NATION CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT
CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT
KEITH M. KNOWLTON, L.L.C.
4409 South Rural Rd., Suite 201
Tempe, Arizona 85282-7072
TEL (480) 755-1777
FAX (480) 755-8286
Attorney for Plaintiffs
Keith M. Knowlton - SBN 011565
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF ARIZONAPat Foster, an individual, James J. Schweisthal, an Individual, Lorelei Delaney, an individual, Juan Padilla, an individual Jenine Thomas-Kroehnert, an individual, Perry D. Coffer, an individual, Tina Nesbitt, an individual, Anthony J. Fajardo, an individual, Guy Anthony Adams an individual,
Plaintiffs, vs.City of Mesa, a body politic and the Mesa Police Department, a subdivision of the City of Mesa;
Defendants.
|
Case No. COMPLAINT(Civil Rights)
|
Plaintiffs, as and for their complaint against Defendants, and each of them alleges as follows:
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
1. All of the acts, occurrences and events which comprise the subject matter of Plaintiffs' Complaint took place in Maricopa County, Arizona, and the amount in Controversy satisfies the minimum subject matter jurisdictional requirements of this Court.
2. Plaintiffs Pat Foster, an individual, James J. Schweisthal, an Individual, Lorelei Delaney, an individual, Juan Padilla, an individual Jenine Thomas-Kroehnert, an individual, Perry D. Coffer, an individual, Tina Nesbitt, an individual, Anthony J. Fajardo, an individual, and Guy Anthony Adams an individual are or were police officers for the City of Mesa (hereafter referred to collectively as “Plaintiff Officers”) and at all relevant times herein were residence of Maricopa County, Arizona.
3. Upon information and belief, it is alleged that Defendant City of Mesa, is a body politic existing in Maricopa County, Arizona, and a political subdivision of the State of Arizona at all times relevant to the acts, occurrences and event which comprises the Complaint.
4. Upon information and belief, Defendant Mesa Police Department (“hereafter “MPD”) was and is a duly constituted division of the City of Mesa, at all times relevant to the acts, occurrences, and events which comprise the Complaint.
5. Upon information and belief, it is alleged that at all times relevant to the acts, occurrences and events comprising the Complaint herein, Defendants City of Mesa and the MPD acted by through their employees.
COUNT ONE
VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS
6. The allegations set forth above are fully incorporated herein by this reference.
7. Upon information and belief, the Mesa Police Department has policies, practices and procedures that result in gender, racial and religious discrimination and desperate treatment in the Mesa Police Department's transfer practices and grievance process. Upon information and belief the Mesa Police Department does discriminate in the transfer and grievance process on the bases of religion, race and gender.
8. It is Mesa City Policy to consider each applicant for employment on the basis of his or her qualifications for the job and without regard to race, religion, sex, marital status, age or nation of origin. Section 901-a-1 of the City of Mesa Charter. Pursuant to the Mesa Police Department General Order 201, ”[e]very effort will be made to insure that appointments, promotions, reclassifications, transfers, compensation, training, layoffs, termination's, or factors determined to be free of discrimination.
9.Officer Foster is an African American police officer who has been employed with the Mesa Police Department since September 12, 1992. He has been hampered and blocked in his career opportunities for reasons not related to job performance. Officer Foster has a nearly flawless work record including numerous commendations (department and citizen) and above average too exceptional work reviews/ratings. Officer Foster has been denied transfers that would aid his career because of his race and/ upon information and belief the religious preferences of those making the transfer decisions.
10. Specifically, Officer Foster was denied a transfer to the gang unit from his present position on the community action team. The following officers, who had less seniority, GLO experience and/or less job related training were transferred over Officer Foster to the gang unit and other more prestigious positions, by Lt. Johnston over the past three years: Officers M. Beaton, K. Baggs, J. Bellows, L. Hall, T. Bradbury, R. Campbell, D. Baca, M. Davis, T. Intrieri and K. Kost. Some of these lesser-qualified individuals are of the same religious background (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (“LDS”)) as Lt. Johnston.
11. Officer Foster was denied a transfer to SCAT (Special Crimes Apprehension Team) in violation of the Affirmative Action policies of the Mesa Police Department. Officer Foster applied for the transfer but was not granted the full process as other officers were. Sgt. Solomon told him that the squad was “afraid” of him because he was perceived as one who would be “quick to file a racial discrimination complaint.” Officer Foster had never before filed such a complaint. Further, Sgt. Solomon is LDS as are a majority of the other supervisors in this unit.
12.Officer Foster applied for the CID (“Criminal Investigations Division) unit and was passed over by the following junior and less trained officers: Officers G. Beck, E. Grasse, E. Chamberlain, T. Serenka, M. Soleberg, G. Nesbit, M. Myers, D. Kaufmann, K. Carroll, M. Melendez, K. Baker and H. Rankin. Officer Foster has never been given been given a reason for his non-selection and being passed over for transfer for less qualified officers.
13. Sgt. James J. Schweisthal is a Caucasian male working in the Mesa Police Department in the patrol division. He has been employed with the Mesa Police department for 15 years. He also served as a Sergeant in CAT. He has been passed over for 7 transfers and one lieutenant spot. Less trained and experienced supervisors received the transfers and promotion.
14. From 1997, several minority officers supervised by Sgt. Schweisthal have attempted to gain transfers to SIU. This includes Officers Foster, Anaya and Officer Rivera. This unit is made up of gang detectives and narcotic detectives. Officers are given take home cars and pay increases from overtime. Sgt. Schweisthal has attempted to assist these officers in their transfers and has been criticized for not supporting his superiors' actions to impair the careers of these officers. Further Sgt. Schweisthal has not received transfers because the person making the decision was LDS and selected less qualified and trained LDS officers. For example, Sgt. Schweisthal applied for a transfer to the Falcon bike unit. A LDS lieutenant chose a white male LDS officer who Sgt. Schweisthal actually trained when the officer came into the department. This same lieutenant had a grievance filed against his supervisor (who was LDS) when the supervisor chose the lieutenant over a much more experienced black sergeant. The grievance was dismissed because Mesa's personnel rules do not allow grievances for transfers.
15.This policy is discriminatory and denies officers the ability to challenge discriminatory practices in transfers. This policy violates the due process clause of the 14 amendment. This inability to grieve transfers has made it possible for little despots to grow in the police department. Men in positions of power regarding transfers who use that power to harm peoples carriers so that they can promote less qualified individuals that they prefer. This lack of grievance policy allows discrimination against minorities, women and individuals, in certain circumstances, because they are not LDS.
16. Lorelei Delaney was an officer with the Mesa Police Department who resigned in August of 1999. She experienced harassment from the Mesa Police Department and filed an EEOC complaint. Rather than pursue the complaint she attempted to work as a volunteer. At first she was informed she would be able to work as a volunteer with the Mesa Police Department, but since has learned, upon information and belief, that she has been blackballed and told she will not be able work with the Mesa Police Department in any capacity.
17. Officer Juan Padilla is a Hispanic male who has experience discrimination in the assignments he received as a Mesa Police Department because of his race. He would be assigned arrears to patrol to avoid being near other Hispanic officers. Further, he was removed from the Field Training Officer program because he went over Lt. Hargas's head to complain about problems with the Mesa Police Department's overtime policy. He was forced to resign as an FTO, which resulted in a loss of 5% of his pay. He was forced to resign, not because of job performance, but because he complained about an unfair and unjust policy of the police department that was depriving officer's of valid overtime pay. This created an air of intolerance and fear for reprisals if anybody complained about Police Department actions.
18. Officer Jeninne Thomas-Kroehnert is an African American woman. In March of 2000, she was transferred from Sex Crimes to Patrol due to an alleged lack of teamwork. The stated reasons for the transfer were untrue because her case clearances were adequate and equal to every other detective in the unit. The transfer took place in April of 2000. On April 24th she was advised a complaint had been filed against her for an alleged failure to contact a victim of sex crime's mother who only spoke Spanish. She had asked other officers in the department who spoke Spanish (she did not) to contact the mother. Those officers documented their efforts to contact the mother although they were unable to make contact. She was suspended for three (3) days without pay even. This punishment was discriminatory because no other detective in the Sex Crimes Unit would have had a complaint brought against them for such a matter or been so disciplined.
19. Officer Perry D. Coffer is a Native American male. He resigned in February of 1998 after being singled out for harassment by Sgt. Ivey. Sgt. Ivy brought several complaints against Officer Coffer including one criminal complaint for destruction of a License Plate Cover while removing an expired license plate. Officer Coffer resigned when Sgt. Ivy was appointed to do the internal affairs interviews regarding the complaints, which Sgt. Ivy was instrumental in bringing against Officer Coffer. Officer Coffer has sought to have this matter reviewed by the City of Mesa and to have the actions of Officer Ivy investigated and disciplined, but to date no investigation or disciplinary action has taken place. Officer Ivy is not an internal affairs officer or detective.
20. The City of Mesa and the Police Department deprived Officer Coffer of a fair and impartial investigation. This action shows that the Mesa Police Department allows supervisors who file complaints against individual officers to be the investigator of the complaint and to make recommendations to the department on discipline. This is inherently unfair and unjust and a deprivation of due process rights under the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
21. Officer Tina Nesbit is a Caucasian woman, who in July of this year, was denied transfer to the SONET because she was not “one of the beauties.” The officer who made this discriminatory conduct was not disciplined for such a remark or for using beauty as a basis for analyzing a female officer's qualification for a transfer.
22. Officer Anthony J. Fajardo is a Hispanic male who was hired by the Mesa Police Department on December 4, 1987. Over the past 13 and ½ years he has been denied all requested transfers except two. He has been passed over for transfers even though officers who are less qualified or have less experience have received those positions. The officers picked over Officer Fajardo have the following things in common; they are white males, and in most cases, LDS.
23. Officer Guy Anthony Adams has been a Mesa Police Officer since 1986. He was singled out for discipline by an LDS supervisor, Captain John Brewer for showing a brief portion of a sexual video at a meeting as a practical joke. Officer Adams, after the investigation and being placed on a one-year probation, was transferred to a unit under John Brewer's control. He was transferred to this unit even though there were other units that wanted him and in which there were openings. John Brewer thereafter exposed Officer Adams to unwarranted charges and complaints. While in that unit he was subject to an internal affairs investigation and discipline because he had a relationship with a woman who was married to a man John Brewer's knew through his church. The investigation and discipline was inappropriate because the relationship did not take place while Officer Adams was on duty and the woman was not a police officer.
24. As a result of new charges and complaints made by Lieutenant Todd Thomas after the investigation of his relationship with the women, a contract was entered into between the Police Department and Officer Adams. The Contract was drafted by Roy Skaggs and Officer Adams agreed not to sue the department if the department, acting in good faith, would let him carry out the terms of the probation he was currently on and take no other disciplinary action against him.
25. After the contract was signed, Captain Brewer and Lieutenant Todd Thomas immediately breached the contract by creating a hostile working environment. These individuals placed false documentation in his file and began writing Officer Adam up for discipline for policy violations.
26. Officer Adams was then demoted from sergeant and transferred to a unit under the control of Sergeant Mike Ivey. Sergeant Ivey created a hostile working environment for Officer Adams by challenging every report and questioning every action. This action of Sergeant Ivey breached the contract and caused Officer Adams severe emotional distress. The distress was so serious that it caused Officer Adams to have a nervous breakdown and later to be suspended pending a psychological evaluation.
27. Upon information and belief, the above actions taken against Officer Adams would not have happened if Office Adams were LDS. Other LDS Officers under John Brewer, including but not limited to Dan Merrill have committed far serious acts and have not been as severely disciplined.
28. In committing the above referenced actions, the City of Mesa and the Mesa Police Department, through its polcymaking personal, acted under color of state law, and engaged in conduct through polices, practices and procedures that were the proximate cause of violating Plaintiffs' rights under the First and Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, including his right to be free from unreasonable seizure and due process under the 14th Amendment, due process clause of the United States Constitution. Defendants did not have probable cause to violate these constitutional rights.
29. Upon information and belief, it is alleged that Defendants maintain a policies and/or practices and procedures which were followed by supervisors of the Mesa Police Department, and that such policy, practice and or procedures were the proximate cause of violating of Plaintiffs rights under the Constitution of the United States of America. Specifically, Defendants have deprived Plaintiffs of their constitutional protections not to be discriminated upon based on gender, race and religion. Defendants have created a situation in the Mesa Police Department where individual officers are regularly discriminated against in transfers and grievance processes.
30. As a result of the Defendant' actions alleged above, and in violation of Plaintiffs rights under Federal law, Plaintiffs have suffered damages, endured pain and suffering, mental and emotional distress, all in an amount to be determined at trial.
31. In committing the above reference actions, the individual Defendants, and each of them, acted with a conscious disregard of the personal rights of Plaintiffs, and are therefore liable to Plaintiffs for punitive damages.
32.
Plaintiffs are entitled to bring this cause of action against the Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
33.Plaintiffs are entitled to recover his attorneys' fees incurred in this matter pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b).
34. The breaches of Plaintiffs constitutional rights have been ongoing and are occurring at this time. The policies and procedures of the Mesa Police Department and the supervisors contained therein will continue to deprive officers of their constitutional rights.
COUNT TWO
BREACH OF CONTRACT
35. All the proceedings numbered paragraphs are incorporated herein by this reference.
36. Defendants breached there contract with Plaintiff Adams by not acting in good faith to all him to prove himself while on probation. This action has caused damage to Plaintiff including but not limited to lost income, damage to reputation and emotional distress. The damages are in an amount that will be established at the time of trial.
37. Officer Adams is entitled to his attorneys' fees and costs under A.R.S. § 12-341.01.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that judgment be entered in their favor and against Defendants as follows:
1. For compensatory and consequential damages, including defamation, pain and suffering, emotional distress and such other damages as may be proven at trial;
2. For punitive damages;
3. For attorneys fees incurred in this matter;
4. Interest from the date the damages became or become liquidated to the date of judgment, all with interest thereon until paid, plus accrued and accruing costs; and
5. To grant such other and further relief as the Court feels is just under the circumstances.
DATED this _____ day of December 2000.
KEITH M. KNOWLTON, L.L.C.
By: ________________________________
Keith M. Knowlton
Attorney for Plaintiffs
4409 S. Rural Rd., Suite 201
Tempe, Arizona 85282