McElroy Amended Complaint

Case 3:15-cv-00390-DJH-CHL Document 34 Filed 05/06/16 Page 1 of 34 PageID #: 572
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
LOUISVILLE DIVISION
CASE NO. 3:15-cv-00390-DJH
Electronically Filed
SHELTON MCELROY
PLAINTIFF
v.
CORDISH COMPANIES, INC.,
LOUISVILLE IRISH, LLC., CORDISH
OPERATING VENTURES, LLC.,
LOUISVILLE GALLERIA, LLC.,
LOUISVILLE JEFFERSON COUNTY
METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT D/B/A
LOUISVILLE METRO POLICE
DEPARTMENT, OFFICER CHRISTOPHER
M. WHITE, UNKNOWN LOUISVILLE
METRO POLICE OFFICERS, AND
UNKNOWN DEFENDANTS (JOHN
DOES)
DEFENDANTS
AMENDED COMPLAINT
***** ***** *****
Comes now the Plaintiff, Shelton McElroy, by and through counsel, and for his Amended
Complaint against Defendants The Cordish Companies, Inc., Louisville Irish, LLC, Louisville
Galleria LLC, Entertainment Consulting International LLC, and Louisville Metro Police states
the following:
NATURE OF THE ACTION

This is a cause of action for violations of Plaintiffs rights under Kentucky statutory and
common law for discrimination, unlawful search and seizure, malicious prosecution, excessive
force, assault and battery, and other counts as alleged below against Defendants.
PARTIES
1. Plaintiff, Shelton McElroy, is a resident of Louisville, Jefferson County, Kentucky, and
has so resided in excess of six months prior to the date upon which the subject cause of
action arose.
2. Plaintiff is of African American descent.
3. Defendant The Cordish Companies, Inc. (hereinafter, Cordish Inc.) is a Maryland
corporation which, by and through its officers, owners/shareholder(s) and/or affiliates or
subsidiary companies, developed and today operates an entertainment district known as
Fourth Street Live! in downtown Louisville, Kentucky.
4. Defendant Louisville Irish, Llc. is a Kentucky limited liability company which did
business under the name of Sullys Restaurant and Saloon within Fourth Street Live!
at the location of 424 S. Fourth Street, at the time of the subject incident. Louisville
Irish, Llc will hereafter be referred to as Sullys.
5. Upon information and belief, Sullys was owned and/or operated by officers,
owners/shareholder(s)/members of one or more of Cordish-related Defendants named in
this lawsuit, and one or more unnamed Cordish-related or affiliated entities.
6. Upon information and belief, Entertainment Consulting International, Llc. (ECI) was
party to a management contract with Sullys under which ECI provided all upper
management for Sullys, including but not limited to, the food, style, genre of
entertainment and music, desired clientele, operating policies and procedures, and more.
7. Upon information and belief, Cordish Operating Ventures, LLC (Cordish Operating) is a
foreign Limited Liability Company currently listed on the Kentucky Secretary of States
website as being in Bad standing in the Commonwealth of Kentucky; its authority to do
business in the Commonwealth of Kentucky was revoked on November 2, 2010 by the
Kentucky Secretary of States Office; upon information and belief, Cordish Operating is
involved in, or exerts influence upon, the ownership and/or management of one or more
of the Defendants named herein.
8. Upon information and belief, Louisville Galleria, Llc (hereafter Fourth Street Live
Landlord) owns the real property upon which SULLYS conducts business, and upon
which the Fourth Street Live area is located.
9. Upon information and belief, Louisville-Jefferson County Metropolitan Government
(Louisville Metro) is the successor government to the merged governments of the former
city of Louisville and former Jefferson County pursuant to KRS 67C.101. This entity is
authorized to conduct government business on behalf of the citizenry of the merged city
and county, is sui generis, and is real party in interest to each of its included agencies,
including the named Louisville Metropolitan Police Department (LMPD).
10. Upon information and belief, Officer Christopher M. White (White) was at all times
relevant to this action a police officer employed by LMPD.
11. In addition, there may be additional unknown LMPD Officers (Unknown Louisville
Metro Police Officers) and unknown defendants (ie., John Does) whose identity and/or
responsibility for the unlawful acts set forth below may be ascertained during the course
of this litigation.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
12. This cause of action arose in the Commonwealth of Kentucky in and around Sullys in
Fourth Street Live.
13. This cause of action is brought pursuant to Kentucky common law and Kentucky Revised
Statutes (KRS) 344. KRS 344 mandates the proper forum for this claim is the Circuit
Court in which the cause of action arose.
14. This cause of action is also brought pursuant to KRS 15A.195.
15. The damages suffered by Plaintiff are in excess of the minimum requirements of the
Jefferson County Circuit Court and therefore the statutory jurisdictional requirements
have been met.
16. This cause of action arose on or about October 26th, 2014.
17. Subject matter jurisdiction over this action exists because the amount in controversy,
excluding interest, costs and attorneys fees, exceeds the jurisdictional prerequisites of
this Court.
18. Venue is proper in the Jefferson Circuit Court because the Plaintiff resides in Jefferson
County, and the Defendants reside, conduct business in, or performed their official duties
in Jefferson County, and the injuries sustained in the case occurred in Jefferson County.
FACTS
19. Plaintiff is a responsible citizen and resident of the City of Louisville. At the time the
action was filed, Plaintiff was a full-time instructor at Jefferson Community Technical
College teaching and specializing in Leadership Development. Plaintiff currently works
at Metro United Way as a Coordinator.
20. Prior to October 26th, 2014, Plaintiff was employed as a part-time substance-abuse
counselor for recently released parolees.
21. Plaintiff, today a 29 year old male of African descent, grew up in multiple foster homes,
was homeless from 16 to 18 years of age, and incarcerated from age 18 to 25 for
trafficking marijuana.
22. Since approximately age 27, plaintiff has worked tirelessly to raise himself from his past
and devote himself to education, serving and bettering his community, and other worthy
and noble causes.
