements for reporting and investigating misconduct.
27
178. Defendant owed Plaintiff a duty to as an employee of NCC to enjoy a workplace
free from sexual harassment.
179. Defendant breached this duty to supervise its employees when it allowed John
Farnan to sexually harass Plaintiff.
180. Moreover, Defendant had a duty to provide its employees with adequate annual
sexual harassment and misconduct training.
181. Defendant failed to adequately train its employees, including John Farnan,
regarding such sexual harassment and misconduct policies.
182. Due to Defendant’s failure to supervise its employee, John Farnan, and its failure
to properly train its employees on its own sexual harassment and misconduct policies Plaintiff was
harmed.
183. Defendant intentionally, willfully, wantonly, recklessly and with gross negligence
breach its duty to Plaintiff by retaining and failing to supervise John Farnan, failing to properly
and adequately train its employees on its own sexual harassment and misconduct policies, and
failed to protect Plaintiff from the foreseeable harassment of John Farnan when they knew or
should have known that he posed a danger to Plaintiff and other NCC employees.
184. As a direct result of the wrongful conduct of Defendant, Plaintiff has suffered and
continues to suffer from severe emotional distress, humiliation, anxiety, irreparable damage to her
professional career and economic loss.
COUNT VI
Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
28
186. Every contract, whether oral or written, express or implied, has a covenant to the
effect that neither party to the contract will do anything in bad faith to prevent the other party to
the contract from enjoying the benefits of the contract. This is known as the implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing, and this covenant applies to the employment agreement between
Plaintiff and Defendant NCC.
187. Delaware has a clear and firmly rooted public policy to deter, prevent and punish
sexual harassment in the workplace.
188. Defendant breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing by condoning and
perpetuating discriminatory conduct and sexual harassment.
189. Defendant’s failure to adequately address, investigate, or prevent the sexual
harassment endured by Plaintiff is in violation of Delaware public policy.
190. Furthermore, Defendant is subject to specific obligations to prevent further sexual
harassment stemming from incidents of sexual harassment or misconduct spanning from 1996 to
2016.
191. Defendant’s failure to comply with public policy constitutes breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
192. Defendant’s breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing has
damaged Plaintiff financially and professionally.
has suffered and continues to suffer from severe emotional distress, humiliation, anxiety,
irreparable damage to her professional career and economic loss.
29
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Court order the following relief in favor of
Plaintiff:
A. Declare the conduct by Defendant to be in violation of Plaintiff’s statutory
rights and common law rights.
B. Award Plaintiff any and all consequential damages, including but not limited
to lost wages, salary, employment benefits, back pay, front pay, pre and post
judgement interest, equity, liquidated damages and any or all pecuniary
damages.
C. Award Plaintiff all compensation due as a result of Defendant’s violations
herein.
D. Award Plaintiff emotional distress damages.
E. Award Plaintiff all attorney’s fees, costs and expenses available under the law.
F. Award Plaintiff punitive damages to deter the Defendant and others from
engaging in conduct similar to that which formed the basis of the lawsuit.
G. Award Plaintiff pre and post judgment interest at the legal rate.
H. Any and all such other relief as the Court deems appropriate under the
circumstances.
ALLEN & ASSOCIATES

/s/ Michele D. Allen
Michele D. Allen (#4359)
4250 Lancaster Pike Suite 230
Wilmington, DE 19805
302-234-8600
302-379-3930 (fax)
michele@allenlaborlaw.com
Dated: August 15, 2024 Attorney for Plaintiff
30
Case 1:24-cv-00951-UNA Document 1-1 Filed 08/15/24 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 31
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Philadelphia District Office
801 Market St, Suite 1000
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(267) 589-9700
Website: www.eeoc.gov
DETERMINATION AND NOTICE OF RIGHTS

(This Notice replaces EEOC FORMS 161 & 161-A)
To: Susan Oberlander

11 Hickory Lane
Elkton, MD 21921
Re: Susan Oberlander v. New Castle County, Office of Assessment

EEOC Charge Number: 17C-2023-00321
EEOC Representative and email: State Local and Tribal Program Manager
PHLSTATEANDLOCAL@EEOC.GOV
DETERMINATION OF CHARGE
The EEOC issues the following determination: The EEOC has adopted the findings of the state
or local fair employment practices agency that investigated your charge.
NOTICE OF YOUR RIGHT TO SUE
This is official notice from the EEOC of the dismissal of your charge and of your right to sue. If
you choose to file a lawsuit against the respondent(s) on this charge under federal law, your
lawsuit must be filed WITHIN 90 DAYS of your receipt of this notice. Receipt generally
occurs on the date that you (or your representative) received this document. You should keep a
record of the date you received this notice. Your right to sue based on this charge will be lost if
you do not file a lawsuit in court within 90 days. (The time limit for filing a lawsuit based on a
claim under state law may be different.)
Please retain this notice for your records.
On Behalf of the Commission:
Digitally Signed By: Karen McDonough 7/11/2024

Karen McDonough
Deputy District Director
cc: For Respondent For Charging Party
Maria Knoll Michele Allen, Esq.

New Castle County Allen & Associates
87 READS WAY 4250 Lancaster Pike, Ste 230
New Castle, DE 19720 Wilmington, DE 19805
INFORMATION RELATED TO FILING SUIT

UNDER THE LAWS ENFORCED BY THE EEOC
(This information relates to filing suit in Federal or State court under Federal law. If you also plan
to sue claiming violations of State law, please be aware that time limits may be shorter and other
provisions of State law may be different than those described below.)
IMPORTANT TIME LIMITS – 90 DAYS TO FILE A LAWSUIT

If you choose to file a lawsuit against the respondent(s) named in the charge of discrimination, you
must file a complaint in court within 90 days of the date you receive this Notice. Receipt generally
means the date when you (or your representative) received the document. You should keep a record
of the date you received this notice. Once this 90-day period has passed, your right to sue based
on the charge referred to in this Notice will be lost. If you intend to consult an attorney, you should
do so promptly. Give your attorney a copy of this Notice, and the record of your receiving it (email
or envelope).
If your lawsuit includes a claim under the Equal Pay Act (EPA), you must file your complaint in
court within 2 years (3 years for willful violations) of the date you did not receive equal pay. This
time limit for filing an EPA lawsuit is separate from the 90-day filing period under Title VII, the
ADA, GINA or the ADEA referred to above. Therefore, if you also plan to sue under Title VII, the
ADA, GINA or the ADEA, in addition to suing on the EPA claim, your lawsuit must be filed within
90 days of this Notice and within the 2- or 3-year EPA period.
Your lawsuit may be filed in U.S. District Court or a State court of competent jurisdiction. Whether
you file in Federal or State court is a matter for you to decide after talking to your attorney. You
must file a “complaint” that contains a short statement of the facts of your case which shows that
you are entitled to relief. Filing this Notice is not enough. For more information about filing a
lawsuit, go to https://www.eeoc.gov/employees/lawsuit.cfm.
ATTORNEY REPRESENTATION
For information about locating an attorney to represent you, go to:
https://www.eeoc.gov/employees/lawsuit.cfm.
In very limited circumstances, a U.S. District Court may appoint an attorney to represent individuals
who demonstrate that they are financially unable to afford an attorney.
EXHIBIT C
STATE OF DELAWARE
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
DIVISION OF INDUSTRIAL AFFAIRS – OFFICE OF ANTI-DISCRIMINATION
Susan Oberlander DDOL No.: OBE112023 / 17C-2024-00160

