IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

Tamera Brown, et al., 

 Plaintiffs,

v.

City of Cincinnati, Ohio, et al.,

Defendants.

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Case Number: 1:18cv412

Judge Susan J. Dlott

Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz

ANSWER OF SENTINEL POLICE 

ASSOCIATION AND DANITA 

PETTIS IN HER INDIVIDUAL 

CAPACITY TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH 

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND 

JURY DEMAND

Defendants Sentinel Police Association (“the Sentinels”) and Lieutenant Danita 

Pettis (“Pettis”), in her individual capacity answer Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint 

as follows:

1. As to Paragraphs 1 and 2, The Sentinels and Lieutenant Pettis admit that 

Tamera Brown and Joy Ludgatis are white females. The Sentinels and Lieutenant Pettis 

deny for want of personal knowledge the remaining allegations in Paragraphs 1 and 2. 

2. As to Paragraph 3, The Sentinels and Lieutenant Pettis admit.

3. As to Paragraph 4, the Sentinels and Lieutenant Pettis admit that John 

Cranley is the Mayor of the City of Cincinnati. The Sentinels and Lieutenant Pettis deny 

the remaining allegations for lack of personal knowledge.

4. As to Paragraph 5, the Sentinels and Lieutenant Pettis admit.

5. As to Paragraph 6, the Sentinels and Lieutenant Pettis admit that Patrick 

Duhaney is the Acting City Manager for the City of Cincinnati. The Sentinels and 

Lieutenant Pettis deny the remaining allegations for lack of personal knowledge.

Case: 1:18-cv-00412-MWM-KLL Doc #: 10 Filed: 11/13/18 Page: 1 of 10 PAGEID #: 251
2

6. As to Paragraph 7, the Sentinels and Lieutenant Pettis admit that Harry 

Black is the former City Manager for the City of Cincinnati. The Sentinels and 

Lieutenant Pettis deny the remaining allegations for lack of personal knowledge.

7. As to Paragraph 8, the Sentinels and Lieutenant Pettis admit that Eliot 

Isaac is the Chief of Police for the City of Cincinnati. The Sentinels and Lieutenant Pettis 

deny the remaining allegations for lack of personal knowledge.

8. As to Paragraph 9, the Sentinels and Lieutenant Pettis admit that the 

Sentinel Police Association is a not-for-profit Ohio corporation. The Sentinels and 

Lieutenant deny the remaining allegations.

9. As to Paragraph 10, the Sentinels and Lieutenant deny any violations of 

law.

10. As to Paragraphs 11, 12, and 13, the Sentinels and Lieutenant Pettis admit 

the Court has original jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ putative federal claims, and that venue 

is proper, but deny that Plaintiffs have any federal claim that would support 

supplemental jurisdiction.

11. As to Paragraph 14, the allegations are not directed to the Sentinels or 

Lieutenant Pettis, but to the extent that they allege any conduct on the Sentinels or 

Lieutenant Pettis’ part, the Sentinels and Lieutenant Pettis deny.

12. As to Paragraph 15 through 18, the allegations in these paragraphs are not 

directed to the Sentinels or Lieutenant Pettis, but to the extent that they allege any

conduct on the Sentinels or Lieutenant Pettis’ part, the Sentinels and Lieutenant Pettis 

deny. The Sentinels further state that Federal and/or Consent Decree promotions have 

not been exclusively predicated on race. On at least one occasion in 2016, the City of 

Cincinnati using a double fill, which is exclusive to the Consent Decrees, promoted 

Case: 1:18-cv-00412-MWM-KLL Doc #: 10 Filed: 11/13/18 Page: 2 of 10 PAGEID #: 252
3

Michelle Lehman, a female White and Eric Schank, a male White. Promotions under the 

Consent Decrees have benefited White males and females. Lieutenant further states that 

she did not achieve her rank as a result of a Consent Decree promotion, rather she 

scored 2nd on the Lieutenant examination administered October 6, 2014.

13. As to Paragraph 19, the Sentinels and Lieutenant Pettis deny these 

allegations. The Sentinels and Lieutenant Pettis state that if there was a race-based 

double standard for discipline that condones misconduct for certain officers that would 

subject others to discipline, that double standard is detrimentally applied to Black 

officers. 

