0 penilaian0% menganggap dokumen ini bermanfaat (0 suara)
725 tayangan40 halaman
Four former and current San Juan County Sheriff’s Office employees allege that Sheriff Ken Christesen, Undersheriff Ron Anderson and Capt. Brice Current launched a “calculated, retaliatory campaign” after the employees filed a complaint containing similar charges.
Judul Asli
Amended complaint in lawsuit against San Juan County Sheriff's Office
Four former and current San Juan County Sheriff’s Office employees allege that Sheriff Ken Christesen, Undersheriff Ron Anderson and Capt. Brice Current launched a “calculated, retaliatory campaign” after the employees filed a complaint containing similar charges.
Four former and current San Juan County Sheriff’s Office employees allege that Sheriff Ken Christesen, Undersheriff Ron Anderson and Capt. Brice Current launched a “calculated, retaliatory campaign” after the employees filed a complaint containing similar charges.
SHANE UTLEY, BETH UTLEY, LISA HAWS, and MATT WILCOX, Plaintiffs, v. 14-cv-00357JCH/SMV BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, SAN JUAN COUNTY, SAN JUAN COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE, KEN CHRISTESEN, in his individual capacity, RON ANDERSON, in his individual capacity, and BRICE CURRENT, in his individual capacity, Defendants. AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION42 U.S.C. 1983, BREACH OF AN IMPLIED CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT, AND VIOLATIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT CONDUCT ACT COME NOW Plaintiffs Shane Utley, Beth Utley, Lisa Haws, and Matt Wilcox, by and through their counsel, Law Offices of Michael E. Mozes, P.C., and hereby submit their Amended Complaint for Violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution42 U.S.C. 1983, Breach of an Implied Contract of Employment, and Violations of the Government Conduct Act. I. JURISDICTION 1. This cases arises under 42 U.S.C. 1983 for violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and New Mexico common law. 2. Plaintiff Shane Utley is, and at all times material hereto has been, a resident of the County of San Juan, State of New Mexico. 3. Plaintiff Beth Utley is, and at all times material hereto has been, a resident of the Case 1:14-cv-00357-JCH-KK Document 38 Filed 09/29/14 Page 1 of 40 County of San Juan, State of New Mexico. 4. Plaintiff Lisa Haws is, and at all times material hereto has been, a resident of the County of San Juan, State of New Mexico. 5. Plaintiff Matt Wilcox is, and at all times material hereto has been, a resident of the County of San Juan, State of New Mexico. 6. Defendant Board of Commissioners, San Juan County is, and at all times material hereto has been, a governmental entity of the County of San Juan, located and principally doing business in, the County of San Juan, State of New Mexico. 7. Defendant San Juan County Sheriffs Office [hereinafter SJCSO] is, and at all times material hereto has been, a governmental entity of the County of San Juan, located and principally doing business in, the County of San Juan, State of New Mexico. 8. Defendant Ken Christesen [hereinafter Christesen] is, based upon information and belief, a resident of the County of San Juan, State of New Mexico. 9. Defendant Ron Anderson [hereinafter Anderson], is, based upon information and belief, a resident of the County of San Juan, State of New Mexico. 10. Defendant Brice Current [hereinafter Current] is, based upon information and belief, a resident of the County of San Juan, State of New Mexico. 11. On March 24, 2014, both Mss. Haws and Utley filed Charges of Discrimination with the New Mexico Department of Workforce Solutions, Human Rights Bureau (HRB), which were concurrently filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). 12. The SJCSO is a suable governmental entity within the meaning of the Civil Rights Act of 1963, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, Title VII. 13. These Charges are administratively exhausted as of September 23, 2014 because 2 Case 1:14-cv-00357-JCH-KK Document 38 Filed 09/29/14 Page 2 of 40 180 days will have passed since the filing of these charges with the EEOC. 14. The federal District Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of Plaintiffs claims through 28 U.S.C. 1331, federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. 1343, civil rights jurisdiction, and pendent jurisdiction on Plaintiffs state law claims. 15. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the parties to this action. 16. Venue is proper in this Court. II. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 17. Plaintiffs hereby adopt and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 16 as set forth above. 18. Christesen, at all times relevant to Plaintiffs claims, exercised the job duties and responsibilities of the Sheriff of San Juan County. In his position of Sheriff, Christesen constituted the policy-making authority and highest operational authority of the SJCSO. Christesen also constituted the ultimate authority in the SJCSO with respect to the application of San Juan County personnel policies and procedures. 19. During the period of time relevant to Plaintiffs claims, Anderson exercised the duties and responsibilities of the Undersheriff of San Juan County. Anderson exercised policy- making authority and had operational authority over the nature of Plaintiffs duties and the application of San Juan County personnel policies and procedures. 20. Current, who occupied principally the duties of a lieutenant or captain during the period of time pertinent to Plaintiffs claims, often acted as the proxy and spokesperson for the will, opinions, and directions of Christesen and Andersonas set forth more fully below. 21. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiffs were employees of the SJCSO. Plaintiffs continue to remain employed with the SJCSO. 3 Case 1:14-cv-00357-JCH-KK Document 38 Filed 09/29/14 Page 3 of 40 22. Shane Utley, during all times relevant hereto, performed the job duties and responsibilities of a Captain. In that position, Mr. Utleys principal job duties were related to Sheriffs Office Operations Division Captain. Mr. Utley was directly supervised by Christesen and Anderson. 23. Beth Utley, during all times relevant hereto, performed the job duties and responsibilities of a Public Information Officer (PIO) and Community Relations Coordinator. At all times relevant hereto, Ms. Utleys direct supervisor was Christesen and her indirect supervisor was Anderson. 24. Lisa Haws, during the relevant time pertinent to her claims, principally performed the job duties and responsibilities of a Lieutenant. In that position, Haws mainly supervised the patrol division. Haws supervisors were Mr. Utley and, indirectly, Anderson and Christesen. 25. Matt Wilcox, during the period of time pertinent to his claims, performed the duties and responsibilities of a Lieutenant and Sergeant. Mr. Wilcoxs direct supervisors were Ms. Haws, Shane Ferrari and, indirectly, Mr. Utley, Anderson and Christesen. 26. On March 1, 2010, Mr. Wilcox received a SJCSO promotion from Sergeant to Lieutenant. The Sheriff at the time was Mark McCloskey. Based upon the feedback from the great majority of the Sergeants, McCloskey instituted in February 2010 a promotion process from sergeant to lieutenant a Command Staff interview process. This process involved a written exercise, an interview with command staff, and staff evaluations. These same elements appeared in the discretionary assessment process set forth in Policy No. 3000-12 for promotions. 27. As a result of the approved promotional process, the SJCSO promoted Mr. Wilcox into a Support Lieutenant position, effective March 7, 2010. 28. On September 25, 2010, Captain Jim Smith of the SJCSO gave Mr. Wilcox a 6- 4 Case 1:14-cv-00357-JCH-KK Document 38 Filed 09/29/14 Page 4 of 40 month performance review, noting that Mr. Wilcox had done an excellent job as Support Lieutenant. The review concluded that Mr. Wilcox had no areas of performance that needed improvement. 29. In early 2011, the citizens of San Juan County elected Christesen as the new Sheriff. During the election, Mr. Wilcox publicly supported the candidacy of Marlyn Wyatt for Sheriff and vocally opposed Christesen. 30. While the Sheriffs campaign was in full swing, a number of salaried SJCSO employees approached Mr. Wilcox and advised him that Christesen was stating that Mr. Wilcox would be demoted if Christesen won the Sheriffs election. 31. Shortly before the vote for Sheriff, Christesen went to Mr. Wilcoxs house and requested that Mr. Wilcox cease speaking against Christesen. When Mr. Wilcox remarked that he had heard that Christesen intended to demote him, Christesen promised Mr. Wilcox that in exchange for Mr. Wilcoxs refusal to publicly speak out against Christesen that if Christesen were elected, he would not demote Mr. Wilcox. 