UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

TERRANCE S. MCKINNEY, )

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) CASE NO: 1:15-cv-79-WCL-SLC

)

THE OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF OF )

WHITLEY COUNTY, INDIANA and )

TONY HELFRICH, in his official )

capacity of deputy sheriff and his )

individual capacity, )

Defendants. )

PLAINTIFF’S STATEMENT OF GENUINE DISPUTES

The Plaintiff, Terrance S. McKinney, by counsel, Robert Owen Vegeler of the Vegeler

Law Office LLC, hereby submits Plaintiff’s Statement of Genuine Disputes as follows:

1. Dispute – McKinney did not submit false work hours while attending the Indiana

Law Enforcement Academy [“ILEA”] but followed the specific instructions of Sheriff Hodges,

Chief Deputy Gatton and instructions of Michelle Jones, Administrative Assistant to the Sheriff. 

McKinney sought guidance as to how to properly submit his work hours to be placed in the

Employee’s Service Record. The Whitley County Government Policy Manual 3.6 prohibits

anyone but the employee from filling out time on the Employee’s Service Record. However,

Chief Deputy Gatton did such for McKinney as well as other officers before and after

McKinney. Facts

On March 31, 2014, McKinney reported to Indiana Law Enforcement Academy

(“ILEA”) in Plainfield, Indiana to commence a 15-week course on law enforcement training. 

The schedule entailed at least 10 hours a day including breakfast and lunch at the academy

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00079-RLM-SLC document 31 filed 09/07/16 page 1 of 33
Monday though Thursday and occasionally sessions on Friday. McKinney stayed on the ILEA

campus in overnight accommodations and mainly ate at the ILEA cafeteria facility. [McK. Aff.

¶ 17]

In McKinney’s Termination Notice the WCSD went through each 10-hour day time

report indicating that McKinney had violated the policy by not clocking out for lunch. 

McKinney did not indicate that he was clocking out because you are at the academy – you do

everything at the academy and you don’t leave. Therefore, you are not clocking out for lunch

and he was never told to deduct time for lunch. [McK. Dep. p. 101, ll. 1 - 25] 

The Sheriff of Whitley County’s Answer to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 13 specifically

requested to identify the standard operating procedure that determines the policies and

calculation of compensable and non-compensable time while an officer attends the Indiana Law

Enforcement Academy within the last four (4) years. The Answer said, “There is no standard

operating procedure regarding...” [McK. Dep. p. 137, ll. 8 - 22 and App. Ex. 8] 

All of the time records produced by the WCSD never indicated any other deputy

attending ILEA clocked out. All of the white deputies put in for 10-hour days and didn’t have to

clock out but McKinney had to and was told the time sheet entries were wrong. [McK. Dep. p.

101, ll. 15 - p. 102, l. 1 and p. 107, ll. 1 - 16] 

Based on the WCSD Answer to Interrogatory No. 12, Chief Deputy Gatton filled out

McKinney’s time sheets. [McK. Dep. p. 147, l. 20 - p. 148, l. 21; and App. Ex. 8] 

McKinney talked to both Chief Deputy Gatton and the Sheriff about how to mark down

the time to be put on the time sheet and was told to calculate his hours and send them in. [McK.

Dep. p. 149, ll. 1 - 13] 

2

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00079-RLM-SLC document 31 filed 09/07/16 page 2 of 33
The other deputies who did not have to clock out for lunch while at the academy were

Billy Maddox, Dustin Auer and Brandon Smith. At least one of them attended before McKinney

was at the ILEA and one of them was after he was at the ILEA. [McK. Dep. p. 101, l. 23 - p.

102, l. 6]

McKinney asked for specific instructions from Michelle Jones on how to properly fill out

the time sheets while he was at ILEA of which he followed. He doesn’t believe he was

compensated for the time that he put down but he also followed the instructions given to him on

how to fill out the time sheet. [McK. Dep. p. 132, ll. 2 - 13] 

While attending the ILEA, McKinney asked for advice as to how to properly report his

work hours both from Michelle Jones, Administrative Assistant to the Sheriff, as well as Chief

Deputy Gatton. He was informed by email from Jones to put down ten hours each day without

deductions for breakfast or lunch [Ex. D]. On May 13, 2014, Chief Deputy Gatton emailed

McKinney stating, “Authority Sheriff Hodges will get paid 40 hours a week for now. He is

doing some research and will go back with you.” On May 12, 2014, Jones in a response email

told McKinney, “I will work on this. In the past it has been 10 hours 4 days a week.” [Ex. D]. 

[McK. Aff. ¶ 31]

Deputy Dustin Auer was paid on a ten-hour day while attending ILEA as was deputy

Brandon Smith and deputy Billy Maddox and all are still employed with WCSD. [McK. Aff. ¶

32 and Ex. E]

Sheriff Hodges told McKinney while attending ILEA to “just keep your time. He said its

ten-hour days. Any time you do outside the ten hours, just blot down on your time and send it to

me.” McKinney checked with Sheriff Hodges after about four weeks of attending ILEA by text

3

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00079-RLM-SLC document 31 filed 09/07/16 page 3 of 33
and asking if he was doing alright and Sheriff Hodges responded, “Yep, just keep doing what

you’re doing.” [McK. Dep., p. 97, l. 25 - p. 98, l. 10] 

McKinney was told that he was going to get ten-hour days by Sheriff Hodges and other

deputies at WCSD. Ten-hour days yet McKinney sent in such time and was terminated for not

clocking out for breakfast and lunch. The time records produced by WCSD showed no white

deputies clocking out for lunch while at ILEA and no discipline while McKinney was terminated

for such. These deputies were Billy Maddox, Dustin Auer and Brandon Smith. [McK. Dep., p.

100, l. 22 - p. 101, l. 25] 

Chief Deputy Gatton told McKinney upon his inquiry about documenting work hours

prior to attending the ILEA – “Just mark down 10 hours.” [McK. Aff. ¶ 30]

The Whitley County Government Policy Manual 3.6 prohibits anyone but the employee

from filling out time on the Employee’s Service Record. However, Chief Deputy Gatton did

such for McKinney as well as other officers before and after McKinney. [App. Ex. 8 & 9, McK.