23. In particular, Plaintiff has devoted much of his adult life to coaching and counseling
young people who face the same early life challenges that he faced and overcame.
24. On or about October 26th, 2014, Plaintiff went to Fourth Street Live, dressed neatly in a
polo shirt, new cargo khakis, jacket, and suede boots.
25. That Plaintiffs attire was well within the guidelines of the dress code enforced at Fourth
Street Live.
26. The owners of businesses located in Fourth Street Live have a reputation in the
community for using dress code as a pretext to discriminate against black patrons in or
around the establishment.
27. They encourage and/or require their employees, agents, security firms, and the local
police to target, harass, and discriminate against blacks who try to patronize the
establishment.
28. After initial admission at the gates, Plaintiff walked to the entry of Sullys where he was
met by the manager, a hostess and a bouncer.
29. The manager checked Plaintiffs ID and approved his attire.
30. Plaintiff then observed the manager make a head movement in the direction of the
Plaintiff, while looking at the bouncer.
31. The managers head movement appeared to Plaintiff to be a signal to the bouncer.
32. The hostess collected a $10 cover charge from Plaintiff.
33. Plaintiff walked through Sullys, looking to see if any of his friends or acquaintances
were in the establishment.
34. Hip-hop music was playing during this time.
35. About the time Plaintiff reached the back wall of the bar, the music abruptly switched to
country music.
36. Seeing no one he knew, Plaintiff turned around and headed toward the dance floor,
hoping to hear the music change back to hip hop.
37. About the time Plaintiff reached the dance floor, the bouncer who had admitted Plaintiff
at the door intercepted him and instructed him to walk back to the front door.
38. Plaintiff obediently followed the bouncers instructions, not knowing what was
happening. When Plaintiff and the bouncer reached the front door, Plaintiff asked the
bouncer what was going on.
39. The bouncer told Plaintiff that he had to leave Sullys because he was not in compliance
with the dress code.
40. Plaintiff calmly pointed out that there were two white males dancing on top of the bar
wearing no shirts, and that the DJ was also shirtless.
41. Plaintiff began videotaping the incident on his phone.
42. The bouncer told Plaintiff he had to leave because his pants were sagging.
43. Plaintiff lifted his shirt to show that his pants were neatly fitted around his waist and no
part of them were sagging. They were size 32 waist with 31 inseam.
44. The bouncers demeanor remained forceful and menacing through the exchange.
45. Observing the bouncers demeanor, Plaintiff stated he would leave, but wished to have
his $10 cover charge returned.
46. When the bouncer refused his request, Plaintiff calmly turned and looked over his
shoulder for the manager, finding him within an arms length of Plaintiffs back.
47. The manager was positioned so he could enforce the bouncers ejection of the Plaintiff.
48. The manager raised his arm and waved to a LMPD officer outside the door, gesturing that
the officer should come, enter and give help.
49. The bouncer roughly grabbed at Plaintiff's phone to try and block the videotaping,
simultaneously shoving Plaintiff toward the doorway with his other hand.
50. At that moment, an LMPD officer arrived and forcefully grabbed Plaintiffs arm,
ordering him to step outside of Sullys.
51. This LMPD officer said, Come with me or Ill arrest you.
52. Plaintiff, surprised, asked, Arrest me for what?
53. Plaintiff observed another LMPD officer aggressively striding toward him.
54. By that time, on or both officers and the bouncer had shoved Plaintiff several feet outside
the door.
55. Plaintiff was afraid of violence against him because of the history of the treatment of
black people in and around Fourth Street Live. He put his hands behind his head to show
he was not resisting arrest, and stated, What am I being arrested for?
56. One of the police officers then cuffed Plaintiff, pulled his phone out of his hands so the
officer could turn the video off.
57. Plaintiff stated, You cant have my phone.
58. The officer then thrust the phone into Plaintiffs pocked and said, Youre about to be
charged with resisting arrest.
59. The police officer took Plaintiff to the alley behind Sullys, ordered him to spread
against the squad car and patted him down.
60. A man wearing a Fourth Street Live polo shirt and headphones came over, pulled out
his clipboard and asked the officers, Whats he going down for.
61. Plaintiff heard one of the officers say, He laid down on the ground, so he wanted to get
arrested anyway.
62. The man wearing the polo shirt and headphones took notes on his clipboard.
63. LMPD took Plaintiff was taken to jail in the squad car and charged him with second
degree criminal trespassing and disorderly conduct.
64. No bail option was given Plaintiff.
65. Plaintiff was detained for the night in jail with the general jail population.
66. Amongst the inmates present in his cell was a parolee who had been Plaintiffs counselee.
Plaintiff had been required to report the counselee for flunking a drug urinalysis test in
violation of his parole a few months earlier.
67. Because he was in jail, Plaintiff was unable to pick up his ten-year-old daughter as
planned the following morning at 8 a.m.
68. Plaintiff was arraigned on the charges.
69. Plaintiff was released in late morning.
70. Under a legal obligation to report the charges to his employer, Plaintiff made such
report, and was immediately fired from his position as part-time substance abuse
counselor for parolees.
71. On November 10, 2014 a new issue of Crime Times was published, listing Plaintiffs
name under his mug shot, along with his name in large letters, on the page for
Disorderly Conduct.
72. Listed right next to Plaintiffs name and mug shot, in bold and large print, were the
words and phrases listed below:
ASSAULT-Fourth DEGREE-DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
KIDNAPPING-ADULT
POSSESSION CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE-COCAINE
TRAFFICKING CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE-COCAINE
POSSESSION MARIJUANA
PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER II
73. Plaintiff was forced to retain an attorney and defend himself in court.