32. Christesen won the election for sheriff and took office in January 2011. 33. On February 2, 2011, Christesen wrote Mr. Wilcox a memorandum, advising that Mr. Wilcoxs rank of lieutenant was being rescinded and a different assessment process was being utilized. In addition, Christesen stated that Mr. Wilcox could not grieve this personnel action. Christesen, by rescinding Mr. Wilcoxs lieutenancy, violated both the promotional policy in place and the Command Staff interview process established by McCloskey. 34. While the assessment process Christesen explained ran its course, Mr. Wilcox maintained his Lieutenant rank and pay. On April 11, 2011, Christesen advised Mr. Wilcox that effective April 17, 2011 Mr. Wilcox would be demoted to a sergeants position with reduced pay. 5 Case 1:14-cv-00357-JCH-KK Document 38 Filed 09/29/14 Page 5 of 40 35. According to the assessment administered by a panel under Christesens control, Mr. Wilcox scored out from among the seven eligible sergeants with the lowest point total for the assessment. This score is outlandish and constitutes Christesens attempt to not only foreclose Mr. Wilcox from holding on to his lieutenants position, but also any future lieutenant opening. Christesen represented to other SJCSO employees that Mr. Wilcox would never be promoted while Christesen remained Sheriff. 36. The recision of Mr. Wilcoxs rank, the failure to promote Mr. Wilcox into the lieutenant position, and the loss of pay and level of duties associated with the demotion are adverse employment actions in which Mr. Wilcoxs exercise of free speech and political associations were a substantial or motivating factor. 37. During the period of time Mr. Wilcox has performed duties as a sergeant his performance evaluations have been Excellent. In addition, during the period of time he has been a sergeant, Mr. Wilcox has received awards and commendations for his performance. 38. On January 31, 2013, the SJCSO, under Currents signature, issued Mr. Wilcox a letter of reprimand for allegations related to communications with SJCSO deputies. The letter of reprimand was an unsupported, groundless, and retaliatory over-reaction to a minor incident. Written reprimands, pursuant to SJCSO Policy No. 3000-05, are to issue for substantial or repeated violations of policy in which verbal warnings or verbal counseling is not appropriate or has proven to be ineffective. A number of provisions in the SJCSO were violated, not the least of which are the investigatory requirements. This was investigated, but no progressive discipline was handed out. There are no similar violations in Mr. Wilcoxs file. 39. As of this date, Mr. Wilcox continues to be a target or retaliatory conduct and disparate treatment because now, in the midst of another electoral season involving the Sheriff, 6 Case 1:14-cv-00357-JCH-KK Document 38 Filed 09/29/14 Page 6 of 40 Mr. Wilcox is not politically supporting Christesens re-election. 40. Mr. Wilcox as recently as late March 2014 has reported to San Juan Countys Human Resources Department (HR) that he is being subject to retaliation and a hostile work environment. Based on Mr. Wilcoxs knowledge, the HR Department has done nothing to protect him and investigate his complaints. By and large, the HR Department has been unresponsive to Mr. Wilcoxs concerns. 41. Ms. Haws, who for a period of time has supervised Mr. Wilcox, has suffered an on-going campaign of retaliation, hostility, and disparate treatment from the SJCSO and the individually-named defendants. 42. Effective February 8, 2009, the SJCSO promoted Ms. Haws into the position of Patrol Lieutenant in the SJCSO. Ms. Haws worked a few months on patrol before being promoted to the Detective Division, where she became the Detective Lieutenant of the SJCSO. Ms. Haws is the first and only female ever promoted into a lieutenants position at the SJCSO. 43. During the 2010-11 campaign for Sheriff, Ms. Haws vocally supported the candidacy of Marlyn Wyatt. Christesen repeatedly commented during the Sheriffs campaign that he intended to get rid of the Haws mafia. Ms. Haws husband, Neil Haws, is also a lieutenant with the SJCSO. 44. Christesen actually went door-to-door during the campaign and stated to voters that if Christesen was elected he would get rid of the Haws mafia. There are numerous witnesses to these comments. Indeed, on the night of his election, Christesen reiterated to a group of people that he now intended to get rid of the Haws mafia. 45. Shortly after being elected as Sheriff in January 2011, Christesen began his retaliatory campaign. In April 2011, Christesen demoted Ms. Haws to a patrol lieutenant 7 Case 1:14-cv-00357-JCH-KK Document 38 Filed 09/29/14 Page 7 of 40 position. Although the demotion did not result in a loss of pay to Ms. Haws, the demotion did lead to reduced job duties, diminished promotional opportunities, and prestige. The male who replaced Ms. Haws in the detective lieutenant position was significantly lesser-qualified. 46. Christesen communicated to other SJCSO employees that he had demoted Ms. Haws for the purpose of forcing Ms. Haws to involuntarily resign. 47. At all times relevant during to Ms. Haws claims, she performed her job duties and responsibilities in an excellent manner, as noted in the relevant performance evaluations. In addition, during the period 2011-2014, Ms. Haws has received a number of commendations for her outstanding performance. 48. Ms. Haws has made known for years within the SJCSO her desire to attend the prestigious FBI National Academy (NA). The NA is a training for command stafflieutenant or abovethat has limited attendance. In July 2011, Shane Ferrari, who had recently received a promotion into a lieutenants position and was still a probationary employee was selected by Christesen to attend the NA. 49. In late 2011 or early 2012, Daniel Webb, another recently promoted lieutenant, advised Ms. Haws that he would be going to the NA next. Ms. Haws became rightfully upset and complained to Christesen that although she was the senior lieutenant she was being improperly passed over to receive the NA training. Males were being regularly selected in the face of Ms. Haws known desire to attend the training. 50. The NA training can and does affect promotional opportunities within the SJCSO. 51. In September 2012, Ms. Haws again learned that she was being passed over for the NA training in favor of another recently promoted male lieutenant. Ms. Haws approached Christesen and asked if she could be considered for the NA. Christesen responded Yes and 8 Case 1:14-cv-00357-JCH-KK Document 38 Filed 09/29/14 Page 8 of 40 elaborated that it did not matter to him whether Ms. Haws or another male lieutenant attended the training first. Ms. Haws was senior to the male applicant in time in service. 52. Nevertheless, time passed and Ms. Haws was not selected by Christesen to attend the NA training. 53. In September 2013, Luke Miller, the Albuquerque Coordinator of the NA, specifically stated to the SJCSO that the FBI wanted Ms. Haws to attend the training. Christesen refused to allow Ms. Haws to attend the training. Even contact from the FBI SAC in Albuquerque could not convince Christesen to allow Ms. Haws to attend the training. The FBI request was due, in part, to the shortage of females who qualified for and attended the NA. 54. On March 12, 2014, Current entered Ms. Haws office to speak with her about Mr. Utleys support for Christesen related to the upcoming June 2014 election for Sheriff. Current essentially stated that Mr. Utley was required to actively support Christesen during the election. Otherwise, negative consequences would be attached to Mr. Utleys lack of support. On March 17, 2014, Christesen told Ms. Haws that Mr. Utley is playing a dangerous game and going down a dangerous road. Ms. Haws understood that Christesen was referring to Mr. Utley supporting the Sheriff during the election campaign. 55. On March 17, 2014, Christesen advised Ms. Haws that she had been chosen to attend the NA but Christesen would not permit it at the time. Christesen also explained that he had notified the FBI that his refusal was due to Christesens view that sending Ms. Haws because she was a female was inappropriate. This conversation occurred in the context of the upcoming elections and Ms. Haws statement to Christesen that she would support him. Haws made this statement because she was tired of three years of disparate treatment and hardship. Ms. Haws believed she had no other choice and feared further retaliation. 9 Case 1:14-cv-00357-JCH-KK Document 38 Filed 09/29/14 Page 9 of 40 56. Ms. Haws commented to Christesen that she was being passed over repeatedly by males who had lesser service time and experience in the SJCSO. Ms. Haws squarely asked Christesen if she was being discriminated against because of the fact that Ms. Haws had not supported Christesen in the last Sheriffs election. 57. When Ms. Haws requested on March 17 th that Christesen give her a definitive answer on whether she would ever be able to attend the NA, Christesen responded that the decision would not be made until after the upcoming Sheriffs election. 58. Ms. Haws understood at that point that Christesen was connecting any possibility of her ever attending the NA to her electoral support for Christesen. 59. On March 20, 2014, Ms. Haws attended a luncheon sponsored by the NA. Ms. Haws spoke with Miller. Miller related to Ms. Haws the fact that the FBI had provided two positions in the NA to the SJCSO for the express purpose of having Ms. Haws attend. Miller also shared the conversation the FBI had in which it was specifically requested of the Sheriff that he allow Ms. Haws to attend the NA. 60. On March 24, 2014, Ms. Haws filed an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) complaint, alleging that she had been treated differently from other males with respect to attendance at the NA because she is female. 61. By the date of the filing EEOC complaint, Ms. Haws was senior in time in rank and service to the following males who had attended or were scheduled or promised to attend the NAShane Ferrari, Cory Tanner, and Daniel Webb. 62. On March 25, 2014, Ms. Haws contacted the San Juan County HR for the purpose of filing a complaint against the SJCSO and Christesen related to the workplace discrimination harassment, and hostility she encountered. San Juan County HR refused to take her complaints, 10 Case 1:14-cv-00357-JCH-KK Document 38 Filed 09/29/14 Page 10 of 40 improperly stating that since a complaint had been filed in the EEOC that HR could do nothing for Ms. Haws. Such is not supported in the San Juan County Employee Handbook generally and specifically in Sections 18 and 19. 63. Following the filing of her EEOC Complaint, Ms. Haws has been subjected to a hostile work environment by the SJCSO, Christesen, and Anderson. The Sheriff no longer speaks with Ms. Haws, ignores her in the workplace, and has created a work environment where Ms. Haws is isolated, alienated, and separate. 64. On March 27, 2014, Undersheriff Anderson met with the SJCSO staff and stated that Anderson would henceforth monitor the comings and goings of staff. For many years the policy had been that SJCSO employees could come and go freely as long as they worked their 40-hour weeks. This new policy was clear retaliation for the complaints lodged by Ms. Haws and others. 65. On January 1, 2011, Ms. Utley became the Public Information Officer (PIO) for the SJCSO. Her direct supervisor was the Sheriff, Ken Christesen and her indirect supervisor was the Undersheriff, Ron Anderson. 66. In December 2011, Ms. Utley received an Exceptional Service Award for her outstanding work ethic and job performance. 67. During the period January 1, 2011 until April 11, 2013, Ms. Utley received no complaints from Anderson or Christesen related to her work performance. It is an obligation of a SJCSO to advise employees of any performance-related problems. Ms. Utleys performance was evaluated by Anderson on April 25, 2012 for the 2011 work year. Anderson rated Ms. Utley as a good employee. No needs improvement ratings appear on this evaluation 68. In January 2013, Ms. Utley received a certification that qualified her as the only 11 Case 1:14-cv-00357-JCH-KK Document 38 Filed 09/29/14 Page 11 of 40 certified PIO in San Juan County. 69. On April 11, 2013, Christesen and Anderson met with Ms. Utley. Prior to this meeting, Anderson and Current had for several weeks ignored Ms. Utley and refused to speak with her. Ms. Utley did not know what caused this behavior. 70. Christesen and Anderson presented Ms. Utley with her 2012 evaluation, which included an number of Needs Improvement ratings. Prior to presenting Ms. Utley with this evaluation, neither Christesen nor Anderson had complained to Ms. Utley about any facet of her work performance. 71. The anniversary date of Ms. Utleys employment with the SJCSO was January 2012. The 2012 performance evaluation, according to San Juan County personnel policies, was to be completed within 30 days of Ms. Utleys anniversary date. It was not. 72. In such circumstances, the San Juan County Employee Handbook, Section 13.3, the presumption is that the employees performance is satisfactory and a step increase is awarded. 73. Ms. Utley is the only female employee supervised by Anderson. Other male employees supervised by Anderson received notice of performance deficiencies and were given opportunities to improve. Ms. Utley was not. In addition, Ms. Utley asserts that the needs improvement ratings noted on the April 11, 2013 evaluation were fictitious, retaliatory, and made with evil intent. Christesen and Anderson ignored and gave no consideration to Ms. Utleys explanations related to the allegations of poor performance. In large part, the deficiencies noted on the performance evaluation were due to the negligence and failure to respond appropriately of Christesen and Anderson. 74. This evaluation meeting turned hostile and threatening when Ms. Utley opposed the ratings given or tried to present explanations for the performance deficiencies alleged. 12 Case 1:14-cv-00357-JCH-KK Document 38 Filed 09/29/14 Page 12 of 40 75. Christesen and Anderson forced Ms. Utley to resign from SJCSO Foundation Board, of which she was President, as an order that surfaced during the evaluation conference. 76. On April 11, 2013, as a condition of continued employment, Christesen and Anderson compelled Ms. Utley to sign a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP). Some of the conditions of the PIP were the following: (1) a monthly activity report to be presented to Christesen and Anderson; (2) any meetings with any and all contacts outside the Sheriffs Office were to be sent to Christesen and Anderson; and (3) on-going monthly meetings with Christesen and Anderson for the purpose of updating Ms. Utleys activities. 77. These PIP requirements were not required of other SJCSO employees and constituted harassment of Ms. Utley and an improper attempt to control the movements and interactions of Ms. Utley. 78. In August 2013, Ms. Utley met with Christesen and Anderson to supposedly review how Ms. Utley was performing under the provisions of the PIP. During the meeting, neither Christesen nor Anderson stated anything that directly corresponded to any of Ms. Utleys job duties or her general work performance. This was supposedly the first meeting called for under the provisions of the PIP. The meeting was a farce with Christesen and Anderson referring to golf games and television shows. 79. Ms. Utley did not have another update meeting related to the PIP with Christesen and Anderson until December 18, 2013. This meeting was not much better than the August meeting; however, Christesen and Anderson did communicate to Ms. Utley that she was doing a good job. 80. In January 2014, the SJCSO, under the direction of Christesen, began to curtail the PIO duties of Ms. Utleywithout reason or explanation. 13 Case 1:14-cv-00357-JCH-KK Document 38 Filed 09/29/14 Page 13 of 40 81. In January 2014, Ms. Utley learned that Elizabeth Valdez was retiring from her position of Office Manager with the SJCSO. At that time, Ms. Utley was the only qualified SJCSO employee who could meet the requirements of the position. 82. Christesen mentioned that he was going to place an under-qualified male, Eli Lisko, into Valdez former position. When Christesen received disagreement with this decision, he then promoted two under-qualified females into Valdez former position. He also gave Eli Lisko a promotion. 83. In order to make these personnel decisions, Christesen had to (1) change the qualifications for the position; (2) fail to provide any consideration for Ms. Utleys interest in the position; (3) change the position(s) to a non-exempt job; and (4) manipulate and pervert the promotion and classification policies of the SJCSO. At no point did Christesen engage the required assessment process for this position. 84. By now Current was speaking negatively about Ms. Utley in the workplace and criticizing Ms. Utleys work performance. At no point in time did Current exercise any direct supervision of Ms. Utley. 85. Current stated to Shane Utley that Ms. Utley was just trying to sabotage the Sheriff and make him look bad after Current believed Ms. Utley had not done all in her power to make a SJCSO golf tournament a success. Current even told this to people outside the Sheriffs Office. During a separate golf outing, Current spent a considerable amount of time bad mouthing Ms. Utley to the Chief of Police of the City of Bloomfield, Mike Kovacs. Currents charges were without any evidence and patently false. 86. Current expressed that Ms. Utley was not a good PIO and should be fired. During a March 2014 meeting related to budget cuts, Current expressed publicly his opinion that if any 14 Case 1:14-cv-00357-JCH-KK Document 38 Filed 09/29/14 Page 14 of 40 jobs are to be cut, then Beths should be the first to go. 87. Ms. Utley is an exempt employee. 88. It has been the custom and practice at the SJCSO for years that exempt employees could take care of personal matters during a regular work dayas long as the employee made up the time lost during the work week so that the total time at work amounts to at least 40 hours. In addition, if an exempt employee works over 40 hours a week, the employee could take the extra time off during a subsequent week. 89. Ms. Utley is the only exempt employee that is required to notify Anderson and Christesen of her whereabouts during the work day. 90. Current has stated that Ms. Utley makes too much money and that Valdez also made too much money. The only SJCSO employees Current has made these comments about are these two females. 91. The individually-named Defendants have isolated and alienated Ms. Utley in the workplace by not speaking with her, refusing to address her work concerns and complaints, using ambush techniques to evaluate work performance, and spreading negative, false, and malicious rumors about her as an employee and person. These efforts to discredit Ms. Utley have created a hostile work environment in which Ms. Utley feels alone, without recourse, and abandoned. 92. On March 24, 2014, Ms. Utley filed an EEOC complaint alleging that she had been subjected to a hostile work environment and discriminated against because of her sex. 93. Ms. Utley also filed a harassment complaint with San Juan County HR. As of the date of this complaint, Ms. Utley is unaware of any investigation or other activity related to this harassment complaint. 94. Mr. Utley learned in early March 2014 that a close family friend, Mike Kovacs, 15 Case 1:14-cv-00357-JCH-KK Document 38 Filed 09/29/14 Page 15 of 40 would be running for Sheriff of San Juan County. Although Kovacs was a long-time friend of the Utley family, Mr. Utley told Kovacs that Mr. Utley had already disclosed to Christesen that Mr. Utley would support Christesens re-election. The election for Sheriff is to be held in June 2014. 95. During the course of the last three years, Christesen has represented to Mr. Utley and others in the SJCSO on a number of occasions that Mr. Utley would be appointed Undersheriff should Christesen prevail in the June 2014 elections. 96. In March 2014, Mr. Utley learned through other sources that Christesen was unhappy with Mr. Utley because Christesen believed that Mr. Utley would support Kovacs in the upcoming election. 97. Mr. Utley then spoke with Christesen in the SJCSO workplace that Mr. Utley remained loyal to Christesen and would support Christesen in the election. 98. On March 11, 2014, a conversation took place in the SJCSO workplace that involved Mr. Utley, Christesen, Shane Ferrari, Anderson, and Current. The conversation centered on the June 2014 election for Sheriff. During the conversation Christesen stated he needed to know that he had the support of all present. Current directly asked Mr. Utley if Christesen could count on his support. 99. Under the guise of taking a phone call, Christesen, Anderson, and Ferrari then left the room, leaving Mr. Utley and Current behind. Current, acting as the mouthpiece of Christesen, then began questioning the support of Mr. Utley. When Mr. Utley reiterated his support for Christesen, Current responded by stating that Mr. Utley needed to get donations for Christesens re-election bid, needed to have a campaign sign put in his front yard that supported Christesen, needed to get his entire family involved in getting Christesen re-elected, and needed 16 Case 1:14-cv-00357-JCH-KK Document 38 Filed 09/29/14 Page 16 of 40 to do more towards Christesens re-election. 100. While this conversation ensued between Mr. Utley and Current, Christesen roamed the hallway outside the room, constantly looking inside. It was obvious that Current was acting at the behest of Christesen and merely repeating questions and comments Current and Christesen had discussed beforehand. As proof of this motive, Current, who had no authority to speak about or direct such matters, stated that Mr. Utley would only be Christesens Undersheriff if he complied with the demands Current was making. On March 12, 2014, Captain Brice Current, while on duty, reiterated the above conversation he had with Mr. Utley to Lieutenant Lisa Haws (Mr. Utleys subordinate) in Ms. Haws office. 101. On March 18, 2014, Current again spoke with Mr. Utley in the workplace about supporting Christesen during the election. Current noted that Mr. Utley did not sufficiently support the re-election of Christesen. Current complained once more that Utley needed to support Christesen financially and do more. Current demanded that Mr. Utley have his parents place a large campaign sign supporting Christesen on their property. When Mr. Utley responded that he could not do that because his family supported Kovacs, Current angrily replied that Mr. Utley could force his parents to place such a sign. That evening Mr. Utley attended a campaign function with Christesen, demonstrating his support for Christesens re-election. 102. On March 18, 2014, Mr. Utley also spoke with Christesen, stating that he feared for his job security because of what Ms. Haws had communicated about Christesen remarking that Mr. Utley was playing a dangerous game. Mr. Utleys concern was genuine and he feared that he could be terminated at any time. 103. A few days later Ferrari advised Mr. Utley that Christesen was concerned about whether Mr. Utley would support Christesens re-election bid. 17 Case 1:14-cv-00357-JCH-KK Document 38 Filed 09/29/14 Page 17 of 40 104. Mr. Utley also learned through Lieutenant Neil Haws that Christesen was complaining about Mr. Utleys supposed lack of support. Lt. Haws also stated that Christesen made the comment to him that Mr. Utley was playing a dangerous game. During this period, Christesen made known to a number of SJCSO employees that Christesen was unhappy with the level of Mr. Utleys political support. 105. In an under-handed effort to try to win the Utleys campaign support, Christesen delayed giving both Mr. and Ms. Utley their yearly evaluations, which were due in January 2014. Based upon Christesens comments to other SJCSO employees, Christesen believed that he needed the Utleys political support to win the June 2014 election; however, once that support was no longer necessary, it was rumored Christesen would remove both Utleys from the SJCSO. 106. During March 2014, the SJCSO was permeated with political conversations related to garnering support for Christesen. These conversations were coercive and placed enormous amounts of pressure upon the Utleys and others. In the Utleys case, Christesen made it clear to that political support for his re-election equated with retention of employment in the SJCSO. 107. In the midst of these circumstances, Mr. Utley decided to write Christesen in late March 2014. Mr. Utley, by now mentally and emotionally worn down by the pressure exerted upon him to support Christesen, told Christesen that he would no longer support Christesens re- election. Mr. Utley also requested that Christesen notify Current to quit speaking poorly about his wife. 108. On March 24, 2014, Mr. Utley filed a claim with the San Juan County HR, claiming that Christesen and Anderson were violating County policy by campaigning while on duty, violating the Governmental Conduct Act through their unethical behavior, and subjecting 18 Case 1:14-cv-00357-JCH-KK Document 38 Filed 09/29/14 Page 18 of 40 him to a hostile work environment. 109. After filing his complaint, on the very same day, Christesen and Anderson confronted Mr. Utley about the filing of his claims. Christesen asked Mr. Utley why Mr. Utley had gone to HR and filed his complaint. The conversation was inappropriate and caused Mr. Utley great discomfort because Mr. Utley was forced to justify the filing of the hostile work environment claim. 110. The head of San Juan County HR, Charlene Scott, notified Mr. Utley that his complaint was going nowhereleading Mr. Utley to believe that he would be quickly retaliated against and the hostile work environment would turn more hostile. Scott is required under the policies and procedures of Ordinance 34 of San Juan County to investigate Mr. Utleys claimsnot summarily dismiss them. 111. Unsurprisingly, retaliation quickly began. The custom and practice, as stated above, was to allow employees time to handle personal and other matters during the workday as long as the employee made the time up during the week. On March 27, 2014, Anderson advised the SJCSO staff that employees would henceforth be required to report any off-work activities directly to Anderson for approval. This by-passed the clear chain of command and removed supervisory duties from Mr. Utleys and others purviews. Moreover, since the facts and circumstances related to Mr. Utleys political support for Christesen arose and the filing of the hostile work environment complaint, Mr. Utley has been subjected to on-going harassment and workplace hostility, including, but not limited to removal of some of his supervisory duties, workplace intimidation and alienation, and intimidation from the individually-named Defendants. 112. Employees of the SJCSO were required to abide by the policies and procedures of 19 Case 1:14-cv-00357-JCH-KK Document 38 Filed 09/29/14 Page 19 of 40 both the SJCSO and the County. On repeated and numerous occasions, as set forth more fully below, Defendants violated these policies and procedures. 113. Following the filing of the original Complaint in this action on April 16, 2014, Defendant SJCSO and the individually-named Defendants have engaged in a calculated, retaliatory campaign against Plaintiffs. 114. After the filing of the Complaint, Christesen removed supervisory duties from Mr. Utley, including direct supervisory duties over SJCSO personnel that were associated with Christesens group of supporters within the SJCSO. These actions resulted in diminished supervisory duties for Mr. Utley and undercut and weakened his ability to supervise subordinate employees. 115. Christesen and Anderson and the SJCSO canceled routine staff meetings that involved the participation of Mr. Utley, further diminishing his ability to supervise staff. Employees under Mr. Utleys supervision became non-responsive to Mr. Utleys direction and it became commonplace that Mr. Utley could not even discover the whereabouts of his subordinates. 116. Christesen and the SJCSO imposed upon all Plaintiffs disparate work rules and obligations following the filing of the Complaint. By way of example, Christesen, Anderson, and the SJCSO required all Plaintiffs to maintain a strict work schedule--7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., with an hour off for lunchwhile other employees in the SJCSO were not required to follow such a schedule and were permitted to participate in personal errands during the course of the work day. 117. SJCSO employees were actively discouraged from helping and assisting Plaintiffs in the performance of the Plaintiffs job duties and obligations. SJCSO employees were warned 20 Case 1:14-cv-00357-JCH-KK Document 38 Filed 09/29/14 Page 20 of 40 that negative employment consequences could attach to provision of such assistance. 118. On July 16, 2014, Troy Morris, an officer with the Aztec Police Department, met with Mr. Utley at the SJCSO regarding an allegation of embezzlement brought forward by Christesen and the SJCSO. Morris communicated to Mr. Utley that the reported embezzlement was related to the use of department-issued ammunition. 119. On that same day, Corey Tanner and Anderson of the SJCSO notified Mr. Utley that the SJCSO had opened an internal affairs (IA) investigation related to the alleged embezzlement. 120. On July 16, 2014, Mr. Utley indicated to Tanner and Anderson during the IA interview that no facts supported the embezzlement allegations. It was apparent to Mr. Utley that the bogus embezzlement charges were nothing more than retaliation for having filed the federal action. 121. Eventually, Mr. Utley learned that the original claims of embezzlement were communicated from Current to Christesen and that the allegations were related to a trade involving a friend of Currents, Casey Craig, that had been consummated approximately six months prior. 122. Following the filing of the original Complaint, all Defendants actively engaged in looking into Mr. Utleys past history with the SJCSO in an ill-advised effort to find dirt on Mr. Utley that could be used to threaten, affect, and damage Mr. Utleys employment with the SJCSO. 123. Due to these trumped-up and false charges of embezzlement, the SJCSO placed Mr. Utley on administrative leave pending the results of the IA investigation. 124. Anderson advised Mr. Utley that he needed to start his retirement paperwork on 21 Case 1:14-cv-00357-JCH-KK Document 38 Filed 09/29/14 Page 21 of 40 the same date that the SJCSO placed Mr. Utley on administrative leave. Mr. Utley rightly considered this comment a threat that the SJCSO would do everything within its power to force Mr. Utley out of the workplace. 125. In addition to the embezzlement charges, the SJCSO and the individually-named Defendants dug up a stale claim that Mr. Utley had illegally and inappropriately modified a shotgun that had been in use at the SJCSO for a number of years. Again, these allegations, which merited no action by the SJCSO, were merely retaliatory claims brought forward for the purpose of retaliating against Mr. Utley and forcing him out of the SJCSO. 126. In the midst of these bogus, but serious, charges being brought by the SJCSO and the individually-named Defendants, Mr. Utleys health began to significantly deteriorate. Mr. Utley began to suffer from panic attacks, loss of sleep, emotional and mental stress, and a sense of hopelessness. The deterioration of Mr. Utleys health was directly related to the false and frivolous charges being leveled against him. Mr. Utley sought medical attention for his medical problems. 127. In light of the on-going investigations, the swift retaliation he encountered following the filing of the original Complaint, and the on-going deterioration of his health, Mr. Utley decided to retire from the SJCSO, effective August 1, 2014. The only reasons pertinent to Mr. Utleys decision to retire related to the unbearable retaliatory acts of the SJCSO and the individually-named Defendants and the consequences on Mr. Utleys health and his family. 128. Within days of Mr. Utleys involuntary retirement, Christesen held a series of staff meetings with SJCSO employees. In these meetings, Christesen defamed and slandered Mr. Utleyreferring to the Utleys political opposition to his candidacy for Sheriff, the reasons for Mr. Utleys retirement being the fact that Mr. Utley was an embezzler who had stolen 22 Case 1:14-cv-00357-JCH-KK Document 38 Filed 09/29/14 Page 22 of 40 thousands of rounds of ammo from the department, the lack of integrity of the Plaintiffs, and the absence of good character in the Plaintiffs. These comments were made to all the employees in the SJCSO at the time. 129. Moreover, after the Plaintiffs filed the original Complaint, the individually-named Defendants no longer spoke with Ms. Utley in the workplace. Due to these circumstances and the need for her supervisors input regarding the performance of her job duties, Ms. Utley attempted to communicate with the individually-named Defendants via e-mail. This proved unsuccessful as well. Finally, in a last-ditch effort to receive needed support, Ms. Utley tried to text her supervisors. Nothing Ms. Utley tried produced any response. She was isolated and left to her own devices. This isolation of Ms. Utley occurred as a retaliatory act to force Ms. Utley out of the workplace and make more difficult the performance of her job duties. 130. In late June 2014, the SJCSO, principally through Anderson, falsely accused Ms. Utley of having lost SJCSO Foundation Board financial records. In addition, the SJCSO decided to conduct an audit during the period of time Ms. Utley handled the Foundations financial records, in hopes of finding some information that could justify their misconduct and bad behavior towards Ms. Utley. 131. Following the filing of the original Complaint, the SJCSO, Christesen, and Anderson pulled Ms. Utley out of duties related to Victim Services, in which Ms. Utley had participated for quite a period of time. No justification was given for this action. Furthermore, SJCSO, Christesen, and Anderson removed Ms. Utley from further supervisory duties. 132. In mid-July, due to the false allegations brought against her related to her participation in the Foundation, the workplace isolation and hostility she encountered daily, and the stress caused by the SJCSOs, Christesens, and Andersons unlawful behavior, Ms. Utley 23 Case 1:14-cv-00357-JCH-KK Document 38 Filed 09/29/14 Page 23 of 40 went to urgent care for stress-related issues. Because the retaliation for the filing of the original Complaint has continually, over time, been ratcheted up, Ms. Utley decided she could no longer work in this toxic, hostile, and intimidating work environment. 133. Effective August 8, 2014, Ms. Utley involuntarily resigned from the SJCSO, choosing to safeguard her health and well-being rather than continue to work in the circumstances described above. 134. Mr. Wilcox, after the filing of the original Complaint, was subjected to an IA investigation related to the filing and the dissemination of the information contained in the Complaint. This IA was initiated by another member of Christesens group who attempted through the IA to harass and intimidate Mr. Wilcox. When the allegations supposedly supporting the IA were shown to be patently untrue, the SJCSO backed off the IA. Although no evidence supported the IA, the SJCSO left it open and continued to pressure and harass Mr. Wilcox. 