14. As to Paragraph 20, the Sentinels and Lieutenant Pettis deny. The 

Sentinels and Lieutenant Pettis further state that Plaintiffs are or should be aware that 

their allegations are not true. The preferred assignment details roster, which is a public 

record, clearly reflects that Black and White officers are assigned equally to preferred 

assignments. Further, Plaintiffs themselves in the past 24 months have enjoyed the 

benefit of preferred assignments. Plaintiff Brown has worked a significant number of 

hours on preferred detailed assignments, including but not limited to the Flying Pig, the 

Cincinnati Zoo, and the Cincinnati Public Library. Plaintiff Ludgatis has worked a 

significant number of hours on preferred detailed assignments, including but not 

limited to the Cincinnati Reds, Cincinnati Zoo, Avondale Comprehensive Development 

Corporation, Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce, Cintas Center, and the Flying Pig. 

15. As to Paragraph 21, the Sentinels and Lieutenant Pettis deny. The

Sentinels and Lieutenant Pettis further state that the Sentinel Police Association is a 

non-profit corporation independent from the City of Cincinnati or City of Cincinnati 

Police Department similar to the Fraternal Order of Police. The Sentinel Police 

Case: 1:18-cv-00412-MWM-KLL Doc #: 10 Filed: 11/13/18 Page: 3 of 10 PAGEID #: 253
4

Association primarily through Black officers and the Fraternal Order of Police primarily 

through White officers speak equally to media outlets regarding issues exclusive to the 

concerns of their organizations. 

16. As to Paragraph 22, the Sentinels deny. Lieutenant Pettis denies and 

further states that she has been disciplined more harshly than her White counterparts, 

and specifically more harshly than Plaintiffs and Dan Hils for conduct arising out of the 

same circumstances.

17. As to Paragraph 23, the Sentinels and Lieutenant Pettis deny, and further 

states that they have no personal knowledge of the Cincinnati Police Department being 

more lenient in disciplining Black officers for criminal acts than White officers. The 

Sentinels and Lieutenant Pettis further state that if discipline is rendered more harshly 

by race, Black officers are disciplined more harshly because the FOP does not equally 

represent Black and White officers leaving Black officers to have to hire independent 

counsel or have an inexperienced representative during disciplinary proceedings. 

18. As to Paragraph 24, the Sentinels and Lieutenant Pettis deny for want of 

personal knowledge.

19. As to Paragraph 25, the Sentinels and Lieutenant Pettis deny. The 

Sentinels and Lieutenant Pettis further state that the policies outlined by Plaintiffs are 

not the cause of racial tension and open hostility between officers of different races, 

rather it is the unequal and/or complete lack of representation and inclusion of Black 

officers by the FOP that facilitates racial tension and hostility.

20. As to Paragraph 26, the Sentinels and Lieutenant Pettis deny. 

21. As to Paragraph 27, the Sentinels and Lieutenant Pettis deny for want of 

knowledge. 

Case: 1:18-cv-00412-MWM-KLL Doc #: 10 Filed: 11/13/18 Page: 4 of 10 PAGEID #: 254
5

22. As to Paragraph 28, the Sentinels deny for want of knowledge. Lieutenant 

Pettis denies to the extent that it is alleged that only the Plaintiffs were transferred. 

Lieutenant Pettis admits that Plaintiffs and she were all previously assigned to District 4 

of the Cincinnati Police Department and Lieutenant Pettis was reassigned at the same 

time as Officers Brown and Ludgatis. 

23. As to Paragraph 29, the Sentinels deny. Lieutenant Pettis denies and 

further states that she has been the victim of Plaintiff Ludgatis’ racism since 2015 when 

Ludgatis was first assigned to work under Lieutenant Pettis. After making several racist 

and inappropriate comments regarding Black ranking officers, Ludgatis was transferred. 

24. As to Paragraphs 30, the Sentinels deny. Lieutenant Pettis denies to that 

she has committed any criminal act as a police officer. Lieutenant Pettis further denies 

the remaining allegations. 

25. As to Paragraph 31, the Sentinels and Lieutenant Pettis deny. Lieutenant 

Pettis has not engaged in illegal conduct nor has she committed the specific alleged 

criminal offenses alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint.

26. As to Paragraph 32, the Sentinels and Lieutenant Pettis deny. Lieutenant 

Pettis further states that it is public record that she has never been given immunity for 

any perceived violation of City of Cincinnati policy, and that she has been disciplined at 

least equal to, and upon her information and belief, more than her White counterparts.