11 Hickory Lane
Elkton, MD 21921
v.
New Castle County

Office of Assessment
87 Reads Way
New Castle, DE 19720
FINAL DETERMINATION AND RIGHT TO SUE NOTICE
Pursuant to 19 Del. C. § 710, et seq., the parties in the above-captioned matter are hereby Noticed of the Department’s
Final Determination and Right to Sue Notice, as follows:
No-Cause Determination and Dismissal with Corresponding Right to Sue Notice
In this case, the Department has completed its investigation and found that there is no reasonable cause to believe that
an unlawful employment practice has occurred. The Department hereby issues a No-Cause Determination and Dismissal
and provides the Charging Party with a Delaware Right to Sue Notice.
This No Cause determination is based on the following facts:
Charging Party alleges the Respondent took adverse employment action Failure to Promote/Retaliation against her based upon her
sex (female) and retaliation. The Respondent denied the allegations of discrimination. The Department of Labor conducted an
investigation and determined that the evidence did not establish reasonable cause to believe the Respondent violated the anti-
discrimination laws. On May 6, 2024, we notified the Charging Party of our preliminary findings. We gave the Charging Party an
opportunity to respond.
Charging Party submitted a response; however, the response contained no information that could have resulted in a different
outcome.
Therefore, we are making a finding of No Reasonable Cause.
This final determination is not intended to be construed as an endorsement of Respondent’s actions and is not intended to impact any
rights Charging Party may have under other laws.
See the attached Notice of Rights.
This Final Determination is hereby issued on behalf of the Department of Labor, Division of Industrial Affairs, Office of
Anti-Discrimination.
Jason K. Atallian, Administrator

Division of Industrial Affairs, Office of Anti-Discrimination
Fri May 17 00:00:00 EDT 2024
Delaware Department of Labor, Division of Industrial Affairs, 4425 N. Market St., Wilmington, DE 19802
17C NC Determination – RTS 20240301
NOTICE OF DELAWARE RIGHTS
The Department of Labor Office of Anti-Discrimination provides the following excerpt from 19
Del. C. § 710, et seq. as information regarding the Delaware Right to Sue Notice. If you need legal
advice, please seek your own legal counsel.
§ 714. Civil action by the Charging Party; Delaware Right to Sue Notice; election of remedies.
(a) A Charging Party may file a civil action in Superior Court, after exhausting the
administrative remedies provided herein and receipt of a Delaware Right to Sue Notice
acknowledging same.
(b) The Delaware Right to Sue Notice shall include authorization for the Charging Party to
bring a civil action under this Chapter in Superior Court by instituting suit within ninety (90) days of its
receipt or within ninety (90) days of receipt of a Federal Right to Sue Notice, whichever is later.
(c) The Charging Party shall elect a Delaware or federal forum to prosecute the
employment discrimination cause of action so as to avoid unnecessary costs, delays and duplicative
litigation. A Charging Party is barred by this election of remedies from filing cases in both Superior
Court and the federal forum. If the Charging Party files in Superior Court and in a federal forum, the
Respondent may file an application to dismiss the Superior Court action under this election of
remedies provision.
NOTICE OF FEDERAL RIGHTS
1. If your case was also filed under federal law and resulted in a “No Cause” finding, you have
additional appeal rights with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Under Section
1601.76 of EEOC’s regulations, you are entitled to request that EEOC perform a Substantial
Weight Review of the DDOL’s final finding. To obtain this review, you must request it by
writing to EEOC within 15 days of your receipt of DDOL’s final finding in your case.
Otherwise, EEOC will generally adopt the DDOL’s findings.
2. If your case was also filed under federal law, you have the right to request a federal Right to
Sue Notice from the EEOC. To obtain such a federal Right to Sue Notice, you must make a
written request directly to EEOC at the address shown below. Upon its receipt, EEOC will
issue you a Notice of Right to Sue and you will have ninety (90) days to file suit. The issuance
of a Notice of Right to Sue will normally result in EEOC terminating all further processing.
3. Requests may be addressed to: PHLSTATEANDLOCAL@eeoc.gov or mailed to:
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

801 Market Street
Penthouse, Suite 1300
Delaware Department of Labor, Division of Industrial Affairs, 4425 N. Market St., Wilmington, DE 19802
17C NC Determination – RTS 20240301

EXHIBIT D
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

Philadelphia District Office
801 Market St, Suite 1000
(267) 589-9700
Website: www.eeoc.gov
DETERMINATION AND NOTICE OF RIGHTS