135. Following the filing of the original Complaint, the SJCSO retaliated against Plaintiff Haws by forcing her husband, also a deputy with the SJCSO, into retirement. Prior to being forced into an involuntary retirement, Neil Haws was demoted, became the subject of an IA on the basis of false and incredible charges, and assigned to a position in which he no longer had any supervisory duties. 136. Ms. Haws complained to the HRB and the EEOC that she had been discriminated against because of her gender, female, in that she was prohibited from attending training that was provided to lesser experienced males of lower rank. 137. Ms. Utley complained to the HRB and the EEOC that she had been subjected to disparate treatment and a hostile work environment because of her gender, female. In addition, 24 Case 1:14-cv-00357-JCH-KK Document 38 Filed 09/29/14 Page 24 of 40 Ms. Utley charged at that time that the SJCSO discriminated against her by hiring a less- qualified male into an Office Manager position which Ms. Utley had sought. COUNT I 42 U.S.C. 1983 VIOLATIONS OF FREEDOM OF POLITICAL ASSOCIATION FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION 138. Plaintiffs hereby adopt and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 137 as set forth above. 139. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits public employers from disparately treating employees because of their political beliefs, associations, and affiliations. The only exception to this prohibition corresponds to where the employment includes a requirement of political allegiance. 140. In this matter, due to the nature of the duties and responsibilities of Plaintiffs, no requirement of political allegiance exists. 141. The Plaintiffs were subjected to official pressure to work for the candidacy of Christesen at the risk of losing their employment and/or suffering adverse employment actions. This coercion is a violation of each and every Plaintiffs fundamental constitutional rights. 142. These Plaintiff have suffered a number of adverse employment actions where their political affiliations and beliefs were substantial or motivating factors, including, but not limited to, the creation of hostile work environments, refusals to allow and attend trainings, demotion, retaliation, removal of job duties, unjustified and unfair disciplinary actions, disparate treatment with respect to the terms and conditions of employment, abuse and perversion of mandatory policies and procedures, unjustifiable performance evaluations and/or the lack thereof, 25 Case 1:14-cv-00357-JCH-KK Document 38 Filed 09/29/14 Page 25 of 40 banishment to what are now dead-end jobs without prospects of promotion, and the conditioning of employment privileges and rights on political support of Christesen. 143. In addition to the aforementioned adverse employment actions, since the filing of the original Complaint and because Plaintiffs have chosen to exercise their free speech rights through that filing, SJCSO and the individually-named Defendants have retaliated against Plaintiffs in the following manner: (1) the removal of supervisory duties and other job duties from Plaintiffs; (2) the selective imposition of work rules and requirements; (3) the further creation of a hostile and intimidating work environment; (4) the raising of false and bogus charges related to embezzlement, misuse of funds, and other matters; and (5) the defamation and slander of Plaintiffs reputation and character, including, but not limited to, the self-serving and capricious leaking of information related to confidential internal investigations to other SJCSO employees. 144. In violating the Plaintiffs First Amendment rights, the Defendants acted under the color of state law. 145. Plaintiffs are entitled to all remedies and relief available to them under the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 1983, including, but not limited to, punitive damages against the individually-named Defendants for their willful, wanton, malicious, and grossly reckless conduct. COUNT II 42 U.S.C. 1983 VIOLATIONS OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH/RETALIATION FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION 146. Plaintiffs hereby adopt and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 145 as set forth above. 26 Case 1:14-cv-00357-JCH-KK Document 38 Filed 09/29/14 Page 26 of 40 147. At no time with respect to the constitutional violations of the Plaintiffs freedom of speech rights did Plaintiffs speak according to their official duties. 148. Plaintiffs, in expressing their political opinions and beliefs regarding their reasons to support or not support Christesen, spoke out on matters of public concern. This speech constitutes protected speech under the First Amendment. 149. The governmental entities named as Defendants and the individually-named Defendants interests in Plaintiffs comments related to political speech and other speech do not outweigh the constitutional interests of Plaintiffs. 150. As set forth in paragraphs 142 and 143 above, the Plaintiffs exercise of free speech constituted substantial factors in a number of adverse employment actions that these Plaintiffs suffered and continue to suffer. 151. The adverse actions Plaintiffs complain of in relation to their exercise of their First Amendment rights of free speech would not have occurred but for the exercise of that speech. A causal connection exists between the adverse actions complained of and the protected speech. 152. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants acted under the color of state law. 153. The Plaintiffs exercise of their free speech rights and privileges was not sufficient to disrupt the operations of the SJCSO. 154. There exist no legitimate, constitutional reasons for the Defendants to have retaliated against these Plaintiffs for the exercise of their free speech rights. 155. The retaliatory conduct Plaintiffs have suffered would have deterred a similarly- situated employee from exercising his or her constitutional rights. 156. Plaintiffs are entitled to all remedies available under 42 U.S.C. 1983, including, 27 Case 1:14-cv-00357-JCH-KK Document 38 Filed 09/29/14 Page 27 of 40 but not limited to, punitive damages against the individually-named Defendants for their willful, wanton, malicious, and grossly reckless conduct. COUNT III 42 U.S.C. 1983 VIOLATIONS OF EQUAL PROTECTION FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION 157. Plaintiffs hereby adopt and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 156 as set forth above. 158. Plaintiffs were subjected by Defendants to a hostile work environment because of either their gender, political associations, or both. 159. San Juan County and the SJCSO, as well as the individually-named Defendants, selectively and adversely subjected Plaintiffs to disparate treatment and actions because of their gender, female, and/or their refusals to politically support Christesen and his illegal and unethical administration. 160. The unlawful acts and failures to act Plaintiffs complain of constitute intentional harassment and punishment for protected speech and classification. 161. In subjecting Plaintiffs to adverse employment actions such as a hostile work environment, violations of policies and procedures that detrimentally affected their work status, failures to promote, failures to provide training, unlawful prohibitions on speech, coercion related to their political affiliations, and other adverse actions, including those that occurred post-filing of the original Complaint, Defendants acted under the color of state law. 162. When compared with other SJCSO employees, Plaintiffs were treated differently and deprived of workplace benefits and considerations freely given to other employees. 28 Case 1:14-cv-00357-JCH-KK Document 38 Filed 09/29/14 Page 28 of 40 163. The selective treatment Mss. Utley and Haws complain of was motivated by an intent to discriminate against them on the impermissible bases of gender as well as political association and free speech. 164. The hostile work environment Mss. Haws and Utley complain of was objectively severe and pervasive that a reasonable person would have found hostile or abusive. 165. Mss. Haws and Utley did find the work environment at the SJCSO to be hostile and abusive. 166. The unlawful conduct Plaintiffs complain of unreasonably interfered with their work performance and duties. 167. Plaintiffs decisions to not politically support and associate with Christesens political campaign contributed to the formation of the hostile work environment. 168. Defendants failed to appropriately address Plaintiffs complaints of this hostile work environment. Although Defendants knew about the hostile work environment Plaintiffs reported, Defendants did nothing to remediate the environment. 