74. Following an arraignment and multiple hearings over several months, the charges were
dismissed for lack of any evidence.
75. Plaintiff still suffers the damages caused by the conduct described herein.
COUNT 1 - DISCRIMINATION AGAINST SULLYS, ECI, LOUISVILLE GALLERIA,
LLC, CORDISH INC., CORDISH OPERATING
76. Plaintiff incorporates by reference, as if set forth fully herein, each and every averment,
allegation or statement contained in the previous paragraphs of this Amended Complaint.
77. Under KRS 344.120, it is an unlawful practice for a person to deny an individual
the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages,
and
accommodations of a place of public accommodation, resort, or amusement...on the
ground of...race.
78. As an African American, Plaintiff is a member of a protected class.
79. That based upon information and belief, Cordish Inc., owns and operates Fourth Street
Live.
80. That Mr. Zed Smith, the Chief Operating Officer of Cordish Inc., has admitted in several
public statements that he is personally responsible, in his role as an executive at Cordish
Inc., the operations at Fourth Street Live.
81. That Cordish Inc., attempts to conceal its involvement, and thus, limit its liability for the
illegal and discriminatory acts it commits against racial minorities by creating and using
several Cordish-related entities at Fourth Street Live.
82. That based upon information and belief, these Cordish-related entities all operate out of
the same facility, located at 601 East Pratt Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21202, and have the
same management, including Mr. David Cordish, Mr. Jonathon Cordish, Mr. Blake Cordish, Mr.
Reed Cordish, Mr. Glenn Weinberg, Mr. Joseph Weinberg, and Mr. Charles Jacobs, are current
officers.
83. That based upon information and belief, Cordish Inc., through Reed Miller, an executive
of both Cordish Inc., and ECI, or through Cordish-related entities, engage in a series of
discriminatory practices intended to intimidate, harass, and eject African Americans from
the Fourth Street Live premises.
84. That based upon information and belief, Cordish Inc.s discriminatory practices include,
but are not limited to: (1) designing a dress code in a discriminatory fashion against
African Americans by specifically barring clothing traditionally worn by black men and
women, as well as, establishing other rules intended to discourage African American
attendance; (2) representatives of Cordish Inc., including Reed Miller, using racially
derogatory comments, slurs, and remarks towards patrons, with members of management,
and others; (3) using rabbits, which are white males selected by member of Cordish
Inc.s management to instigate physical confrontations with African American males in
order to eject groups of African-American males, while letting the while males back into
the facility; and (4) several others.
85. That as the owner and operator of Fourth Street Live, Cordish Inc., offers services such as
food and alcoholic beverage services.
86. That Plaintiff attempted to make or enforce these services ordinarily provided by Cordish
Inc.
87. That the manager and security officer at Sullys used the discriminatory dress code
described above to illegally remove Plaintiff from the facility.
88. Sullys is a business within Jefferson County that supplies goods and/or services within
the meaning of KRS 344.120.
89. As described above, Plaintiff was allowed to enter Sullys its employees only to be
kicked out minutes later. The reason for removal given was violation of dress code.
90. Plaintiff was dressed appropriately for the club and was not sagging.
91. Sagging is a term describing a dress style associated with urban black dress.
92. The Sullys employees noted above targeted and ejected Plaintiff from Sullys on the
basis of race, using dress code as a pretext, even though Plaintiff's clothing conformed
to the dress code.
93. Sullys employees further made false accusations against Plaintiff to Metro Police.
94. LMPD targeted and discriminated against Plaintiff based on his race, assuming him a
threat when he peaceably tried to protest the unjust behaviour he was subjected to.
95. Each of the other named Defendants herein discriminated against Plaintiff based on his
race by creating, implementing enforcing, and/or participating in practices, patterns and
policies to exclude African Americans from patronizing Fourth Street Live and the bars,
restaurants and venues located there.
96. As a result of the discriminatory conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer
damages including, but not limited to, embarrassment, humiliation, indignity, suffering,
emotional distress and trauma, anxiety, harm to reputation, discouragement, damage to
self-esteem, helplessness, hopelessness, shamefulness, shame upon his family and
daughter, loss of job, loss of earnings, expenditure of legal fees, costs, expenses and
more.
COUNT 2 - DISCRIMINATION AGAINST LMPD, OFFICER WHITE, AND
UNKNOWN OFFICER
97. Plaintiff incorporates by reference, as if set forth fully herein, each and every averment,
allegation or statement contained in the previous paragraphs of this Verified Complaint.
98. Under Kentucky statutory law, it is illegal for any police officer acting under color of law
to discriminate against any person on the basis of race.
99. The police officers noted above assumed Plaintiff was dangerous without any inquiry into
the underlying reason Plaintiff was asking for his money back.
100.
The officers arrested Plaintiff for asking why he was being arrested and
considered his reasonable attempt to avoid physical violence against him, lying prone
with his hands behind his head, was trespassing and disorderly conduct.
101.
An arrest was unnecessary as Plaintiff was making a reasonable attempt to
reconcile his differences with Sullys staff and would have left after being given the
opportunity to have his perspective heard by Sullys staff.
102.
The police officers noted above detained, arrested, jailed, charged, and
prosecuted Plaintiff for second degree trespassing and disorderly conduct solely on the
103.basis of As
race.
a result of the discriminatory conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to
suffer damages including, but not limited to, embarrassment, humiliation, indignity,
suffering, emotional distress and trauma, anxiety, harm to reputation, discouragement,

