Following the removal of Terri Velasquez as head of the Department of Finance, Ms. Candice Zamora Bridgers was illegally targeted as set forth above in this Complaint and terminated from employment on November 15, 2012, effective December 16, 2012. At the time of her termination, job duties had been stripped from Ms. Zamora Bridgers and she held the position of Accounting Manager, which was a demotion.Bridgers says she filed a discrimination complaint and then was retaliated against. From her EEOC complaint filed in June 2013: "Although I was next in line [after Velasquez was fired] for the Chief Financial Officer position, my employer selected a less qualified non-CPA White female ... Kara Skinner."
In July 8, 2012, Ms. Skinner went to Ms. Zamora Bridgers’ office, closed the door and became verbally abusive to her, speaking loudly and angrily toward her. This situation was not provoked or caused by Ms. Zamora Bridgers.In October 2012, Bridgers filed a claim of discrimination and then was placed on a performance improvement plan for 60 days, but the city fired her before the 60 days elapsed, she alleges.
45. On July 20, 2012, Ms. Skinner made the statement to Ms. Zamora Bridgers that Ms. Zamora Bridgers was not selected or chosen to manage the financial department because she was too tightly aligned with someone who is suing the City or bringing claims against the City. This comment was related to claims made by Ms. Terri Velasquez.
Because Plaintiff did not file suit until May 27, 2014, any factual allegations in the complaint that Plaintiff was aware of before May 27, 2012 are time-barred for purposes of § 1983 and must be dismissed. This includes the following: (1) Ms. Bridgers being informed that the City was looking to eliminate her position in July 2011 (Doc. 1 at 3 ¶ 5); (2) In August 2011 Ms. Bridgers was told she was not loyal to the City and threatened with termination (Doc. 1 at 3 ¶ 7); and (3) Ms. Bridgers being compelled to transfer to the Auditors’ Office in August 2011 (Doc. 1 at 3 ¶ 8). Because Plaintiff was aware of these actions before May 27, 2012, she is time barred from raising them in this suit. As such, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and should dismiss these allegations.We're attaching a sampling of the pleadings that are cited here for anyone who wishes to read the documents.