‘I persisted’: Former employee sued Kansas City for retaliation. A jury awarded her millions

A Jackson County jury awarded a former employee of Kansas City’s Health Department over $3 million in the culmination of a recent retaliation lawsuit, according to court documents.

Shahidah Hazziez, who spent about one year working for the department, accused the city of unfair treatment after she was selected for a random drug test and fired for not being able to complete it due to a medical condition. The lawsuit concluded Hazziez had suffered discriminatory treatment and awarded her $172,000 in October 2017. But during that time, the city refused to hire her for another position, despite Hazziez being the most qualified candidate, according to her attorney Sonal Bhatia.

So she sued, again.

The Wednesday jury verdict promised Hazziez an even larger sum: $2.4 million and an added $1 million in punitive damages, Bhatia said.

She believes the jury’s decision will help more workers achieve “justice in our courts.”

“Employers are not allowed to refuse to rehire employees who are suing them, even though that’s inconvenient, you’re not allowed to hold that against someone,” said another attorney for Hazziez, E.E Keenan.

“You have to treat them the same as any other applicant or they’ll be afraid to call out discrimination.”

He referred to the lawsuit as “protected activity,” which means it does not need to be disclosed and cannot be used against applicants.

He also explained the city has a policy requiring residents qualified for a job be given preference in the application process. Hazziez was a finalist for the position, but lost out on the role to a white man who did not live in the area.

The lawyers said she suffered intimidation and was told by employees of the city to drop her previous lawsuit in order to earn the role.

A jury agreed, calling the city’s acts “retaliatory.”

City Spokeswoman Shelly Eckenroth declined to comment on legal matters.

In a charge of discrimination filed to the Missouri Commission on Human Rights, Hazziez commented on the retaliation:

“I believe [they] have discriminated against me and retaliated against me for asserting my rights as a woman, as a Muslim, as a woman who suffered from a disability and was not accommodated, as an African American.”

A drug test gone wrong

Shahidah Hazziez started work with the city’s health department as an event coordinator and marketing specialist in April 2013.

“I was a strong performer and never subject to any discipline or performance warnings,” she said in documents to the Missouri Commission on Human Rights.

Hazziez was often selected for drug tests with the city’s “Escreen” program, which alleged to randomly select employees for screenings.

The tests came back negative for Hazziez.

She noticed that her and another colleague with a Muslim-sounding name were being asked to submit to drug tests at a “higher frequency than others,” she said.

About one year into the job, she was selected for another screening on May 5, 2014, according to the lawsuit’s petition. On her way to work that morning, she gave a urine sample to an employee at Concentra, a metro area medical facility. Providing the sample was painful for Hazziez, who discovered blood in her urine, the lawsuit said.

“I attempted to urinate twice,” she said in documents. “But each time I did not hit the line, and each time there was blood in my urine and I felt pain as if I were passing a kidney stone.”

She didn’t know whether it was a urinary tract infection or a vaginal issue. When she told a health care worker about the pain, they said more urine would be needed to complete the test.

“I was very scared,” Hazziez said in documents.

The health care worker advised Hazziez to drink more water before submitting another sample.

That next sample also contained blood. As Hazziez turned it in, the nurse told her again more urine was needed.

She asked about combining the two samples, and when the worker declined, she requested to see her provider about the painful urination before doing another test.

“If she left, that would be considered a refusal to submit to a test,” the worker said according to the lawsuit.

Hazziez denied that needing to see her doctor about bloody urine meant refusing to participate in the test. She wrote on her medical form that the test could not be completed due to a medical condition and immediately met with her doctor, who offered treatment and a subsequent alternative to a urine based drug test. The results came back negative, but the city refused to accept it, despite having a policy that allows for drug test alternatives, according to Hazziez’s legal team.

The health care worker also signed the initial drug test form and indicated Hazziez had refused take the test. A medical review officer reviewed the test, processing it as a “refusal to submit to testing,” the lawsuit said.

The officer sent the form to the city, writing “Per Collection: Donor did not comply with collection procedures.”

There was no explanation given regarding Hazziez’s health.

‘Ineligible for rehire’

An investigation into her employment ensued and Hazziez was put on leave from work.

In an email to the city, she explained the health related incident and her concerns over allegedly violating a “policy because she had insisted on taking care of her own health.”

She again offered to take a drug test.

“My request was a request for accommodation of my disability,” she said in the message.

The City responded by saying they were unsure “whether she still had a position there,” the lawsuit said.

She checked in with her employer the next day, but heard no response. Then, on May 8, she received a formal termination in the mail. The letter went on to acknowledge that she had violated the city’s drug and alcohol policy. As a result of this violation, the city considered her “ineligible for rehire.”

On May 21, her former supervisor signed another document making her firing official.

When Hazziez applied for unemployment, she was denied benefits for her “misconduct” related discharge. She asked her former employer to write a letter explaining why she was discharged, but they declined.

She contended benefits were being denied on false grounds in a two-day hearing over her unemployment application. During the hearing, the city provided evidence against Hazziez, accusing her of “not taking personal responsibility for her actions,” the lawsuit said.

Hazziez accused the city of using “offensive stereotypes” as part of their testimony. She argued that her firing was discriminatory and retaliatory. She also discovered the city’s drug test “selections are not random,” the lawsuit said.

No quality controls randomize the selection to prevent employees from being picked based on bias or other assumptions, according to the lawsuit.

An unemployment referee determined Hazziez wasn’t guilty of misconduct and, shortly after, the city appealed their decision.

Hazziez sued and ultimately won $172,000 for suffering discrimination at the hands of the city in October 2017.

Seeking justice

Before Hazziez’s 2017 lawsuit ended, she received a letter from the city’s attorney. The October 2016 letter offered her a job as a Digital Communication Coordinator, which had responsibilities similar to her prior work.

The attorney said he could “prevent” her from obtaining the job or he could “bless” the hire, as long as she dropped the lawsuit and stopped seeking compensation, according to the discrimination charge filed with the commission.

“He praised my work and skills in the letter,” she said in documents.

She later found the position online and applied without the attorney’s help.

“I persisted: I did not drop my lawsuit,” she said in documents.

During the first interview, the city attorney was “cc’d” in what Hazziez’s attorneys believe was an intimidation tactic.

Hazziez was brought in for two rounds of interviews and even met with her former employers.

“It seemed to have gone very well,” she said, but then January 2017 passed and so came March, with no word on her employment.

On March 7, she heard from her former supervisor that the position had been filled.

The judge in her prior lawsuit said she would need to file a new lawsuit in order to sue for retaliation related to the city’s refusal to rehire. Shortly after she was issued the right to sue by the Missouri Commission on Human Rights and began pursuing legal action once again.

“I believe there are other emails and documents which will show that there was additional retaliation by the city that I haven’t yet seen,” she said in her charge of discrimination.

“I have discovered that none of the interview documents contain any notes,” she said of her application process.

“I believe this was done... To hide the fact that they had planned not to hire me, but wanted to look as if they were engaging,” she said.

She also said the position was given to white man who was not living in Kansas City at the time of his hiring, meaning he needed a waiver in order to be considered, she said in the documents.

One of her attorneys, J.R Montgomery, said in an email that the entire case had been a “hard fought battle.”

“Shahidah Hazziez has been fighting for her dignity for nearly a decade,” he said.

“She’s finally received justice.”