damage to self-esteem, helplessness, hopelessness, shamefulness, shame upon his family
and daughter, loss of job, loss of earnings, expenditure of legal fees, costs, expenses and
more.
COUNT 3 - ASSAULT AGAINST SULLYS FOR MANAGERS CONDUCT
104.
Plaintiff incorporates by reference, as if set forth fully herein, each and every
averment, allegation or statement contained in the previous paragraphs of this Verified

Complaint.
105.
Sullys manager behaved in a physically threatening and menacing manner
towards Plaintiff as described above.

106.
Sullys manager positioned himself within feet of Plaintiff and behind his back to
enforce Plaintiffs ejection from the establishment.

107.
The manager caused Plaintiff to be surrounded by Sullys employees with the
apparent authority to manhandle Plaintiff and LMPD officers serving as security guards.
108.
In doing so, Sullys manager intended to intimidate and frighten Plaintiff by
causing him to fear offensive physical contact.

109.
Sullys manager was conscious of the fact that his conduct was wrongful.
110.
Plaintiff reasonably feared that the manager would offensively contact him
physically.
111.
As a result of this conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer damages
including, but not limited to, embarrassment, humiliation, indignity, suffering, emotional
distress and trauma, anxiety, harm to reputation, discouragement, damage to self-esteem,
helplessness, hopelessness, shamefulness, shame upon his family and daughter, loss of
job, loss of earnings, expenditure of legal fees, costs, expenses and more.
COUNT 4 BATTERY AGAINST SULLYS FOR BOUNCERS CONDUCT
112.

Complaint.
113.
Sullys bouncer roughly pushed and shoved Plaintiff as described above.
114.
Sullys bouncer grappled for Plaintiffs phone in an effort to stop the videotaping.
115.
The bouncers actions were unreasonable considering Plaintiffs measured
demeanor and reasonable request to have his cover charge reimbursed.

116.
Plaintiff had a right to videotape his surroundings as an invitee to Sullys. The
bouncer caused offensive and wrongful conduct by making physical contact with the
phone in Plaintiffs hands.
117.
Sullys bouncer was conscious of the fact that his conduct was wrongful.
118.
The physical contact was offensive and harmful to Plaintiff.
119.

COUNT 5 - ASSAULT BY LMPD, OFFICER WHITE, AND UNKNOWN OFFICER
120.

Complaint.
121.
LMPD, Officer WHITE and/orOne or Unknown Officers behaved in a physically
threatening manner towards Plaintiff as described above.

122.
LMPD, Officer White, and/or Unknown Officers behaved in a physically
threatening manner towards Plaintiff as described above.

