A former Horry County Police Department detective filed a lawsuit against the department, alleging she was discriminated against and forced to close cases.
According to a copy of the lawsuit, Suzanne Demarest filed the suit on August 24. Her attorney is listed in the suit as Bonnie Travaglio Hunt, of Hunt Law LLC.
In the lawsuit, Demarest says her work environment became hostile after she filed a charge of discrimination.
“That I have previously filed a charge of discrimination regarding Sex Discrimination, Retaliation and Hostile Work Environment. After I resolved my previous action my work environment became very hostile,” the lawsuit says.
Demarest also alleges employees retaliated against her for her complaint, she was ostracized and refused transfers, and terminated.
“My employer began to retaliate against me for my previous complaint. That despite my previous complaint I was still treated differently based on my sex” and “that I was disciplined more harshly, ostracized from other employees, refused transfers and training,” states the lawsuit.
In the “factual background” section of the lawsuit, Demarest states she was hired by the HCPD on June 4, 2001 and her last position held was as a detective in the Criminal Investigations Division.
This section also claims Demarest was considered an “exemplary employee” until she filed a charge of discrimination for “sexual harassment, sexual discrimination and retalaition.”
Demarest was issued a right to sue regarding this charge in August of 2014 and the case was resolved in March of 2016, according to the lawsuit.
After this case was resolved, Demarest claims “she began to suffer from significant retaliation and hostile work environment” and that she was assigned to the Criminal Investigation Department after her complaints and lawsuit was resolved.
Demarest further claims that while she was in this department she “realized that there was no one working elder abuse cases” and she “began to take on all elder abuse cases in the department.”
“At all times during her employment in the Criminal Investigation Department, the employees and management failed and refused to include the Plaintiff in lunch outings. That management would intentionally ask everyone in the office to go to lunch and fail and refuse to invite the Plaintiff,” the lawsuit also claims.
“On October 20, 2016, Sgt. Chatfield stopped the Plaintiff in the hallway of the police station and asked her about a case. The Plaintiff informed Chatfield that the case was closed pursuant to Lt. Bonner,” according to the lawsuit. “At that Chatfield began to scream at the Plaintiff. Chatfield’s behavior was extremely unprofessional and demeaning. The display of unprofessionalism by Chatfied was to such an extreme that a secretary in the department made a formal complaint. That Chatfield was not disciplined for his behavior.”
Additionally, the lawsuit says in December 2016, the plaintiff’s daughter left a gun in an apartment that she had rented by accident and the plaintiff “was harassed regarding the gun and pictures that were allegedly found in the apartment for weeks.”
The lawsuit adds in late 2016, Demarest was approached and informed “that she had too many open cases.” Demarest claims she requested help due to the number of elder abuse cases in the county and that an employee, identified in the suit as DC Jones, informed her “that there would be no help.” The lawsuit further claims “Jones instructed the plaintiff to close the files up until she could work the case” and that “the plaintiff informed him closing a case until you could work it was illegal and she was not going wear orange for him or anyone else.”
In January 2017, Demarest says she applied for a transfer to the Narcotics Division. The lawsuit states on January 11, 2017 “the Plaintiff overheard Sgt. Cooper informing another party discussing who had requested to be placed in Narcotics. Cooper informed the party that DC Jones would be making the decision based on seniority. Cooper further stated that the Plaintiff would not be transferred to the Narcotics Division because they did not want her over there and everyone knows why.”
The lawsuit also claims “that as a direct result of the Defendant’s violation of the Title VII the plaintiff has suffered” the following: economic damages, lost wages and future lost wages, loss of benefits and future lost benefits, economic hardship, loss of sick and annual leave, and anxiety, humiliation and emotional damages.
The suit further claims “that, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s intentional unlawful and retaliatory actions, the Plaintiff” suffered severe emotional distress, suffered future lost wages and future lost benefits, suffered economic damages, loss of employment, loss of future employment, incurred attorney fees for this action, incurred costs of this action, and will incur future attorney fees and costs.
“That as a direct, proximate result of the actions of the Defendant, the Plaintiff is entitled to actual, consequential, punitive damages, attorney’s fees and costs, costs associated with this litigation and any other damages as this Honorable Court sees fit,” states the lawsuit.
Three causes of action are listed in the lawsuit: hostile work environment, sex discrimination in violation of Title VII, and retaliation.
The full lawsuit can be read here:
