Case No.: 2004 CA 6523 SC
[filed and clocked in to the court on July 6, 2004]
WARREN PETITT,
TROY EVANS, and
JAMES CAMPBELL,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
CITY OF VENICE, FLORIDA,
Defendant.
COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Plaintiffs, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby sues
Defendant, City of Venice, Florida (hereinafter the "City"), and states the
following:
1. This is an action against the defendant for its unlawful, retaliatory
employment actions taken against the plaintiffs in violation of 42 U.S.C.
section 1983.
2. This is an action for damages that are in excess of $15,000.
3. Plaintiffs are residents of Sarasota County and employees of defendant.
4. The defendant is a governmental entity authorized and existing under the laws
of the State of Florida.
5. Until January 2004, the defendant's City Manager was George Hunt, and as City
Manager Mr. Hunt was the defendant's chief executive officer responsible for and
overseeing the City's staff.
6. Then-City Manager, Mr. Hunt, had actual or apparent final policymaking
authority on behalf of the defendant as to all City-wide personnel matters,
including the unlawful personnel actions described
below against the plaintiffs, and the defendant is legally responsible for Mr.
Hunt's actions and practices toward the plaintiffs in connection with the
exercise of this actual or apparent final policymaking authority by Mr. Hunt.
7. From approximately the summer of 2003, until January 2004,
Mr. Hunt, as well as other management under his direction, under color of
authority of the state, engaged in an unlawful policy of retribution and
retaliation (which included taking adverse employment actions, disciplinary
write-ups and hearings, threats of termination, verbal abuse, creating a hostile
work environment, harassment and intimidation) against City employees, including
the plaintiffs, because the plaintiffs had provided information or blown the
whistle regarding issues of public concern to the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency ("EPA") in its investigation of the City's suspected violations of
federal law and regulations with the City's wastewater treatment facility and
the City's Pollution Control Division, to the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection's investigation into violations by the City's Pollution
Control Division, or to the investigation of management's hostile work
environment in the City's Pollution Control Division.
8. Mr. Hunt's policy of retribution and retaliation was
partially expressed by him and recorded on tape by the FBI which was conducting
a federal criminal obstruction of justice investigation of Mr. Hunt. Mr. Hunt's
policy of retribution and retaliation against City employees rose to the level
of federal criminal obstruction of justice activity by Mr. Hunt in obstructing
the EPA's on-going criminal investigation against the City.
9. Then-City Manager, Mr. Hunt, acting under color of state law,
intentionally violated plaintiffs' First Amendment rights under the Constitution
of the United States when Mr. Hunt engaged in a policy and practice of
retaliatory employment actions against the plaintiffs
because of their exercise of free speech in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.
10. In furtherance of the above-described policy of retribution
and retaliation, Mr. Hunt committed, directed or approved, among other acts, the
following unlawful adverse employment actions against the plaintiffs: written
reprimands, disciplinary actions, denial of salary raises, denial of promotions,
false accusations of wrong-doing, unlawful disciplinary hearings, unlawful quid
pro quo deal-making, unlawful tampering of whistle-blowers, unlawful promises of
career enhancement in exchange for information, unlawful threats of termination,
suspension, mandatory EAP counseling, demotion and denial of vacation time and
sick leave.
11. The above-stated unlawful and retaliatory employment actions
committed, directed or approved by Mr. Hunt deprived plaintiffs of career
advancement, increased wages, and other benefits, terms and conditions of
employment due to plaintiffs lawfully exercising their first amendment rights.
12. Under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States, every public employee has the right to freedom of speech addressing
issues of public concern.
13. Plaintiffs engaged in their constitutional right to freedom
of speech under the First Amendment on matters of public concern by expressing
to governmental officials the City's unlawful acts and wrongdoing of various
federal and state laws and regulations (including violations of the Clean Water
Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act) relating to the City's wastewater problems
and with the City's Pollution Control Division (including unlawful hostile work
environment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Florida
Civil Rights Act).
14. The above-described speech activity by the plaintiffs was a
matter of public concern; and, as public employees,
plaintiffs could not legally be penalized because of their exercise of their
First Amendment rights in discussing these subjects of public concern.
15. In retribution for plaintiffs' exercise of their First
Amendment rights, then-City Manager George Hunt retaliated against the
plaintiffs injuring the plaintiffs.
Plaintiff Petitt: Public Employee First
Amendment Claim
16. Plaintiff, Mr. Petitt, incorporates and realleges paragraphs
one through fifteen as if set forth in full herein.
17. The defendant, through its then-City Manager acting under
color of state law, engaged in a policy depriving Mr. Petitt of his First
Amendment rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. section 1983, and the City is liable
thereto.