123.
The officers purposefully adopted a menacing and threatening demeanor in an
effort to cause Plaintiff to leave Fourth Street Live.

124.
LMPD, Officer White, and/or Unknown Officers intended to physically
intimidate and frighten Plaintiff.

125.
LMPD, Officer White, and/or Unknown Officers intended to cause Plaintiff to
fear offensive and harmful physical contact.

126.
Each officer was aware and conscious of the fact that his conduct was wrongful.
127.
Plaintiff reasonably feared that one or both officers would offensively contact him
physically.
128.
COUNT 6 - BATTERY BY LMPD, OFFICER WHITE, AND UNKNOWN OFFICERS
129.

Complaint.
130.
LMPD, Officer White, and/or Unknown Officers roughly pushed and shoved
Plaintiff as described above.

131.
LMPD, Officer White, and/or Unknown Officers roughly grabbed Plaintiffs
phone out of his hand to stop the videotaping.

132.
LMPD, Officer White, and/or Unknown Officers cuffed Plaintiffs wrists so that
one was twisted, thereby inflicting great pain until Plaintiff was in jail and the cuffs were
removed.
133.
This action was not lawful as Plaintiff was exercising his rights as a patron of
Sullys and at all times maintained a civil and respectful demeanor. Plaintiff, furthermore,
was not allowed to give any account of why he was not leaving immediately when asked
by Sullys staff.
134.
Each officer was aware and conscious of the fact that his conduct was wrongful.
135.
This physical contact from each of the officers was offensive and harmful to
Plaintiff.
136.
LMPD, Officer White, and/or Unknown Officers forced Plaintiff to submit to a
search, with his arms cuffed behind his back, one arm painfully twisted, chest leaning
against the squad car, and legs spread and extending backwards behind him.
137.
COUNT 7 - FALSE IMPRISONMENT AGAINST LMPD, OFFICER WHITE, AND
UNKNOWN OFFICER
138.

Complaint.
139.

Complaint.
140.
All criminal charges against Plaintiff were eventually dropped.
141.
Officer White and Unknown Officers did not reasonably believe a crime was
being committed and made no investigation into the cause of the mild-mannered
disagreement they arrested Plaintiff for.
142.
Officer White and Unknown Officers, acting under color of law, forcibly
detained, arrested, charged/arraigned, and jailed Plaintiff.

143.
Upon his arrival at jail, Plaintiff was required to pay $70 administrative fees,
which he obediently paid from the cash in his wallet.

144.
The detainment, arrest, charges, $70 expense, and the jailing of Plaintiff were
wrongful.
145.
COUNT 8 - PREMISES LIABILITY AGAINST FOURTH STREET LIVE LANDLORD
146.

Complaint.
147.
Fourth Street Live Landlord has been put on notice by many instances of alleged
race discrimination in and around Fourth Street Live.
148.
Fourth Street Live Landlord knew or should have known that the employees of
Sullys, and/or other Cordish-related restaurants, bars, and venues within Fourth Street
Live in general, and/or private security firms and/or off-duty police officers under
contract with Fourth Street Live, and/or Metro Police officers rendering services in and
around Fourth Street Live were engaging in discriminatory, negligent, and tortious
conduct against African American patrons and/or would-be patrons in and around Fourth
Street Live.
149.
Fourth Street Live Landlord had a duty to take reasonable care to prevent such
ongoing discriminatory, negligent and tortious conduct against African-American patrons

or would-be patrons of Sullys and the Cordish-related restaurants and bars within Fourth
Street Live or both.
150.
A reasonably prudent landowner/landlord in Fourth Street Live and/or Sullys
would believe or anticipate that injury to a patron would be caused by such

discriminatory, negligent, and tortious conduct.
151.
Fourth Street Live Landlord failed to take reasonable steps to stop this harmful
conduct from occurring.

152.
Plaintiff was injured by this discriminatory, negligent and tortious conduct.
153.
COUNT 9 - NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO HIRE, TRAIN AND/OR SUPERVISE
AGAINST SULLYS
154.

Complaint.
155.
Sullys had a duty to hire, train and supervise employees as would a reasonably
prudent bar and restaurant in the community under the same and/or similar
circumstances.
156.
Sullys knew or should have known that one or more of its employees were
targeting blacks from time to time and ejecting them from the premises without just cause
and based only on their skin color in violation of their rights to be free from
discrimination in places of public accommodation.
157.
Sullys failed to reasonably hire, train, and/or supervise its employees so that they
would refrain from targeting and/or ejecting black patrons without just cause.
158.
AGAINST ENTERTAINMENT CONSULTING INTERNATIONAL (ECI)
159.

