Donald Allen, a longtime employee of the Little Rock School District, has filed a lawsuit against the district claiming that the decision to demote and ultimately fire Allen from his role as safety and security captain was “retaliatory.”

The complaint, filed on Thursday by attorneys Luther Sutter and Lucien Gillham of the Sutter & Gillham firm, argues that Allen was “subjected to increased scrutiny, removed from leadership roles and ultimately terminated from his employment” with the district after he raised concerns regarding state and federal education law violations, misuse of public funds and “other matters of public concern” to his supervisors and Little Rock School Board members.

Allen was placed on administrative leave following his reported failure to take action and cooperate with investigations into two incidents last September and early October but was reinstated by the Little Rock School Board after a seven-hour personnel hearing on Feb. 12, according to a recording of the meeting available on the district’s website.

On Feb. 13, Allen returned to work in the same position he previously held but was reassigned to oversee middle schools instead of high schools which he had been supervising for 12 years, the complaint states.

Allen also argues in his complaint that he had “never previously been barred from any campus” during his 32 years working for the district, and that he experienced “a hostile work environment” after returning from administrative leave.

The employee also argued that he was the subject of “disparate treatment” because of a tracking device Allen stated only his vehicle was equipped with, in addition to other responsibilities that Allen argued had formerly fallen under his position but were then being completed by the district’s Director of Safety and Security, William El-Amin — who was hired in December.

On April 11, Allen was informed by El-Amin that his position of captain was “being rebranded as facilitator,” the complaint states. Allen reapplied for the rebranded role, was interviewed by a seven-member panel on May 8 and received notice on May 13 that he was not selected for the job.

“The interview process was conducted in a discriminatory and retaliatory manner, resulting in Plaintiff being unfairly denied reappointment,” the complaint argues.

The individual selected to replace Allen “did not meet the requirement of six years of supervisory experience,” Allen stated in his complaint, arguing that he was replaced by “a substantially younger, less-experienced individual who had not engaged in whistleblowing activity.”

Allen’s lawsuit argued that the district’s decisions related to his employment violated the Arkansas Whistle-Blower Act — which prohibits an employer from taking adverse action against an employee who communicates alleged wrongdoings in good faith — and part of the Arkansas Constitution which prohibits age-based employment discrimination.

Due to “loss of income, emotional pain and reputational harm” sustained by Allen, he argued for a trial by jury and to receive compensatory damages and to be reinstated or receive front pay for his district position.

A district spokesperson declined to comment on pending litigation Friday afternoon. Attorneys representing the district could not be reached by Friday evening for comment.