(This Notice replaces EEOC FORMS 161 & 161-A)
To: Susan Oberlander

11 Hickory Lane
Elkton, MD 21921
Re: Susan Oberlander v. New Castle County, Office of Assessment

EEOC Charge Number: 17C-2024-00160
EEOC Representative and email: State Local and Tribal Program Manager
PHLSTATEANDLOCAL@EEOC.GOV
DETERMINATION OF CHARGE
The EEOC issues the following determination: The EEOC has adopted the findings of the state
or local fair employment practices agency that investigated your charge.
NOTICE OF YOUR RIGHT TO SUE
This is official notice from the EEOC of the dismissal of your charge and of your right to sue. If
you choose to file a lawsuit against the respondent(s) on this charge under federal law, your
lawsuit must be filed WITHIN 90 DAYS of your receipt of this notice. Receipt generally
occurs on the date that you (or your representative) received this document. You should keep a
record of the date you received this notice. Your right to sue based on this charge will be lost if
you do not file a lawsuit in court within 90 days. (The time limit for filing a lawsuit based on a
claim under state law may be different.)
Please retain this notice for your records.
On Behalf of the Commission:
Digitally Signed By: Karen McDonough 6/17/2024

Karen McDonough
Deputy District Director
cc: For Respondent For Charging Party
Maria Knoll, Assistant County Attorney Michele D Allen, Esq.

New Castle County Allen and Associates
87 READS WAY 4250 Lancaster Pike, Suite 230
New Castle, DE 19720 Wilmington, DE 19805
INFORMATION RELATED TO FILING SUIT

UNDER THE LAWS ENFORCED BY THE EEOC
(This information relates to filing suit in Federal or State court under Federal law. If you also plan
to sue claiming violations of State law, please be aware that time limits may be shorter and other
provisions of State law may be different than those described below.)
IMPORTANT TIME LIMITS – 90 DAYS TO FILE A LAWSUIT

If you choose to file a lawsuit against the respondent(s) named in the charge of discrimination, you
must file a complaint in court within 90 days of the date you receive this Notice. Receipt generally
means the date when you (or your representative) received the document. You should keep a record
of the date you received this notice. Once this 90-day period has passed, your right to sue based
on the charge referred to in this Notice will be lost. If you intend to consult an attorney, you should
do so promptly. Give your attorney a copy of this Notice, and the record of your receiving it (email
or envelope).
If your lawsuit includes a claim under the Equal Pay Act (EPA), you must file your complaint in
court within 2 years (3 years for willful violations) of the date you did not receive equal pay. This
time limit for filing an EPA lawsuit is separate from the 90-day filing period under Title VII, the
ADA, GINA or the ADEA referred to above. Therefore, if you also plan to sue under Title VII, the
ADA, GINA or the ADEA, in addition to suing on the EPA claim, your lawsuit must be filed within
90 days of this Notice and within the 2- or 3-year EPA period.
Your lawsuit may be filed in U.S. District Court or a State court of competent jurisdiction. Whether
you file in Federal or State court is a matter for you to decide after talking to your attorney. You
must file a “complaint” that contains a short statement of the facts of your case which shows that
you are entitled to relief. Filing this Notice is not enough. For more information about filing a
lawsuit, go to https://www.eeoc.gov/employees/lawsuit.cfm.
ATTORNEY REPRESENTATION
For information about locating an attorney to represent you, go to:
https://www.eeoc.gov/employees/lawsuit.cfm.
In very limited circumstances, a U.S. District Court may appoint an attorney to represent individuals
who demonstrate that they are financially unable to afford an attorney.
JS 44 (Rev. 09/19) CIVIL COVER SHEET
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

SUSAN OBERLANDER NEW CASTLE COUNTY; MATTHEW MEYER; DR. JACQUELINE
JENKINS; MICHAEL R. SMITH
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Cecil County County of Residence of First Listed Defendant New Castle
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)
Michele D. Allen Wilson Davis
4250 Lancaster Pike, Suite 230, Wilmington, DE 19805 87 Reads Way, New Castle, DE 19720
302-234-8600 302-395-5130
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
’ 1 U.S. Government ’ 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State ’ 1 ’ 1 Incorporated or Principal Place ’ 4 ’ 4
of Business In This State
’ 2 U.S. Government ’ 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State ’ 2 ’ 2 Incorporated and Principal Place ’ 5 ’ 5
Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State
Citizen or Subject of a ’ 3 ’ 3 Foreign Nation ’ 6 ’ 6