169. Defendants have no legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for engaging in the unlawful conduct Plaintiffs complain of. Any reason put forward by Defendants is but a pretext for unconstitutional and unlawful conduct. 170. Plaintiffs are entitled to all remedies and relief available under 42 U.S.C. 1983, including, but not limited to, punitive damages for the willful, malicious, wanton, and grossly reckless acts and failures to act of the individually-named Defendants. 29 Case 1:14-cv-00357-JCH-KK Document 38 Filed 09/29/14 Page 29 of 40 COUNT IV 42 U.S.C. 1983 VIOLATIONS OF DUE PROCESS FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION 171. Plaintiff hereby adopt and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 170 as set forth above. 172. Christesen and the SJCSO acted under the color of state law when they decided to demote Mr. Wilcox. 173. The demotion of Mr. Wilcox from a lieutenant to a sergeant resulted in the loss of pay and benefits. 174. At all times relevant hereto, Mr. Wilcox had and exercised a protected constitutional interest in his employment with the SJCSO. 175. Constitutional due process requires that Mr. Wilcox have received a meaningful opportunity to be heard prior to depriving him of any benefit associated with his protected property interest in employment. 176. Mr. Wilcox had no opportunity to participate in any process prior to the decision being made to demote him. Indeed, the SJCSO and Christesen expressly prohibited Mr. Wilcox from participating in any due process hearing prior to or after the demotion became effective on April 17, 2011. 177. Christesen, in deciding to demote Mr. Wilcox, and deprive him of his constitutional interests, was not impartial and had stated previous to the demotion that such would occur because Mr. Wilcox did not support him during Christesens election as Sheriff. 178. Christesen engaged in this unconstitutional conduct for the sole purpose of 30 Case 1:14-cv-00357-JCH-KK Document 38 Filed 09/29/14 Page 30 of 40 unconstitutionally retaliating against Mr. Wilcox. This unconstitutional conduct extends to prohibiting Mr. Wilcox from being promoted into other positions for which Mr. Wilcox is eminently qualified. 179. The constitutional rights the SJCSO and Christesen deprived Mr. Wilcox of were clearly established at the time of the deprivation and a reasonable public officer would have known of these rights. 180. Mr. Wilcox is entitled to all remedies and relief available to him under 42 U.S.C. 1983, including, but not limited to, punitive damages against Christesen for his willful, wanton, malicious, and grossly reckless violations of Mr. Wilcoxs constitutional rights and privileges. COUNT V 42 U.S.C. 1983 CONSPIRACY FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION 181. Plaintiffs hereby adopt and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 180 as set forth above. 182. The individually-named Defendants became significantly involved and intertwined in a concerted effort to unlawfully deprive Plaintiffs of their constitutionally- protected rights. This concerted effort extends to both the pre-filing and post-filing conduct of the individually-named Defendants. 183. These Defendants acted intentionally to cause the deprivation of Plaintiffs constitutional rights. By so acting, these Defendants committed unlawful acts by unlawful means, inflicting injuries upon Plaintiffs. 184. These Defendants acted under the color of state law in conspiring against 31 Case 1:14-cv-00357-JCH-KK Document 38 Filed 09/29/14 Page 31 of 40 Plaintiffs to deprive them of their substantive constitutional rights as set forth herein. 185. These Defendants conspired with and among themselves to cause the loss of Plaintiffs constitutional rights, employment, and the furtherance of the unlawful purposes of the conspiracy. 186. These Defendants knew or should have known that their conspiratorial actions violated the Plaintiffs clearly-established constitutional rights and those rights and privileges secured by New Mexico statute, common law, and San Juan Countys and the SJCSOs policies and procedures. 187. As a result of the conspiracy between the individually-named Defendants, Plaintiffs have suffered damages and are entitled to all remedies and relief available to them under 42 U.S.C. 1983, including punitive damages for the willful, wanton, intentional, and grossly reckless acts of the individually-named Defendants. COUNT VI NMSA 1978 10-16-1, et. seq. VIOLATIONS OF THE NEW MEXICO GOVERNMENTAL CONDUCT ACT 188. Plaintiff hereby adopt and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 187 as set forth above. 189. Public officers are to treat their government positions as a public trust. Such officers are not to use the power and resources of their offices to advance personal and private interests over public interests. 190. Every public officer, including the individually-named Defendants, is prohibited from directly or indirectly coercing or attempting to coerce another public officer or employee for contributing anything of value to a person or party for a political purpose. 32 Case 1:14-cv-00357-JCH-KK Document 38 Filed 09/29/14 Page 32 of 40 191. Moreover, the Governmental Conduct Act provides that threatening to deny a promotion to an employee or advising an employee to take part in political activities in the context of job benefits is a violation of New Mexico statute. 192. The facts here show that Christesen, Anderson, and Current engaged in gross violations of the Governmental Conduct Act by basing employment decisions, promotional opportunities, training opportunities, and other work-related benefits on political patronageincluding the placement of campaign signs, financial contributions to Christesens campaign, the recruitment of others for Christesens political benefit, the holding of campaign events, and other matters that clearly violate the Governmental Conduct Act. 193. Additionally, Plaintiffs have been threatened by the individually-named Defendants with respect to job security, have had duties and responsibilities removed because of political patronage issues, and have had the terms and conditions of their employment altered because of their political beliefs and support or lack thereof for particular candidates. 194. These violations, threats, and adverse actions span the individually-named Defendants conduct both before and after the filing of the Plaintiffs federal action. 195. As a result of these violations of the Plaintiffs have suffered damages. Plaintiffs are entitled to all remedies and relief available to them under the Governmental Conduct Act. COUNT VII NEW MEXICO COMMON LAW VIOLATIONS OF AN IMPLIED CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT DEFENDANT BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF SAN JUAN COUNTY 196. Plaintiffs hereby adopt and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 195 as set forth above. 33 Case 1:14-cv-00357-JCH-KK Document 38 Filed 09/29/14 Page 33 of 40 197. Defendant San Juan County maintained and published personnel policies and procedures through an Employee Handbook made available to all County employees. 198. The County required and expected all employees, including Plaintiffs and the individually-named Defendants named herein, to comply with and abide by these policies and procedures. 199. Based upon the Countys representations regarding these policies and procedures, Plaintiffs reasonably expected that County authorities, including the Sheriff, Undersheriff, and the Countys HR Department would follow these policies and procedures in relation to the terms and conditions of Plaintiffs employment. 200. The Countys published policies and procedures constitute an agreement, an implied contract of employment between the parties which by the course of conduct and usage the parties demonstrated an intent to be bound. 201. This implied contract, per the Countys policies and procedures, provided, among other things: (1) that cause would be needed to discipline Plaintiffs in any fashion; (2) that San Juan County employees were prohibited from campaigning for political office during regular work hours; (3) that employees could not be coerced into campaigning for an elected official to ensure continued employment; (4) that all employees were required to abide by the Governmental Conduct Act; (5) that performance evaluations will occur on and about the employees anniversary date; (6) that a failure to conduct timely performance evaluations would result in a presumption that the employees performance was satisfactory and that the employee merited a step increase, if applicable; (7) that employees would enjoy a harassment-free workplace; (8) that an employee who believes he or she is being harassed or discriminated against has a right to file a formal charge with the Countys Chief HR Officer; (9) that any charge 34 Case 1:14-cv-00357-JCH-KK Document 38 Filed 09/29/14 Page 34 of 40 of harassment and/or discrimination will be promptly investigated and a written report prepared; (10) that the County prohibits retaliation against employees who submit harassment complaints; (11) that the County will encourage training opportunities for employees; (12) that the County will ensure that promotion, demotions, and other employment-related matters will be fair and non-discriminatory; (13) that the County adheres to a progressive disciplinary action policy; (14) that County employees have adequate information regarding job performance prior to disciplinary action being meted out; (15) that an employee can only be demoted for a serious offense, a repeated minor offense, or for unsatisfactory performance or behavior that the employee is unable or unwilling to correct; and (16) that all employees have rights to grieve deprivations of rights. 202. The County breached each and every one of the policy requirements set forth in paragraph 201, among others, in dealing with and deciding the terms and conditions of Plaintiffs employment. 203. As a result of these breaches, Plaintiffs have suffered damages. 204. Plaintiffs are entitled to all remedies and relief available to them under New Mexico law for these breaches of the implied contract of employment. COUNT VIII VIOLATIONS OF TITLE VII GENDER DISCRIMINATION 205. Plaintiffs hereby adopt and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 204 as set forth above. 206. Mss. Haws and Utley are females. 207. During the period of her employment with the SJCSO, Ms. Utley sought a job 35 Case 1:14-cv-00357-JCH-KK Document 38 Filed 09/29/14 Page 35 of 40 promotion for which she was eminently qualified. 208. In addition to her qualifications by education and experience, Ms. Utley has shown to Defendant SJCSO during the course of her employment that she is able to perform any assigned duties in at least a satisfactory manner. 209. Despite her qualifications and Defendants recognition that Ms. Utley was qualified for the promotion at issue, Defendant SJCSO awarded the promotion to a lesser- qualified male. 210. Defendant SJCSO has no legitimate, non-discriminatory business reason for not having promoted Ms. Utley into the position sought of Office Manager. 211. Furthermore, Defendant SJCSO has repeatedly denied Ms. Haws the opportunity to attend trainings that were important in both the promotion and performance of her law enforcement career. 212. Less-qualified males of lesser rank were permitted by Christesen and the SJCSO to attend these trainings, although those conducting these trainings specifically requested to the SJCSO that Ms. Haws be permitted to attend these trainings. 213. Defendant SJCSO has no legitimate, non-discriminatory business reason for not allowing Ms. Utley to be promoted or permitting Ms. Haws to attend trainings. 211. Any reason Defendant SJCSO may put forth is but a pretext for unlawful gender discrimination. 212. Defendant SJCSO violated the provisions of Title VII by unlawfully discriminating against Plaintiffs Haws and Utley. 213. Plaintiffs Haws and Utley are entitled to all remedies and relief available to them under the provisions of Title VII. 36 Case 1:14-cv-00357-JCH-KK Document 38 Filed 09/29/14 Page 36 of 40 COUNT IX VIOLATIONS OF TITLE VII HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT 214. Plaintiffs hereby adopt and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 213 as set forth above. 215. Mss. Haws and Utley are females. 216. During the period of time Plaintiffs Haws and Utley have sought rights and privileges related to their workplace environment, Mss. Haws and Utley have been subjected to hostile and intimidating behavior from employees of Defendant SJCSO, including the individually-named Defendants, in the form of refusal to speak with them, isolation of the woman in the workplace, threatening behavior, false and contrived charges of misconduct, the application of disparate work rules, the denial of promotions and trainings, and the creation of a hostile work environment. 217. The hostile conduct complained of has pervaded the workplace of Plaintiffs Haws and Utley for a significant period of time. 218. Although both Mss. Haws and Utley communicated the hostile behavior complained of, Defendant SJCSO did nothing to remedy the workplace hostility. In the end, the supervisors of Mss. Haws and Utley and the SJCSOs management decided to ignore the complaints of the two woman. 219. Defendant SJCSOs acts and failures to act violated the standards of Title VII with respect to remedying a hostile work environment founded in discriminatory acts. 220. The hostile work environment complained of by Mss. Haws and Utley was sufficiently severe and pervasive to alter the terms and conditions of the Plaintiffs employment. 37 Case 1:14-cv-00357-JCH-KK Document 38 Filed 09/29/14 Page 37 of 40 221. Defendant SJCSO knew, or should have known, that the behavior reported by Mss. Haws and Utley constituted a hostile work environment. 222. Because Anderson and Christesen were the direct and indirect supervisors of Mss. Haws and Utley during the period relevant to their hostile work environment claims and the principal causes of the hostile work environment complained of, Defendant SJCSO is subject to direct liability on the Plaintiffs claims of hostile work environment. 223. Defendant SJCSO violated Mss. Haws and Utleys federally-protected civil rights under Title VII by subjecting them to a hostile work environment. 224. Plaintiffs Haws and Utley are entitled to all remedies and relief available to them under Title VII for the hostile work environment complained of. COUNT X CONSTRUCTIVE DISCHARGE NEW MEXICO COMMON LAW 225. Plaintiffs hereby adopt and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 224 as set forth above. 226. The working conditions of Plaintiffs Utley became intolerable following the filing of the original Complaint. 227. Shortly prior to Mr. Utleys early, involuntary retirement and Ms. Utleys involuntary resignation, Defendants SJCSO, Christesen, and Anderson subjected them to the following employment actions: (1) an effective demotion in Mr. Utleys supervisory activities; (2) a hostile, harassing work environment for both of the Utleys; (3) retaliatory and adverse employment actions, some of which included discriminatory acts; (4) threat of firing in the case of Mr. Utley; (5) unwarranted and unjustifiable investigations into arbitrary allegations of 38 Case 1:14-cv-00357-JCH-KK Document 38 Filed 09/29/14 Page 38 of 40 misconduct on the part of both the Utleys for the purpose of effectuating their involuntary removal from the SJCSO; (6) overt pressure on Mr. Utley to accept an early retirement; and (7) the removal of significant job duties for the purpose of isolating the Utleys in the work environment. 228. An objective, reasonable employee in both of the Utleys circumstances, especially in the face of deteriorating health related to these adverse actions, would be compelled to resign their employment. 229. Mr. Utley retired early solely because of the matters set forth in paragraph 227 and the threat that the SJCSO would not relent in its campaign to get Mr. Utley out of the SJCSO workplace. 230. Ms. Utley involuntarily resigned because of the matters set forth in paragraph 227 and the threat that the SJCSO would not relent in its campaign to get Ms. Utley out of the workplace. III. DAMAGES AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF 231. Plaintiffs hereby adopt and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 230 as set forth above. 232. Plaintiffs seek damages for past lost wages and benefits, where appropriate. 233. Plaintiffs seek damages for future lost wages and benefits, where appropriate. 234. Plaintiffs seek damages for mental, emotional, and psychological distress. 235. Plaintiffs seek pre- and post-judgment interest. 236. Plaintiffs seeks attorneys fees and costs, as allowable by law, statute, or rule. 237. Plaintiffs seek punitive damages against the individually-named Defendants for their intentional, willful, wanton, and grossly reckless conduct. 39 Case 1:14-cv-00357-JCH-KK Document 38 Filed 09/29/14 Page 39 of 40 WHEREFORE Plaintiffs pray this Court enter judgment in their favor, award the damages sought herein, and such further relief the Court deems just and appropriate under the circumstances. Respectfully submitted, /s/Michael E. Mozes LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL E. MOZES, P.C. Attorney for Plaintiffs 5732 Osuna Road NE Albuquerque, NM 87109-2527 (505) 880-1200 (505) 881-2444 I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing pleading was served on all counsel of record via e-mail on this 29 th day of September, 2014. /s/ Michael E. Mozes MICHAEL E. MOZES 40 Case 1:14-cv-00357-JCH-KK Document 38 Filed 09/29/14 Page 40 of 40
Lawrence I. Weisman On His Own Behalf and On Behalf of James L. Weisman v. Pierre J. Lelandais, Rosemary T. Franciscus v. Pierre J. Lelandais and Sheila C. Weisman, 532 F.2d 308, 2d Cir. (1976)