18. As a direct and proximate result of the above-stated actions
by the defendant, and its then-City Manager, Mr. Petitt was injured in that he
suffered deprivation of his Constitutional rights, personal indignity, dishonor,
humiliation, damage to his professional and personal reputation, mental anguish
and distress, loss of employment advancement, lost wages, lost benefits and
privileges of employment.
19. Wherefore, Mr. Petitt demands judgment against defendant and
requests the following: a declaratory judgment that the defendant's retaliatory
employment actions taken against him were unlawful; injunctive relief directing
the City to provide restitution that is representative of all employment
advancement, rights, privileges, benefits, income, and lost wages that would
have been received by Mr. Petitt but for defendant's unlawful and retaliatory
practices; injunctive relief clearing his name, reputation and employment
record, and directing the City to remove all false and stigmatizing statements,
and false disciplinary actions, from his files; an
injunction prohibiting and restraining the defendant from committing the
above-described retaliatory practices against Mr. Petitt with respect to his
employment; an award of compensatory damages for deprivation of his rights,
personal indignity, dishonor, humiliation, damage to his professional and
personal reputation, mental anguish and distress; an award of lost wages and
other lost employment benefits; an award of prejudgment interest; an award of
attorneys fees and costs; and such additional or alternative relief as the court
may deem just and proper.
Plaintiff Evans: Public Employee First Amendment Claim
20. Plaintiff, Mr. Evans, incorporates and realleges paragraphs
one through fifteen as if set forth in full herein.
21. The defendant, through its then-City Manager acting under
color of state law, engaged in a policy depriving Mr. Evans of his First
Amendment rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. section 1983, and the City is liable
thereto.
22. As a direct and proximate result of the above-stated actions
by the defendant, and its then-City Manager, Mr. Evans was injured in that he
suffered deprivation of his Constitutional rights, personal indignity, dishonor,
humiliation, damage to his professional and personal reputation, mental anguish
and distress, loss of employment advancement, lost wages, lost benefits and
privileges of employment.
23. Wherefore, Mr. Evans demands judgment against defendant and
requests the following: a declaratory judgment that the defendant's retaliatory
employment actions taken against him were unlawful; injunctive relief directing
the City to provide restitution that is representative of all employment
advancement, rights, privileges, benefits, income, and lost wages that would
have been received by Mr. Evans but for defendant's unlawful and retaliatory
practices; injunctive relief clearing his name,
reputation and employment record, and directing the City to remove all false and
stigmatizing statements, and false disciplinary actions, from his files; an
injunction prohibiting and restraining the defendant from committing the
above-described retaliatory practices against Mr. Evans with respect to his employment; an award
of compensatory damages for deprivation of his rights, personal indignity,
dishonor, humiliation, damage to his professional and personal reputation,
mental anguish and distress; an award of lost wages and other lost employment
benefits; an award of prejudgment interest; an award of attorneys fees and
costs; and such additional or alternative relief as the court may deem just and
proper.
Plaintiff Campbell: Public Employee First
Amendment Claim
24. Plaintiff, Mr. Campbell, incorporates and realleges
paragraphs one through fifteen as if set forth in full herein.
25. The defendant, through its then-City Manager acting under
color of state law, engaged in a policy depriving Mr. Campbell of his First
Amendment rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. section 1983, and the City is liable
thereto.
26. As a direct and proximate result of the above-stated actions
by the defendant, and its then-City Manager, Mr. Campbell was injured in that he
suffered deprivation of his Constitutional rights, personal indignity, dishonor,
humiliation, damage to his professional and personal reputation, mental anguish
and distress, loss of employment advancement, lost wages, lost benefits and
privileges of employment.
27. Wherefore, Mr. Campbell demands judgment against defendant
and requests the following: a declaratory judgment that the defendant's
retaliatory employment actions taken against him were unlawful; injunctive
relief directing the City to provide restitution that is
representative of all employment advancement, rights, privileges,
benefits, income, and lost wages that would have been received by Mr. Campbell
but for defendant's unlawful and retaliatory practices; injunctive relief
clearing his name, reputation and employment record, and directing the City to
remove all false and stigmatizing statements, and false disciplinary actions,
from his files; an injunction prohibiting and restraining the defendant from
committing the above-described retaliatory practices against Mr. Campbell with
respect to his employment; an award of compensatory damages for deprivation of
his rights, personal indignity, dishonor, humiliation, damage to his
professional and personal reputation, mental anguish and distress; an award of
lost wages and other lost employment benefits; an award of prejudgment interest;
an award of attorneys fees and costs; and such additional or alternative relief
as the court may deem just and proper.
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiffs hereby request a jury trial on all issues triable by jury.
Respectfully Submitted by
Tommy-Meyer
Florida Bar Number 102865
Law Office of Tommy Meyer
1275 Second Street
Sarasota, Florida 34236
Telephone: (941) 955-4040
Facsimile: (941) 955-2340
Attorney for Plaintiffs