Complaint.
160.
Upon information and belief, ECI is under contract with SULLYS to manage
multiple aspects of SULLYS business, including the training and supervision of

employees, the policies and procedures under which customers are handled and treated,
implementation and enforcement of dress code, and diversity and cultural awareness
training.
161.
Plaintiff is a third party beneficiary of said managerial contract.
162.
Under the managerial contract, ECI had a duty to hire, train and/or supervise
Sullys employees and managers as would a reasonably prudent bar and restaurant owner
in the community under the same and/or similar circumstances.
163.
ECI knew or should have known that one or more Sullys employees and/or
managers were targeting blacks from time to time and ejecting them from the premises
without just cause and based only upon their race, and/or that one or more of Sullys
employees needed to have racial sensitivity or other training designed to prevent

discriminatory conduct.
164.
ECI failed to reasonably hire, train, and/or supervise Sullys employees so that
they would refrain from discriminating against black patrons or would be patrons.
165.
AGAINST LMPD
166.

Complaint.
167.
LMPD is under a duty to hire, train, and supervise its police officers, as would the
reasonably prudent police force under the same or similar circumstances, in a manner
designed to reasonably prevent its police officers from engaging in discrimination and/or
tortious conduct.
168.
LMPD officers acted in an unreasonable and illegal manner with Plaintiff,
unnecessarily depriving him of his freedom and causing him great harm.
169.
LMPD failed in its duty to so hire, train and supervise its employees such that its
police officers involved in the subject incident engaged in the wrongful acts described
herein.
170.
COUNT 12 - NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO HIRE, TRAIN, AND SUPERVISE SECURITY
OFFICERS AND/OR EMPLOYEES AGAINST FOURTH STREET LIVE LANDLORD
171.

Complaint.
172.
Fourth Street Live Landlord is under a duty to hire, train, supervise and monitor
its own employees, and its third party security firms and off-duty police officers, as
would a reasonably prudent landlord under the same or similar circumstances, in a
manner designed to reasonably prevent its own employees, its third party security firms,
and its off-duty police officers from engaging in discriminatory, negligent, and/or tortious
conduct.
173.
Fourth Street Live Landlord failed in its duty to so hire, train, supervise, and/or
monitor such that one or more of its employees, security firms, off-duty police officers
and/or other agents involved in the subject incident (such as the man wearing the 4 th
Street Live shirt and carrying the clipboard), engaged in, participated in, affirmed,
validated, and/or failed to stop what should have been apparent as discriminatory,
negligent, and tortious conduct against Plaintiff as described herein.
174.
COUNT 13 - INTENTIONAL / NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL
DISTRESS AGAINST EVERY DEFENDANT
175.

Complaint.
176.
Each of the Defendants named in this lawsuit committed one or more acts as
described herein with intentional, reckless and/or negligent indifference to the physical
safety, civil rights and emotional well-being of Plaintiff.
177.
The conduct of each of the Defendants as described herein is outrageous and
intolerable and offends the generally accepted standards of decency and morality in this
community.
178.
As a result of this outrageous conduct, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to
suffer damages including, but not limited to, embarrassment, humiliation, indignity,
suffering, emotional distress and trauma, anxiety, harm to reputation, discouragement,
damage to self-esteem, helplessness, hopelessness, shamefulness, shame upon his family
and daughter, loss of job, loss of earnings, expenditure of legal fees, costs, expenses and
more.
COUNT 14 - FALSE ARREST/ MALICIOUS PROSECUTION AGAINST SULLYS
179.

Complaint.
180.
The above facts constitute false arrest and malicious prosecution under Kentucky
law, under the state and federal constitutions, and under Kentucky common law.
181.
The actions of Sullys and its employees, as described above, in initiating contact,
detaining, and continuing the prosecution against Plaintiff was done maliciously,
intentionally, wantonly and/or recklessly.
182.
The malicious acts by Sullys and its employees were done with reckless
disregard for the truth and/or actual knowledge of the falsity of the charges.
183.
COUNT 15 - LIABILITY UNDER KRS 466.070 AGAINST LMPD, OFFICER WHITE
AND UNKNOWN OFFICER(S)
184.

Complaint.
185.
In addition, The actions of LMPD, OFFICER WHITE and/or Unknown
Officer(s), actions violated portions of the Kentucky penal code, including but not limited
to the following:
a. `Official Misconduct (KRS 522.020-030);
b. Assault (KRS 508.030);
c. Perjury (KRS 523.020); and
d. Tampering with physical evidence (KRS 524.100).
186.
Said actions of Defendants, as described above, entitle Plaintiff to recover
damages under KRS 446.070.
COUNT 16 - VIOLATION OF THE KENTUCKY RACIAL PROFILING ACT AGAINST

LOUISVILLE METRO POLICE, OFFICER WHITE, AND UNKNOWN OFFICER(S)
187.

Complaint.
188.
Defendants, WHITE, LMPD and Unknown Officer(s), conduct as outlined
above was solely motivated by racial consideration, which constitutes a direct violation
of KRS 15A.195 (Kentucky Racial Profiling Act).
189.
Accordingly, Defendants, WHITE, LMPD and Unknown Officer(s), deprived
Plaintiff of rights secured by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution and analogous provisions of the Kentucky Constitution.
COUNT 17 - CONSPIRACY AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
190.

Complaint.
191.
One or more of the Defendants has conspired with one or more of the other
Defendants to discriminate against blacks in and around Sullys and in and around Fourth
Street Live.
192.
One or more of the Defendants conspired with one or more of the Defendants to
target, harass, eject, and/or arrest and prosecute Plaintiff based on his race, all in
furtherance of the conspiracy to commit illegal discrimination against blacks in and

around SULLYS and/or in and around Fourth Street Live.
193.
As a result of this conspiracy, under the laws of the State of Kentucky, each
Defendant is liable for each act committed by any other member of the conspiracy, in
furtherance of the conspiracy, from which damages result.
194.
As a result of the conspiracy and one or more acts committed in furtherance of the
conspiracy, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer damages including, but not
limited to,, embarrassment, humiliation, indignity, suffering, multiple fears, emotional
job, loss of earnings, expenditure of legal fees, costs, expenses, and more.
PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL
195.

Complaint.
196.
Upon information and belief, each of these named Cordish-related entities is
owned, managed, operated and/or dominated by the same persons and/or entities.
197.
Upon information and belief, each of these named Cordish-related entities is
owned, managed, operated and/or dominated by the same persons and/or entities.
198.
Upon information and belief, each of these Cordish-related entities is an
instrumentality or alter ego of one or more of the owners, managers, and/or officers of
The Cordish Companies, INC., or of The Cordish Companies, INC. itself, or of one of the
other of these named Cordish-related entities, or of one or more Cordish-related
entity(ies) whose identity(ies) is/are presently unknown.
199.
Upon information and belief, the separate existence of these Cordish-related
entities is for the mere purpose of providing tax benefits and avoiding various liabilities,
all while hiding the identities of the real persons/entities in control of said defendant
entities.
200.
Upon information and belief, one or more of these Cordish-related entities are
asset-less and income-less shells incapable of meeting the financial obligations

which would attach to liability for the damages suffered by Plaintiff in the event Plaintiff
prevails in this lawsuit.
201.
Upon information and belief, one or more of these Cordish-related entities derives
virtually all of the benefits associated with operating Sullys, while controlling and
dominating the operations of Sullys, and/or withdrawing or spending the income,
appreciation, or other values/benefits generated by the operations of Sullys.
202.
To allow one or more of the Cordish-related Defendants to escape financial
responsibility for the damages caused to Plaintiff by the agents and employees of Sullys,
ECI, The Cordish Companies, INC., Cordish Operating, and Fourth Street Live.Landlord
and the agents and employees of each of them, would sanction a fraud and promote
substantial injustice.
PUNITIVE DAMAGES
203.
As described above, Defendants were malicious, negligent, oppressive, wanton,
reckless, and/or grossly negligent in their treatment of Plaintiff, thereby entitling Plaintiff
to punitive damages for all violations.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court to:

a. Grant trial by jury on any and all issues triable;
b. Award compensatory damages against Defendants jointly and severally for the lost
wages, lost goodwill and reputation value, embarrassment, humiliation, and mental
anguish suffered by Plaintiff, all according to proof;
c. Award liquidated damages;
d. Award punitive damages;
e. Pierce the corporate veil and issue its Judgement that the separate corporate existence of
The Cordish Companies, INC., ECI, Fourth Street Live Landlord, Cordish Operating, and
Sullys is pierced and disregarded pursuant to Kentucky law for the purposes of this
lawsuit, such that each of these entities is liable for any and all of the damages awarded to
Plaintiff in this case.
f. Award attorneys fees and expenses incurred herein and the costs of this action as the law
may permit; and
g. Grant any and all other relief which the Court determines appropriate.
Respectfully submitted,
s/ Samuel G. Hayward
Samuel G. Hayward
ADAMS HAYWARD & WELSH
4036 Preston Highway
Louisville, Kentucky 40213
T: (502) 366-6456
F: (502) 366-4095
sam@samhaywardlaw.com
Ryan Fenwick
Law Office of Ryan Fenwick
1217 Logan Street
Louisville, Kentucky 40204
T: (502) 536-8687
ryan@ryanfenwicklaw.com
Counsel for Plaintiff
_______________________________
Certificate of Service
The undersigned certifies a copy of this motion was served by email April _________, 2016 and
in person on Counsel for Respondent April _________, 2016.
___________________________
Ryan Fenwick
Counsel for Petitioner

McElroy Amended Complaint

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

McElroy Amended Complaint

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Case 3:15-cv-00390-DJH-CHL Document 34 Filed 05/06/16 Page 1 of 34 PageID #: 572

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:15-cv-00390-DJH-CHL Document 34 Filed 05/06/16 Page 2 of 34 PageID #: 573

NATURE OF THE ACTION

Case 3:15-cv-00390-DJH-CHL Document 34 Filed 05/06/16 Page 3 of 34 PageID #: 574

Case 3:15-cv-00390-DJH-CHL Document 34 Filed 05/06/16 Page 4 of 34 PageID #: 575

Case 3:15-cv-00390-DJH-CHL Document 34 Filed 05/06/16 Page 5 of 34 PageID #: 576

Case 3:15-cv-00390-DJH-CHL Document 34 Filed 05/06/16 Page 6 of 34 PageID #: 577

Case 3:15-cv-00390-DJH-CHL Document 34 Filed 05/06/16 Page 7 of 34 PageID #: 578

Case 3:15-cv-00390-DJH-CHL Document 34 Filed 05/06/16 Page 8 of 34 PageID #: 579

Case 3:15-cv-00390-DJH-CHL Document 34 Filed 05/06/16 Page 9 of 34 PageID #: 580

Case 3:15-cv-00390-DJH-CHL Document 34 Filed 05/06/16 Page 10 of 34 PageID #: 581

Case 3:15-cv-00390-DJH-CHL Document 34 Filed 05/06/16 Page 11 of 34 PageID #: 582

accommodations of a place of public accommodation, resort, or amusement...on the

Case 3:15-cv-00390-DJH-CHL Document 34 Filed 05/06/16 Page 12 of 34 PageID #: 583

Case 3:15-cv-00390-DJH-CHL Document 34 Filed 05/06/16 Page 13 of 34 PageID #: 584

Case 3:15-cv-00390-DJH-CHL Document 34 Filed 05/06/16 Page 14 of 34 PageID #: 585

An arrest was unnecessary as Plaintiff was making a reasonable attempt to

Case 3:15-cv-00390-DJH-CHL Document 34 Filed 05/06/16 Page 15 of 34 PageID #: 586

suffering, emotional distress and trauma, anxiety, harm to reputation, discouragement,

averment, allegation or statement contained in the previous paragraphs of this Verified

Sullys manager behaved in a physically threatening and menacing manner

towards Plaintiff as described above.

enforce Plaintiffs ejection from the establishment.

The manager caused Plaintiff to be surrounded by Sullys employees with the

In doing so, Sullys manager intended to intimidate and frighten Plaintiff by

causing him to fear offensive physical contact.

Case 3:15-cv-00390-DJH-CHL Document 34 Filed 05/06/16 Page 16 of 34 PageID #: 587

averment, allegation or statement contained in the previous paragraphs of this Verified

Sullys bouncer roughly pushed and shoved Plaintiff as described above.

The bouncers actions were unreasonable considering Plaintiffs measured

demeanor and reasonable request to have his cover charge reimbursed.

Plaintiff had a right to videotape his surroundings as an invitee to Sullys. The

The physical contact was offensive and harmful to Plaintiff.

Case 3:15-cv-00390-DJH-CHL Document 34 Filed 05/06/16 Page 17 of 34 PageID #: 588

distress and trauma, anxiety, harm to reputation, discouragement, damage to self-esteem,

averment, allegation or statement contained in the previous paragraphs of this Verified

LMPD, Officer WHITE and/orOne or Unknown Officers behaved in a physically

threatening manner towards Plaintiff as described above.

LMPD, Officer White, and/or Unknown Officers behaved in a physically

threatening manner towards Plaintiff as described above.

The officers purposefully adopted a menacing and threatening demeanor in an

effort to cause Plaintiff to leave Fourth Street Live.

LMPD, Officer White, and/or Unknown Officers intended to physically

intimidate and frighten Plaintiff.

LMPD, Officer White, and/or Unknown Officers intended to cause Plaintiff to

fear offensive and harmful physical contact.

Case 3:15-cv-00390-DJH-CHL Document 34 Filed 05/06/16 Page 18 of 34 PageID #: 589

averment, allegation or statement contained in the previous paragraphs of this Verified

Plaintiff as described above.

LMPD, Officer White, and/or Unknown Officers roughly grabbed Plaintiffs

phone out of his hand to stop the videotaping.

Case 3:15-cv-00390-DJH-CHL Document 34 Filed 05/06/16 Page 19 of 34 PageID #: 590

LMPD, Officer White, and/or Unknown Officers forced Plaintiff to submit to a

averment, allegation or statement contained in the previous paragraphs of this Verified

averment, allegation or statement contained in the previous paragraphs of this Verified

All criminal charges against Plaintiff were eventually dropped.

Case 3:15-cv-00390-DJH-CHL Document 34 Filed 05/06/16 Page 20 of 34 PageID #: 591

detained, arrested, charged/arraigned, and jailed Plaintiff.

which he obediently paid from the cash in his wallet.

averment, allegation or statement contained in the previous paragraphs of this Verified

race discrimination in and around Fourth Street Live.

Case 3:15-cv-00390-DJH-CHL Document 34 Filed 05/06/16 Page 21 of 34 PageID #: 592

ongoing discriminatory, negligent and tortious conduct against African-American patrons