27. As to Paragraph 33, the Sentinels and Lieutenant Pettis state that Exhibits 

4 and 5 speak for themselves. Lieutenant Pettis further states that the right to sue letter 

was issues after the EEOC was unable to conclude that any violation of law occurred. 

28. As to Paragraphs 34 and 35, the Sentinels and Lieutenant Pettis state that 

the EEOC charges which are attached to Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint as Exhibits 

Case: 1:18-cv-00412-MWM-KLL Doc #: 10 Filed: 11/13/18 Page: 5 of 10 PAGEID #: 255
6

4 and 5 speak for themselves. Lieutenant Pettis further states that Plaintiffs’ charges as 

detailed in Paragraphs 34 and 35 are unequivocally false. 

29. As to Paragraph 36, the Sentinels deny for want of knowledge. To the 

extent that this paragraph alleges that Officer Brown did something other than copy 

Captain Mack on the email Plaintiffs attached to their First Amended Complaint as 

Exhibit 6, Lieutenant Pettis denies.

30. As to Paragraphs 37 and 38, the Sentinels and Lieutenant Pettis state that 

Officer Brown’s “internal complaint” which is attached to Plaintiffs’ First Amended 

Complaint as Exhibit 6 speaks for itself. Lieutenant Pettis further states that the 

allegations contained in Exhibit 6 are false.

31. As to Paragraph 39, the Sentinels and Lieutenant Pettis deny. Lieutenant 

Pettis further states that Police Sgt. Dan Hils visited District 4 during 3rd shift roll call at 

a time Lieutenant Pettis was not on duty to demean and impugn her character, and relay 

false information to subordinate officers in attempt to undermine Lieutenant Pettis’

credibility and cause division and turmoil within District 4.

32. As to Paragraph 40, the Sentinels deny for want of knowledge. To the 

extent that this paragraph alleges that Officer Ludgatis did something other than copy 

Captain Mack on the email Plaintiffs attached to their First Amended Complaint as 

Exhibit 8, Lieutenant Pettis denies. Lieutenant Pettis further denies that she subjected

Ludgatis to verbal abuse.

33. As to Paragraph 41, the Sentinels deny for want of knowledge. Lieutenant 

Pettis admits to making of a request for an internal investigation into Sergeant Hils’ 

inappropriate conduct.

34. As to Paragraph 42, the Sentinels deny for want of knowledge. Lieutenant 

Case: 1:18-cv-00412-MWM-KLL Doc #: 10 Filed: 11/13/18 Page: 6 of 10 PAGEID #: 256
7

Pettis denies and further states that Plaintiffs Brown and Ludgatis attempted to recruit 

other District 4 officers to join in their complaint. Plaintiffs went back to some officers 

as many as three times attempting to get the officers to join in their complaint. Despite 

Plaintiffs continued harassment officers declined.

35. As to Paragraph 43, the Sentinels deny for want of knowledge. Lieutenant 

Pettis denies the allegations in this Paragraph and further states that the “report 

generated as a result of the aforementioned investigation” which is attached to Plaintiffs’ 

First Amended Complaint as Exhibit 12 speaks for itself. Lieutenant Pettis further states 

that any request that Brown and Ludgatis be transferred was a follow up to the 2015 

request that Ludgatis not be assigned to the same district as Lieutenant Pettis. 

Lieutenant Pettis made this request after Ludgatis made numerous derogatory 

comments about Lieutenant Pettis and other Black officers, and after Lieutenant Pettis 

requested in 2015 that Ludgatis attend racial sensitivity classes. 

36. As to Paragraphs 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, and 50, the Sentinels deny for 

want of knowledge. Lieutenant Pettis denies the allegations in these paragraphs and

states that she has had no personal contact with Brown or Ludgatis. Lieutenant Pettis 

further states that the only action she has taken against Brown and Ludgatis was the 

filing of an OCRC Complaint regarding the racist, hostile, and harassing behavior of 

Brown and Ludgatis toward Lieutenant Pettis, and reporting the same behavior up the 

chain of command within the Cincinnati Police Department. 

37. As to Paragraphs 51 and 52, the Sentinels and Lieutenant Pettis deny for 

want of knowledge. Lieutenant Pettis further states that based upon knowledge and 

belief gained through public records, Plaintiff Brown has long had the conditions she 

alleges she developed as a result of her encounter with Lieutenant Pettis. 

Case: 1:18-cv-00412-MWM-KLL Doc #: 10 Filed: 11/13/18 Page: 7 of 10 PAGEID #: 257
8

First Cause of Action – 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)

38. As to Paragraph 53, the Sentinels and Lieutenant Pettis incorporate by 

reference the preceding responses.

39. As to Paragraphs 54 through 56, the Sentinels and Lieutenant Pettis deny.

Second Cause of Action – 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3

40. As to Paragraph 57, the Sentinels and Lieutenant Pettis incorporate by 

reference the preceding responses.

41. As to Paragraph 58, the Sentinels and Lieutenant Pettis state that the 

statute speaks for itself.

42. As to Paragraphs 59 and 60, the Sentinels and Lieutenant Pettis deny.

Third Cause of Action – 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(m)

43. As to Paragraph 61, the Sentinels and Lieutenant Pettis incorporate by 

reference the preceding responses.

44. As to Paragraphs 62 and 63, the Sentinels and Lieutenant Pettis deny.

Fourth Cause of Action – 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5

45. As to Paragraph 64, the Sentinels and Lieutenant Pettis incorporate by 

reference the preceding responses.

46. As to Paragraph 65, the Sentinels and Lieutenant Pettis deny.

Fifth Cause of Action – 42 U.S.C. § 1981a

47. As to Paragraph 66, the Sentinels and Lieutenant Pettis incorporate by 

reference the preceding responses.

48. As to Paragraph 67, the Sentinels and Lieutenant Pettis deny.

Sixth Cause of Action – 42 U.S.C. § 1983-Free Speech

49. As to Paragraph 68, the Sentinels and Lieutenant Pettis incorporate by 

Case: 1:18-cv-00412-MWM-KLL Doc #: 10 Filed: 11/13/18 Page: 8 of 10 PAGEID #: 258
9

reference the preceding responses.

50. As to Paragraphs 69, 70, 71, 72, and 73, the Sentinels and Lieutenant Pettis

deny.

Seventh Cause of Action – R.C. §§ 4112.01, et seq.

51. As to Paragraph 74, the Sentinels and Lieutenant Pettis incorporate by 

reference the preceding responses.

52. As to Paragraphs 75, 76, 77, 78, and 79, the Sentinels and Lieutenant Pettis

deny.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1. The Sentinels and Lieutenant Pettis deny each and every statement, 

allegation, and averment contained in Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint that is not 

specifically admitted by the named Defendant to be true.

2. Plaintiffs fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

3. Plaintiffs lack standing to proceed on some or all of their claims.

4. Plaintiffs failed to mitigate damages, if any.

5. Plaintiffs failed to join all necessary and proper parties.

6. The provisions of Chapter 2744 of the Ohio Revised Code bar some or all 

of Plaintiffs’ claims.

7. Lieutenant Pettis is entitled to qualified immunity.

8. The Sentinels and Lieutenant Pettis hereby give notice that they intend to 

rely upon and utilize any affirmative defenses set forth in Rules 8 and 12 of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure that may become available or apparent during the course of 

discovery and hereby reserve the right to amend their answer to assert such defenses.

Case: 1:18-cv-00412-MWM-KLL Doc #: 10 Filed: 11/13/18 Page: 9 of 10 PAGEID #: 259
10

9. The Sentinels and Lieutenant Pettis reserve the right to raise any other 

defenses as shall become manifest during or upon completion of discovery and hereby 

reserve the right to amend the answer to assert such defenses.

JURY DEMAND

The Sentinels and Lieutenant Pettis hereby demand a trial by jury.

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Janaya Trotter Bratton____________

Alphonse A. Gerhardstein (0032053)

Janaya Trotter Bratton (0084123)

Gerhardstein and Branch Co. LPA

441 Vine Street, Suite 3400

Cincinnati, Ohio 45202

(513) 621-9100 / fax (513) 345-5543

agerhardstein@gbfirm.com

jtbratton@gbfirm.com

Trial Attorneys for Defendants Sentinel Police 

Association and Lieutenant Pettis in her 

Individual Capacity

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on November 13, 2018 a true and accurate copy of the 

foregoing was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent to all parties by 

operation of the Court’s electronic filing system and copies will be mailed to those 

parties who are not served via the Court’s electronic filing system. Parties may access 

this filing through the Court’s system.

s/ Janaya Trotter Bratton

Janaya Trotter Bratton (0084123)

Case: 1:18-cv-00412-MWM-KLL Doc #: 10 Filed: 11/13/18 Page: 10 of 10 PAGEID #: 260