Foreign Country
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only) Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES
’ 110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY ’ 625 Drug Related Seizure ’ 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 ’ 375 False Claims Act
’ 120 Marine ’ 310 Airplane ’ 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 ’ 423 Withdrawal ’ 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
’ 130 Miller Act ’ 315 Airplane Product Product Liability ’ 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729(a))
’ 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability ’ 367 Health Care/ ’ 400 State Reapportionment
’ 150 Recovery of Overpayment ’ 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS ’ 410 Antitrust
& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury ’ 820 Copyrights ’ 430 Banks and Banking
’ 151 Medicare Act ’ 330 Federal Employers’ Product Liability ’ 830 Patent ’ 450 Commerce
’ 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability ’ 368 Asbestos Personal ’ 835 Patent - Abbreviated ’ 460 Deportation
Student Loans ’ 340 Marine Injury Product New Drug Application ’ 470 Racketeer Influenced and
(Excludes Veterans) ’ 345 Marine Product Liability ’ 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations
’ 153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY ’ 480 Consumer Credit
of Veteran’s Benefits ’ 350 Motor Vehicle ’ 370 Other Fraud ’ 710 Fair Labor Standards ’ 861 HIA (1395ff) (15 USC 1681 or 1692)
’ 160 Stockholders’ Suits ’ 355 Motor Vehicle ’ 371 Truth in Lending Act ’ 862 Black Lung (923) ’ 485 Telephone Consumer
’ 190 Other Contract Product Liability ’ 380 Other Personal ’ 720 Labor/Management ’ 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) Protection Act
’ 195 Contract Product Liability ’ 360 Other Personal Property Damage Relations ’ 864 SSID Title XVI ’ 490 Cable/Sat TV
’ 196 Franchise Injury ’ 385 Property Damage ’ 740 Railway Labor Act ’ 865 RSI (405(g)) ’ 850 Securities/Commodities/
’ 362 Personal Injury - Product Liability ’ 751 Family and Medical Exchange
Medical Malpractice Leave Act ’ 890 Other Statutory Actions
REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS ’ 790 Other Labor Litigation FEDERAL TAX SUITS ’ 891 Agricultural Acts
’ 210 Land Condemnation ’ 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: ’ 791 Employee Retirement ’ 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff ’ 893 Environmental Matters
’ 220 Foreclosure ’ 441 Voting ’ 463 Alien Detainee Income Security Act or Defendant) ’ 895 Freedom of Information
’ 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment ’ 442 Employment ’ 510 Motions to Vacate ’ 871 IRS—Third Party Act
’ 240 Torts to Land ’ 443 Housing/ Sentence 26 USC 7609 ’ 896 Arbitration
’ 245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations ’ 530 General ’ 899 Administrative Procedure
’ 290 All Other Real Property ’ 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - ’ 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION Act/Review or Appeal of
Employment Other: ’ 462 Naturalization Application Agency Decision
’ 446 Amer. w/Disabilities - ’ 540 Mandamus & Other ’ 465 Other Immigration ’ 950 Constitutionality of
Other ’ 550 Civil Rights Actions State Statutes
’ 448 Education ’ 555 Prison Condition
’ 560 Civil Detainee -
Conditions of
Confinement
V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
’ 1 Original ’ 2 Removed from ’ 3 Remanded from ’ 4 Reinstated or ’ 5 Transferred from ’ 6 Multidistrict ’ 8 Multidistrict
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District Litigation - Litigation -
(specify) Transfer Direct File
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
2 U.S.C. § 2000(e) et seq., 42 U.S.C. § 1983
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:
Defendant engaged in sex discrimination, including sexual harassment, retaliation, & hostile work environment. etc
VII. REQUESTED IN ’ CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. JURY DEMAND: ’ Yes ’ No
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER
DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
08/15/2024 /s/ Michele D. Allen
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE
Print Save As... Reset

JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 09/19)
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44

Authority For Civil Cover Sheet
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as
required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is
required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of
Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:
I.(a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use
only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and
then the official, giving both name and title.
(b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the
time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land
condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.)
(c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting
in this section "(see attachment)".
II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an "X"
in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below.
United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here.
United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box.
Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment
to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes
precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked.
Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the
citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity
cases.)
III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this
section for each principal party.
IV. Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If there are multiple nature of suit codes associated with the case, pick the nature of suit code
that is most applicable. Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
V. Origin. Place an "X" in one of the seven boxes.

Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts.
Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441.
Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing
date.
Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date.
Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or
multidistrict litigation transfers.
Multidistrict Litigation – Transfer. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C.
Section 1407.
Multidistrict Litigation – Direct File. (8) Check this box when a multidistrict case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS NOT AN ORIGIN CODE 7. Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to
changes in statue.
VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional
statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service
VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P.
Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction.
Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.
VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket
numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.
Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.

Sex Harassment, Discrimination Lawsuit Against New Castle County

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sex Harassment, Discrimination Lawsuit Against New Castle County

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sex Harassment, Discrimination Lawsuit Against New Castle County

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:24-cv-00951-UNA Document 1 Filed 08/15/24 Page 1 of 30 PageID #: 1

IN THE DISTRICT COURT

NATURE OF THE ACTION

3. Defendant engaged in gender discrimination, fostered a hostile work environment,

including cultivating an environment of accepted sexual harassment and gender discrimination,

4. Defendant violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when it deprived Plaintiff of equal protection

investigate claims of sexual harassment.

5. Defendant further violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in maintaining a policy, custom, and

prevention of claims of sexual harassment.

gender discrimination which resulted in Plaintiff’s harm.

under Delaware law, inheres in every contract.

U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3), and 28 U.S.C § 1331.

13. Defendant NCC is headquartered at New Castle County Government Center, 87

Reads Way, New Castle, Delaware 19720.

Way, New Castle, Delaware, 19720.

Castle, Delaware, 19720.

OBE050523/17C-2023-00321) with the Delaware Department of Labor (“DDOL”) and Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) alleging sexual harassment, gender

discrimination, hostile work environment and retaliation against Defendant.

Property Assessment Services Administrator (Assessor Supervisor) position.

Assessment Analyst position.

Federal Rights to Sue.

then to Certified Assessor II on April 19, 2021.

scheduled to be promoted to Assessment Analyst on August 19, 2024.

direct supervisor of ten (10) Certified Assessors, including Plaintiff.

close proximity of their desks.

cross with other male employees.

communicated via text message to quickly communicate regarding work matters.

related work matters, making Plaintiff uncomfortable and uneasy.

matters on her personal phone because it made her uncomfortable.

in inappropriate context which began to become sexual in nature.

and further informed her she wanted the texting to stop.

his sexually explicit text messages to Plaintiff.

“I’m straight up not right. Straight up mommas boy”;

longer communicate with him via text message.

solicited sexual relations, to Plaintiff’s work phone.

“Give me a dude pass”;

her to work from home until further notice.

office interacting with other female employees unrestricted.

keep her separate from Mr. Farnan.

office at his convenience following Plaintiff’s report of sexual harassment.

would not have further contact with Mr. Farnan.

Plaintiff via text again on November 17, 2022.

harassment, Ms. Pagan met with Plaintiff to review her complaint.

incidents which took precedence over Plaintiff’s.

56. Thereafter, Defendant continued to mishandle and unreasonably delay its

February 14, 2023, over three months after Plaintiff’s complaint

allegations of sexual harassment were substantiated.

taken against Mr. Farnan.

until June 20, 2023.

work conference in Ocean City, Maryland with other female employees.

making her reports of sexual harassment against her supervisor.

Property Assessment Services Administrator (Assessor Supervisor) position.

held by Plaintiff’s former supervisor, John Farnan.

July 10, 2023.

Property Assessment Services Administrator position over Plaintiff.

than Erin Drysdale.

certification as a Certified Assessor II.

Commission on October 23, 2023 (Charge No. OBE102323/17C-2024-00189).