Aff. ¶ 33 and Ex. F]

2. Dispute – McKinney did not violate SOP Administration 07: Written or Verbal

Orders, Directive and Policies which involved the submission of monthly activity reports. There

is no standard operating procedure indicating the proper filling out and submission of monthly

activity reports especially with respect to ILEA. Upon being requested by Chief Deputy Gatton

to submit the one missing and now due monthly activity report four days before McKinney’s

termination, McKinney filled out the report and communicated it to the Sheriff’s Department

within an hour. There was only one monthly activity report that was not timely submitted or due

by McKinney. 

4

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00079-RLM-SLC document 31 filed 09/07/16 page 4 of 33
Facts

McKinney’s training with respect to monthly activity reports, of which there is no SOP

on how to properly handle and fill out monthly activity reports, consisted of being handed a form

and told to just write down traffic stops and, if you are doing warrants, just write down the

number of warrants or how many papers you served. There was no classroom training. If he had

any questions, he was just supposed to ask. [McK. Dep. p. 45, ll. 1 - 16] 

McKinney, with respect to monthly activity reports, was never informed by SOP or by

order from Sergeant Patrick or Chief Deputy Gatton to fill out the one missing monthly activity

report until four days prior to his termination. There is no SOP for such monthly activity reports

while attending ILEA in any manual or policy given to McKinney. [App. Ex. 8 and McK. Aff. ¶

29]

Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 15: “Identify the SOP that governs the filling out of a

completion of a monthly activities report for each officer of the Defendant while attending the

Indiana Law Enforcement Academy [“ ILEA”] academy within the last four (4) years and

identify each person who made entries, filled out or completed such monthly activities of the

report.” The first sentence in the Answer to the Interrogatory is, “There is no SOP that governs

this activity.” [McK. Dep. p. 138, l. 8 - p. 139, l. 7 and App. Ex. 8] 

McKinney went to the ILEA starting on March 31, 2014. The WCSD stated that there

was an SOP that required an attendee such as McKinney at ILEA to complete a monthly activity

report. [McK. Dep. p. 94, ll. 9 -24 - p. 95, l. 25]

McKinney was never told he had to fill out a monthly activity report while at ILEA. 

McKinney, upon being informed that such monthly activity report was to be completed, did such

5

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00079-RLM-SLC document 31 filed 09/07/16 page 5 of 33
within an hour. It was the only such report that had to be filed or was due. [McK. Dep. p. 94, l.

25 - p. 95, l. 5] 

McKinney was never informed of an SOP requiring monthly activity reports while at

ILEA. He was never informed that the SOP was needed in any way relating to ILEA training

environment because there are no arrests or warrants and he had already turned in his gasoline

receipts so the monthly report would have been blank. [McK. Dep. p. 95, ll. 1 - 21] 

3. Dispute – McKinney did not violate SOP Administration 20: Use of Gasoline

Credit Cards. McKinney was told by the WCSD that he should not have his fuel tank in his

commissioned vehicle at any time below half a tank. Based upon the average mileage that the

vehicle gets on the road, as well as the round-trip distance between Whitley County and

Plainfield, Indiana where ILEA took place, it was impossible to fuel up at the WCSD fueling

facility on the weekends and drive a round trip without getting gasoline somewhere along the

trip.

Facts

SOP Administration 20 related to fueling at the WCSD fueling facility which McKinney

followed [App. Ex. 2]. As relates to his attendance at ILEA, McKinney prepared an analysis of

the gas mileage and range that his commissioned vehicle could have in relation to the use of

gasoline credit cards under SOP Administration 20 Use of Gasoline Credit Cards III. A. That

analysis which shows that McKinney could not make a round trip in order to use the county

fueling facility in Whitley County on a full tank of gas, let alone a half tank of gas, which

necessitated the use of gasoline credit cards and not filling up on weekends at the county fueling

facility [Ex. C]. [McK. Aff. ¶ 18] 

6

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00079-RLM-SLC document 31 filed 09/07/16 page 6 of 33
The approximate distance round trip from the WCSD to the ILEA campus was 297 miles. 

[McK. Aff. ¶ 19]

McKinney’s commission vehicle a/k/a “squad car” averaged approximately 15 miles per

gallon when traveling on road mileage. The gas tank capacity on the commissioned vehicle was

19 gallons which gave McKinney an effect range on one tank of gas of 285 miles. McKinney

could not make a round trip from the WCSD to the ILEA campus and back on one tank of gas. 

[McK. Aff. ¶ 20]

McKinney had personal credit cards that were in his name and billed to his residence that

were not used to fuel his county commission vehicle. McKinney also had an issued WCSD

government gasoline credit card (not in McKinney’s name) and billed to the department. [McK.

Aff. ¶ 21]

McKinney inquired as to fuel consumption while attending ILEA. He was informed to

use his credit card to get fuel so that he could fuel up at the county fueling facility. McKinney

told them that you cannot make a round trip to Plainfield and back on one tank of gas so he was

informed to use his fueling card and fill up at the county station when he could. [McK. Dep., p.

98, l. 24 - p. 99, l. 23] 

Before McKinney left for ILEA, Chief Deputy Gatton told him to make sure that he had

his WCSD gasoline credit cards because he was going to need them. [McK. Dep. p. 95, ll. 5 -

15] 

McKinney was specifically instructed by Sergeant Cory Patrick, Deputy Scott Schmidt,

Chief Deputy Gatton and Sergeant Todd Cook that the fuel tank on his commission vehicle

should be kept at one-half tank is possible, due to the need to react to emergencies and be

7

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00079-RLM-SLC document 31 filed 09/07/16 page 7 of 33
involved in police chases. [McK. Aff. ¶ 22]

Many other deputies used the WCSD gasoline credit cards while at the ILEA, the same as

McKinney. [McK. Dep. p. 136, ll. 5 - 12] 

The gas receipts produced by other deputy sheriff’s of WCSD while attending the ILEA

show multiple uses of county gasoline credit cards not at the county fueling facility. [App. Ex. 3

and McK. Aff. ¶ 23]

WCSD claimed there was an SOP requiring use of the Whitley County fueling facility on

weekends – but there was no such SOP. [ McK. Dep. p. 95, ll. 22 - 25]

4. Dispute – McKinney properly reported damage to his commission vehicle in

October of 2013. Although the Sheriff in his Termination Notice did not rely upon this genuine

dispute, it is placed here as one of the “four issues” raised showing that McKinney did not meet

legitimate employment expectations. McKinney followed standard operating procedure and was

given a verbal warning which was improper.

Facts

The Standard Operating Procedure Enforcement 06 – Crashes Involving Department

Vehicles III B. 1. a. states the follow: “All such crashes shall be investigated at the scene, as

soon as possible, unless an emergency or other justifiable reason causes a delay.” [App. Ex. 4

and McK. Aff. ¶ 24]

As McKinney was backing out of his garage, Deputy Bailey’s emergency message went

off indicating an emergency with an officer in trouble. Distracted, McKinney backed the vehicle

out, he clipped the mirror and chipped three little pieces off. He drove directly to the WCSD,

inquired as to whether Deputy Bailey was alright and he was told that he had just pressed the

8

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00079-RLM-SLC document 31 filed 09/07/16 page 8 of 33
wrong button and was not an officer in emergency trouble. McKinney reported that he had

nicked three pieces off his mirror. Detective Spencer told him it was no big deal. He said let

dispatch know, write a report and take pictures of it. McKinney completed all those tasks and

had it in the Sheriff Hodges’ file within 15 minutes after his arrival at the station. Thereafter he

got called into a meeting with Sergeant Patrick and Chief Deputy Gatton and was given a letter

of reprimand which was another red flag indicating they were trying to develop a termination

paper trail on McKinney. He felt Sergeant Patrick and Chief Deputy Gatton wanted him out

from the very get go. They had a plan the whole time. [McK. Dep. p. 68, l. 18 - p. 72, l. 23] 

McKinney received a performance correction notice with a verbal warning despite

having explained to Sergeant Patrick and Chief Deputy Gatton the circumstances, as well as

turning in the appropriate report within 15 minutes arriving at the WCSD facility. Such incident

was not reported as a loss to the Sheriff’s insurance carrier, Travelers Insurance, and was not

listed in the Detailed Loss Report. [App. Ex. 5 and McK. Aff. ¶ 25]

Originally, McKinney was to get a written reprimand for the side mirror incident but

ended up receiving a verbal warning. This matter was handled solely by Sergeant Patrick and

Chief Deputy Gatton who, after counseling by themselves behind a closed door, decided to give

McKinney a verbal warning. As a comparison, Deputy Bailey tore off the whole front bumper

from his car and was given it as a gift at the Christmas party and no disciplinary action occurred

to him. [McK. Dep. p. 69, l. 14 - p. 72, l. 6 & p. 76, ll. 1 - 13] 

Also, McKinney did not violate any SOP – Enforcement 06 involving an accident with

his commission vehicle by failing to keep it at the scene and call another officer to make a report

because there is an exception in the SOP when an officer has pressed an emergency button and

9

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00079-RLM-SLC document 31 filed 09/07/16 page 9 of 33
could be in trouble. Since deputy Bailey’s emergency button went off indicating an emergency

involving him as an officer down or in trouble then deputies with a damaged commission vehicle

are not required to wait for another officer to come out and make a report but you respond to

help your fellow officers. [McK. Dep. p. 73, l. 2 - p. 74, l. 6] 

By this time McKinney had never had any training on how to deal with a property

damage accident to his commission vehicle. [McK. Dep. p. 74, ll. 2 - 24] 

Deputy Bailey not only tore the bumper off of his commission vehicle and was presented

it as a gift at the Christmas party without disciplinary action, he went 3,000 miles over his first

oil change deadline and received no disciplinary action. [McK. Dep. p. 96, l. 18 - p. 97, l. 6] 

The two commissioned vehicle damage incidents were never reported on the Travelers

Insurance Detail Loss Report and, therefore, apparently were not deemed necessary to be

reported by WCSD to its insurance company. [App. Ex. 5 and McK. Aff. ¶ 26]

Sergeant Patrick and Chief Deputy Gatton also told McKinney at the damaged mirror

meeting that they were going to change the dates of his police academy and McKinney felt that

they were prolonging his non-attendance at ILEA was a way to get him out before they sent him

to the academy. [McK. Dep. p. 76, l. 23 - p. 77, p. 14] 

McKinney did everything according to procedure, when he had another property damage

accident during a transport in a snow-related crash into a guardrail. McKinney still ending up

with disciplinary mention. [McK. Dep. P. 78, ll. 4 - 23]

5. Dispute – McKinney properly followed his written orders and verbal orders for

prisoner transportation involving two prisoners – from Westville correctional facility and

Plainfield correction facility to the WCSD. Although the Sheriff in his Termination Notice did

10

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00079-RLM-SLC document 31 filed 09/07/16 page 10 of 33
not rely upon this genuine dispute, it is placed here as one of the “four issues” raised showing

that McKinney did not meet legitimate employment expectations. The written transport orders

showed that McKinney followed the appropriate procedure and that he completed the transport

of both prisoners as ordered.

Facts

In December of 2013, the WCSD had another issue involving a transport in which

McKinney was involved. McKinney completed the transport orders as written and as instructed. 

He transported a prisoner from Westville correctional facility to the WCSD facility, then he went

to Plainfield correctional facility and picked up another prisoner and transported him to the

WCSD facility. McKinney did exactly as he was instructed by the dispatcher in that the

dispatcher never indicated that he was supposed to go from Westville to Plainfield and bring

both prisoners back to Whitley County. Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2 to McKinney’s deposition show

that McKinney did exactly as the transport orders said. The WCSD claims that McKinney was

instructed to go from Westville to Plainfield and then back to the WCSD facility. When

McKinney brought the prisoner back from Westville, he talked to Michelle Jones,

Administrative Assistant to the Sheriff, and was instructed by Sheriff Hodges through Michelle

Jones that he had pick up the prisoner in Plainfield. McKinney indicated he would cancel his

dinner plans and transported the prisoner, returned back and was only 30 minutes over his shift

for which he got paid. McKinney spoke to Chief Deputy Gatton specifically about the issue and

Gatton instructed McKinney to properly block down the half-hour overtime for which he was

paid. McKinney never refused to get the prisoner in Plainfield and bring him back and strictly

followed the instructions as verbally told to him and as in the transport orders. [McK. Dep. p.

11

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00079-RLM-SLC document 31 filed 09/07/16 page 11 of 33
86, l. 4 - p. 90, l. 6 and App. Ex. 6] 

McKinney properly transported as both instructed in writing by two written transport

orders and orally by the Administrative Assistant to the Sheriff, Michelle Jones, as well as his

superiors, Sergeant Patrick or Chief Deputy Gatton [McKinney Dep. Ex. Nos. 1 and 2] which

show McKinney signing the transport orders and showing the requirement: [No. 1] that the

prisoner be transported from Westville correctional facility to the “Receiving facility/ institution

or agency OTC–Whitley Co.; and [No. 2] transported from STP [Plainfield correctional facility]

to “Name of facility or agency transported to parole discharge/Whitley Co–TOT.” McKinney

was never informed as he communicated with dispatch during the prisoner transport from

Westville correctional facility to the WCSD that he should change route and go directly to

Plainfield and pick up the second prisoner and bring both to WCSD at the same time. SOP

requires one officer per prisoner, not one officer per two prisoners. One of the prisoners was a

violent offender and the two prisoners could not be separated in the backseat during transport. 

McKinney and the releasing deputy signed the transport orders [App. Ex. 6]. [McK. Aff. ¶ 27]

It was never communicated to McKinney that he had to go directly from Westville

correctional facility to the Plainfield facility without returning to the WCSD facility in between. 

The dispatcher never told McKinney otherwise. If he had been communicated to go directly, he

would have done it and he did complete the tasks. [McK. Dep. p. 90, ll 3 - 17 and p. 155, ll. 3 -

22] 

The Whitley County SOP Enforcement 15 Transporting and Processing Prisoners III. G.

states that only one prisoner should be transported by one deputy sheriff and not two prisoners

transported by one deputy sheriff. [App. Ex. 7 and McK. Aff. ¶ 28]

12

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00079-RLM-SLC document 31 filed 09/07/16 page 12 of 33
McKinney received a written warning from Sheriff Hodges despite the fact that he

explicitly followed the verbal instructions from the assistant to the Sheriff as well as the written

orders. [McK. Dep. p. 89, ll. 21 - 23] 

6. Dispute – Despite being about two minutes late in transporting two juveniles to

court, it was not McKinney’s fault. Although the Sheriff in his Termination Notice did not rely

upon this genuine dispute, it is placed here as one of the “four issues” raised showing that

McKinney did not meet legitimate employment expectations. McKinney was following proper

procedure by leaving in a timely manner to pick up the juveniles which were reported to him to

be at the same location to transport them to court. It was found out upon arriving at the stated

juveniles’ location that the second juvenile was at a different facility miles away necessitating

extra time for transport. 

Facts

McKinney was assigned to transport two juveniles for a court appearance. Michelle

Jones (Administrative Assistant to the Sheriff) instructed McKinney that the two juveniles were

at one place, told him where they were and told him to pick them up and transport to court by a

certain time. As it turned out, one youth was in one location and the other youth was in another

location which necessitated McKinney to make two stops with travel time in between and he was

late for court by one minute. [McK. Dep. p. 78, l. 24 - p. 80, l. 11; p. 81, ll. 1 - 13] 

McKinney was counseled indicating that he should always leave plenty of time to make

the transport and get the person to court on time. McKinney’s response was that he did have

plenty of time if they were in the same place as he was instructed by Michelle Jones and that he

can’t foresee them being at two different places miles apart. [McK. Dep. p. 78, l. 24 - p. 80, l.

13

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00079-RLM-SLC document 31 filed 09/07/16 page 13 of 33
11; p. 81, ll. 1 - 13]

Sheriff Hodges called McKinney in and talked about the situation with him but no

discipline was issued. [McK. Dep. p. 83, ll. 4 - 11] 

7. Dispute – McKinney was not texting while driving on a transport despite that

being reported by a fellow officer. Although the Sheriff in his Termination Notice did not rely

upon this genuine dispute, it is placed here as one of the “four issues” raised showing that

McKinney did not meet legitimate employment expectations. McKinney was entering a

password in which to access GPS to help him make the transport. He was not thumbing in text

messages to another person while driving.

Facts

On December 10, 2013, another officer reported that McKinney was texting while

driving on a transport. McKinney informed Sheriff Hodges that he wasn’t texting but checking

the GPS or putting a password in his phone to get the transport directions. McKinney was never

trained on how to use GPS applications if they were available on the WCSD computer system

located in the vehicle. McKinney affirmed that he was not texting and driving. All he was doing

was putting in his password on his cell phone to get the GPS support for the transport. [McK.

Dep. p. 83, l. 12 - p. 84, l. 25] 

Deputy Bailey was talked to about texting and driving based upon a citizen’s complaint. 

McKinney felt that he was interrogated when he wasn’t texting and that Deputy Bailey was

actually texting and didn’t get any discipline. [McK. Dep. p. 84, ll. 17 -25] 

McKinney was never disciplined, verbally warned or received a written warning for the

cell phone incident pursuant to SOP Administration 11 Cellular Telephones III B 1-5. 

14

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00079-RLM-SLC document 31 filed 09/07/16 page 14 of 33
McKinney was not texting, but only entering a password to get GPS directions to perform a

transport. [App. Ex. 10 and McK. Aff. ¶ 34]

McKinney felt this was another incident where Sergeant Patrick and Chief Deputy Gatton

were trying to get McKinney out. [McK. Dep. p. 85, ll. 14 - 18] 

8. Dispute – McKinney has met the requirements to state a retaliation claim based

upon the fact of engaging in statutorily protected activity, i.e., numerous post-hiring complaints

to his supervisor, Sergeant Patrick, Chief Deputy Gatton and Sheriff Hodges. These complaints

were based upon an unlawful employment practice of treating McKinney, as a black, differently

than at least Deputy Bailey, who was hired at the same time, because of race. It is obvious

McKinney suffered adverse employment action and there is sufficient direct and circumstantial

evidence for a trier of fact to determine that the termination was caused by McKinney’s

opposition to the unlawful employment practice. 

Facts

There was no training program for McKinney. He had completed several classes and had

a number of deputies assigned to him including Sergeant Patrick. He initially spent a lot of time

around the WCSD facility with not a lot to do. Due to the lack of training, McKinney actually

just sat around for awhile at the WCSD facility and sat down, inactive in dispatch for hours. He

did not believe he was trained. If McKinney had a question, they would answer it but there was

no training program for him. [McK. Dep. p. 34, l. 2 - p. 36, l. 14; & p. 52, l. 9 - p. 53, l. 5]

McKinney’s lack of training and assignments to ride with other deputies left him at the

WCSD sitting around doing nothing and having no real responsibilities unlike deputy Kory

Bailey. [McK. Aff. ¶ 16]

15

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00079-RLM-SLC document 31 filed 09/07/16 page 15 of 33
The training received by Deputy Bailey, the merit officer hired the same time as

McKinney, was different. Deputy Bailey rode with a different deputies most of the time and was

actually active during traffic stops and other law enforcement activities while McKinney did

transports much of the time. [McK. Dep. p. 35, ll. 13 - 24]

There was no training policy manual or training procedures made known to McKinney. 

McKinney had neither classroom training nor training through manuals. [McK. Dep. p. 36, ll. 1

- 8 & p. 42, ll. 21 - 23] 

McKinney, if he was with another deputy, would sometimes be required to hang out at

the deputy’s house while on duty during a shift also including attending fish fries. [McK. Dep.

p. 36, ll. 9 -16] 

McKinney talked to Sheriff Hodges indicating his frustration about only doing transports

and not learning traffic stops and some of the other things. McKinney rode with the Sheriff

Hodges for one day only and he apologized for not having a better training policy or manual. 

McKinney complained to the Sheriff Hodges that he was not doing anything and not getting

trained. [McK. Dep. p. 37, ll. 1 - 19] 

When Kinney rode around with Sergeant Patrick, he wasn’t comfortable because as they

were in the car driving around and there was no conversation. [McK. Dep. p. 37, l. 20 - p. 38, l.

11] 

When McKinney had involved with his first crash report, he had no training in handling

such and was told to go downstairs at WCSD and ask any questions if he had any. [McK. Dep.

p. 43, l. 24 - p. 44, l. 16] 

16

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00079-RLM-SLC document 31 filed 09/07/16 page 16 of 33
As McKinney’s probationary period went on, he talked to Sheriff Hodges about the lack

of training that he was receiving from Sergeant Patrick who was his predominant training officer. 

[McK. Dep. p. 46, ll. 11 -20] 

One of the incidents involving the lack of training with Sergeant Patrick was while on

duty during his shift and while he was supposedly training McKinney, Sergeant Patrick took

McKinney to his girlfriend’s house for a couple hours and they watched basketball games. 

[McK. Dep. p. 51, ll. 13 - 25] 

McKinney felt very uncomfortable in the presence of Sergeant Patrick during training

and during his shift while on duty and by using a county car with county gas to drive to his

girlfriend’s house for two hours. [McK. Dep. p. 54, ll. 13 - 25] 

McKinney could not go to his first-line leader and the person he spent the most time

with, what little time he spent in training, which was Sergeant Patrick. McKinney did not feel

comfortable talking to Chief Deputy Gatton because he didn’t feel comfortable with him. [McK.

Dep. p. 59, ll. 2 - 11] 

The next incident that made McKinney feel that his race was involved the mirror damage

to his commission vehicle. At that point in time, McKinney had had no training on accidents

and didn’t think he had even done an accident report yet. [McK. Dep. p. 68, l. 18 - p. 69, l. 13] 

McKinney felt the 40-hour pre-basic class that Chief Deputy Gatton did not give him was

neglect from the very get go. [McK. Dep. p. 71, ll. 1 - 13] 

McKinney had no specific training on the specific Standard Operating Procedures

(“SOPs”). [McK. Dep. p. 76, ll. 1- 5] 

17

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00079-RLM-SLC document 31 filed 09/07/16 page 17 of 33
9. Dispute – McKinney has presented numerous incidences of what appear to be

direct evidence of disparate treatment. He has also laid out a convincing mosaic of

circumstantial evidence, when pieced together, also demonstrates intentional discrimination by

disparate treatment. 

Facts – The facts set forth Dispute No. 8 are incorporated by reference.

McKinney did not believe that reference raised by a person other than him in that final

pre-employment interview was discriminatory at that time. However, it later became clear that it

was a problem and it appeared that McKinney’s race was causing him negative employment

issues. [McK. Dep. p. 30, ll. 2 - 7]

Kory Bailey was also hired at the same time as McKinney and he was a full-time merit

officer and was Caucasian. [McK. Dep. p. 32, l. 14 - p. 33, l. 2]

In February of 2014, McKinney’s salary was increased in excess of $2,000.00 per year

and he received no employee review evaluation. [McK. Aff. ¶ 7]

McKinney was discharged pursuant to a Termination Notice from Sheriff Mark Hodges

to McKinney dated May 16, 2014 [Ex. A]. McKinney later received on May 19, 2014 a letter

confirming the discharge from the Whitley County Board of Commissioners [Ex. B]. 

[McK. Aff. ¶ 8]

At the time McKinney was hired, Sheriff Hodges had decided he would not run again for

Sheriff of Whitley County and his term would end on or about December 31, 2014. Chief

Deputy Gatton was the successor and began to become the defacto Sheriff during 2014. 

[McK. Aff. ¶ 9] 

18

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00079-RLM-SLC document 31 filed 09/07/16 page 18 of 33
There were indicators early on after McKinney commenced employment that did point

towards a discriminatory attitude at WCSD. The first indicator was right after McKinney started

– within a week or two. [McK. Dep. p. 30, ll. 3 - 7]

Chief Deputy Gatton may have been involved in the hiring process. Sheriff Hodges was

one of the people that would have been involved in the termination decision. [McK. Dep. p.

102, l. 14 - p. 103, l. 22] 

The decision to terminate McKinney was influenced by Sergeant Cory Patrick and Chief

Deputy Gatton because they were the individuals that had the McKinney information and would

report to Sheriff Hodges and could tell him, “Hey, this guy is a good soldier or bad soldier.” 

Sheriff Hodges would have been relying on Sergeant Patrick and Chief Deputy Gatton when he

ultimately made his decision to terminate McKinney. [McK. Dep. p. 104, l. 1 - p. 105, l. 19] 

The decision to discriminate against McKinney because of his skin color was a collective

decision and effort with Sergeant Patrick, Chief Deputy Gatton and Sheriff Hodges. [McK. Dep.

p. 105, ll. 5 - 19] 

There was never any evaluation in McKinney’s personnel file or any proper training

documentation when all the other deputies had theirs in their personnel files. [McK. Dep. p. 107,

ll. 1 - 16] 

McKinney had at least one incident with Sergeant Patrick where McKinney complained

to Sheriff Hodges about the negative treatment he received from him and Sheriff Hodges

indicated he would talk to him. [McK. Dep. p. 132, l. 14 - p. 133, l. 11] 

McKinney never recalls any situation in which he told the dispatcher that he could not

perform tasks as instructed. He is not that kind of person. [McK. Dep. p. 109, ll. 7 -23] 

19

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00079-RLM-SLC document 31 filed 09/07/16 page 19 of 33
The negative kind of treatment from Sergeant Patrick was different than received by

other deputies in the WCSD such as Tim Johnson, Lauren Schmidt and John Stoffel. [McK.

Dep. p. 133, ll. 12 - 25] 

There were other times that McKinney felt uncomfortable at the WCSD while being the

only black employee ever in the history of the Whitley County Sheriff’s Department. For

example, when he walked into a group of employees in a room and tried to converse with

anyone, no one would talk to him. [McK. Dep. p. 56, ll. 22 - 25] 

One uncomfortable incident because of his race threw McKinney off when he was riding

with Deputy Schmidt and they were at McDonald’s ordering coffee. Schmidt told him that he

was going to come up to the server while ordering and say, “I was gonna tell ‘em I want my

coffee black like my partner.” [McK. Dep. p. 57, l. 21 - p. 58, l. 15] 

McKinney did not report the statements to his supervisors because he already felt that

they were trying to “terminate me.” [McK. Dep. p. 59, l. 6 - p. 60, l. 1] 

At one point in time soon thereafter, McKinney wanted other people to hear Deputy

Schmidt make the same black comment related to coffee including a waitress at another

restaurant. [McK. Dep. p. 61, l. 9 - p. 62, l. 8] 

Another issue involving race occurred in the second week after McKinney was hired. 

Sheriff Hodges told McKinney that he and his wife should watch the movie “42" about Jackie

Robinson. He stated that you and your wife should go to Redbox, sit down and rent the movie. 

It will help you out. There is a verbal order directly by Sheriff Hodges for McKinney and his

white wife to watch the movie about racism. [McK. Dep. p. 64, ll. 8 - 22; p. 65, ll. 2 -14; & p.

106, ll. 13 -25] 

20

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00079-RLM-SLC document 31 filed 09/07/16 page 20 of 33
In another incident Deputy Schmidt used the word “nigger” in the presence of McKinney

and it rubbed him the wrong way. [McK. Dep. p. 66, ll. 1 - 22] 

This was not reported to Sheriff Hodges or Chief Deputy Gatton because McKinney felt

he was already a target and why would he put gas on the fire. [McK. Dep. p. 66, l. 23 - p. 67, l.

3] 

He believed Chief Deputy Gatton was upset because he refused to give the 40-hour prebasic class to McKinney. All Chief Deputy Gatton did was give McKinney a thumb drive and

told him to take the test. [McK. Dep. p. 67, ll. 4 - 22] 

When McKinney and his wife attended the Sheriff’s Christmas party, no one talked to us. 

It was like we walked into the room and time was frozen and everybody looked at us and nobody

talked to us. [McK. Dep., p. 133, l. 25 - p. 134, l. 7] 

Sergeant Cory Patrick, McKinney’s supervisor, was a personal friend of Chief Deputy

Gatton and served together at the WCSD for many years. [McK. Aff. ¶ 10] 29.

The persons with the most involvement because of the amount of personal contact and

information in getting rid of McKinney were Sergeant Patrick and Chief Deputy Gatton. [McK.

Dep. p. 96, ll. 1 -9; McK. Aff. ¶ 11] 

Virtually all of the communications involving issues and incidences and related

discussions concerning discipline/counseling involving McKinney were with Sergeant Cory

Patrick and/or Chief Deputy Gatton. There was very little direct communication as to the

various issues, including those relied upon in the Termination Notice as well as the other issues

delineated by the Defendants that were directly discussed with Sheriff Hodges. Thus, nearly all

of the knowledge relating to McKinney as to the facts relating to the incidences were within the

21

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00079-RLM-SLC document 31 filed 09/07/16 page 21 of 33
possession and control of Sergeant Patrick and Chief Deputy Gatton. Thus, Sheriff Hodges

termination decision could only be based upon information relayed by Sergeant Patrick and

Chief Deputy Gatton. [McK. Aff. ¶ 12] 

Of the three cumulative issues used as the basis for termination by Sheriff Hodges plus

the additional two issues not relied upon by Sheriff Hodges but set forth in the Whitley County

Commissioner’s Letter, all five of those were basically handled through Sergeant Patrick and

Chief Deputy Gatton. [McK. Aff. ¶ 13] 

It later became clear soon after his final pre-employment interview that the reference to

McKinney being black/African-American was a problem and that his race was going to cause

him negative employment issues. McKinney did not believe that reference raised by a person

other than him was discriminatory initially. However, it later became clear that it was a problem

and it appeared that McKinney’s race was causing him negative employment issues. [McK. Aff.

¶ 14] 

After McKinney commenced employment with WCSD, the standing joke around the

WCSD was that he had been pulled over at gunpoint as a theft suspect and yet still got hired. 

[McK. Aff. ¶ 15] 

There were two (2) incidents showing preferential treatment involving white merit

officers; Vogely, who was allowed to retire after he received a DUI as a deputy; and Geist, who

had multiple issues with pain medications and he wasn’t fired and was able to resign. [McK.

Dep. p. 145, l. 12 - p. 146, l. 11] 

Other white deputies were disciplined less severely then McKinney. McKinney was

ultimately fired when white deputies were only suspended for actual violations – Renneker and

22

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00079-RLM-SLC document 31 filed 09/07/16 page 22 of 33
Lacotta and Deputy Bailey shooting another officer with a taser only got a written warning. 

Tony Helfrich had multiple citizens’ complaints and use of excessive force – no termination. 

Vogely was only given a 60-day suspension for a DUI but then he eventually quit. [McK. Dep.

p. 150, l. 24 - p. 151, l. 12 and App. Ex. 13] 

The other specified incidences of more favorable treatment of other deputies involved in

matters that violated rules and regulations of Whitley County and WCSD, although being

similarly situated to McKinney, were: (a) Chuck Vogely – DUI, in violation of Merit Board

Rules and Regulations 4-2.3; (b) Scott Geiss – misuse of pain medication, in violation of Merit

Board Rules and Regulations 4-2.3; (c) Linda l/n/u – accidental discharge of weapon and

prisoner escape due to her negligence; (d) Jason Spencer – inappropriate personal relationship

with staff at WCSD, in violation of Merit Board Rules and Regulations 4.2.3; and (e) Tony

Helfrich – citizens’ complaints of excessive use of force, refusal to do a transport as instructed,

commissioned vehicle accidents, defendant in multiple tort/civil lawsuits, in violation of Merit

Board Rules and Regulations 4.2.3 and 4.4.3. [McK. Aff. ¶ 35 and App. Ex. 13]

McKinney, with respect to monthly activity reports, was never informed by SOP or by

order from Sergeant Patrick or Chief Deputy Gatton to fill out the one missing monthly activity

report until four days prior to his termination. There is no SOP for such monthly activity reports

while attending ILEA in any manual or policy given to McKinney. [App. Ex. 8 and McK. Aff. ¶

29]

Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 15: “Identify the SOP that governs the filling out of a

completion of a monthly activities report for each officer of the Defendant while attending the

Indiana Law Enforcement Academy [“ ILEA”] academy within the last four (4) years and

23

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00079-RLM-SLC document 31 filed 09/07/16 page 23 of 33
identify each person who made entries, filled out or completed such monthly activities of the

report.” The first sentence in the Answer to the Interrogatory is, “There is no SOP that governs

this activity.” [McK. Dep. p. 138, l. 8 - p. 139, l. 7 and App. Ex. 8] 

McKinney went to the ILEA starting on March 31, 2014. The WCSD stated that there

was an SOP that required an attendee such as McKinney at ILEA to complete a monthly activity

report. [McK. Dep. p. 94, ll. 9 -24 - p. 95, l. 25]

McKinney was never told he had to fill out a monthly activity report while at ILEA. 

McKinney, upon being informed that such monthly activity report was to be completed, did such

within an hour. It was the only such report that had to be filed or was due. [McK. Dep. p. 94, l.

25 - p. 95, l. 5] 

The Standard Operating Procedure Enforcement 06 – Crashes Involving Department

Vehicles III B. 1. a. states the follow: “All such crashes shall be investigated at the scene, as

soon as possible, unless an emergency or other justifiable reason causes a delay.” [App. Ex. 4

and McK. Aff. ¶ 24]

Also, McKinney did not violate any SOP – Enforcement 06 involving an accident with

his commission vehicle by failing to keep it at the scene and call another officer to make a report

because there is an exception in the SOP when an officer has pressed an emergency button and

could be in trouble. Since deputy Bailey’s emergency button went off indicating an emergency

involving him as an officer down or in trouble then deputies with a damaged commission vehicle

are not required to wait for another officer to come out and make a report but you respond to

help your fellow officers. [McK. Dep. p. 73, l. 2 - p. 74, l. 6] 

24

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00079-RLM-SLC document 31 filed 09/07/16 page 24 of 33
Deputy Bailey not only tore the bumper off of his commission vehicle and was presented

it as a gift at the Christmas party without disciplinary action, he went 3,000 miles over his first

oil change deadline and received no disciplinary action. [McK. Dep. p. 96, l. 18 - p. 97, l. 6] 

McKinney was assigned to transport two juveniles for a court appearance. Michelle

Jones (Administrative Assistant to the Sheriff) instructed McKinney that the two juveniles were

at one place, told him where they were and told him to pick them up and transport to court by a

certain time. As it turned out, one youth was in one location and the other youth was in another

location which necessitated McKinney to make two stops with travel time in between and he was

late for court by one minute. [McK. Dep. p. 78, l. 24 - p. 80, l. 11; p. 81, ll. 1 - 13] 

McKinney was counseled indicating that he should always leave plenty of time to make

the transport and get the person to court on time. McKinney’s response was that he did have

plenty of time if they were in the same place as he was instructed by Michelle Jones and that he

can’t foresee them being at two different places miles apart. [McK. Dep. p. 78, l. 24 - p. 80, l.

11; p. 81, ll. 1 - 13]

On December 10, 2013, another officer reported that McKinney was texting while

driving on a transport. McKinney informed Sheriff Hodges that he wasn’t texting but checking

the GPS or putting a password in his phone to get the transport directions. McKinney was never

trained on how to use GPS applications if they were available on the WCSD computer system

located in the vehicle. McKinney affirmed that he was not texting and driving. All he was doing

was putting in his password on his cell phone to get the GPS support for the transport. [McK.

Dep. p. 83, l. 12 - p. 84, l. 25] 

25

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00079-RLM-SLC document 31 filed 09/07/16 page 25 of 33
Deputy Bailey was talked to about texting and driving based upon a citizen’s complaint. 

McKinney felt that he was interrogated when he wasn’t texting and that Deputy Bailey was

actually texting and didn’t get any discipline. [McK. Dep. p. 84, ll. 17 -25] 

In December of 2013, the WCSD had another issue involving a transport in which

McKinney was involved. McKinney completed the transport orders as written and as instructed. 

He transported a prisoner from Westville correctional facility to the WCSD facility, then he went

to Plainfield correctional facility and picked up another prisoner and transported him to the

WCSD facility. McKinney did exactly as he was instructed by the dispatcher in that the

dispatcher never indicated that he was supposed to go from Westville to Plainfield and bring

both prisoners back to Whitley County. Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2 to McKinney’s deposition show

that McKinney did exactly as the transport orders said. The WCSD claims that McKinney was

instructed to go from Westville to Plainfield and then back to the WCSD facility. When

McKinney brought the prisoner back from Westville, he talked to Michelle Jones,

Administrative Assistant to the Sheriff, and was instructed by Sheriff Hodges through Michelle

Jones that he had pick up the prisoner in Plainfield. McKinney indicated he would cancel his

dinner plans and transported the prisoner, returned back and was only 30 minutes over his shift

for which he got paid. McKinney spoke to Chief Deputy Gatton specifically about the issue and

Gatton instructed McKinney to properly block down the half-hour overtime for which he was

paid. McKinney never refused to get the prisoner in Plainfield and bring him back and strictly

followed the instructions as verbally told to him and as in the transport orders. [McK. Dep. p.

86, l. 4 - p. 90, l. 6 and App. Ex. 6] 

26

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00079-RLM-SLC document 31 filed 09/07/16 page 26 of 33
McKinney properly transported as both instructed in writing by two written transport

orders and orally by the Administrative Assistant to the Sheriff, Michelle Jones, as well as his

superiors, Sergeant Patrick or Chief Deputy Gatton [McKinney Dep. Ex. Nos. 1 and 2] which

show McKinney signing the transport orders and showing the requirement: [No. 1] that the

prisoner be transported from Westville correctional facility to the “Receiving facility/ institution

or agency OTC–Whitley Co.; and [No. 2] transported from STP [Plainfield correctional facility]

to “Name of facility or agency transported to parole discharge/Whitley Co–TOT.” McKinney

was never informed as he communicated with dispatch during the prisoner transport from

Westville correctional facility to the WCSD that he should change route and go directly to

Plainfield and pick up the second prisoner and bring both to WCSD at the same time. SOP

requires one officer per prisoner, not one officer per two prisoners. One of the prisoners was a

violent offender and the two prisoners could not be separated in the backseat during transport. 

McKinney and the releasing deputy signed the transport orders [App. Ex. 6]. [McK. Aff. ¶ 27]

McKinney received a written warning from Sheriff Hodges despite the fact that he

explicitly followed the verbal instructions from the assistant to the Sheriff as well as the written

orders. [McK. Dep. p. 89, ll. 21 - 23] 

SOP Administration 20 related to fueling at the WCSD fueling facility which McKinney

followed [App. Ex. 2]. As relates to his attendance at ILEA, McKinney prepared an analysis of

the gas mileage and range that his commissioned vehicle could have in relation to the use of

gasoline credit cards under SOP Administration 20 Use of Gasoline Credit Cards III. A. That

analysis which shows that McKinney could not make a round trip in order to use the county

fueling facility in Whitley County on a full tank of gas, let alone a half tank of gas, which

27

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00079-RLM-SLC document 31 filed 09/07/16 page 27 of 33
necessitated the use of gasoline credit cards and not filling up on weekends at the county fueling

facility [Ex. C]. [McK. Aff. ¶ 18] 

McKinney’s commission vehicle a/k/a “squad car” averaged approximately 15 miles per

gallon when traveling on road mileage. The gas tank capacity on the commissioned vehicle was

19 gallons which gave McKinney an effect range on one tank of gas of 285 miles. McKinney

could not make a round trip from the WCSD to the ILEA campus and back on one tank of gas. 

[McK. Aff. ¶ 20]

McKinney inquired as to fuel consumption while attending ILEA. He was informed to

use his credit card to get fuel so that he could fuel up at the county fueling facility. McKinney

told them that you cannot make a round trip to Plainfield and back on one tank of gas so he was

informed to use his fueling card and fill up at the county station when he could. [McK. Dep., p.

98, l. 24 - p. 99, l. 23] 

McKinney was specifically instructed by Sergeant Cory Patrick, Deputy Scott Schmidt,

Chief Deputy Gatton and Sergeant Todd Cook that the fuel tank on his commission vehicle

should be kept at one-half tank is possible, due to the need to react to emergencies and be

involved in police chases. [McK. Aff. ¶ 22]

Many other deputies used the WCSD gasoline credit cards while at the ILEA, the same as

McKinney. [McK. Dep. p. 136, ll. 5 - 12] 

WCSD claimed there was an SOP requiring use of the Whitley County fueling facility on

weekends – but there was no such SOP. [ McK. Dep. p. 95, ll. 22 - 25]

In McKinney’s Termination Notice the WCSD went through each 10-hour day time

report indicating that McKinney had violated the policy by not clocking out for lunch. 

28

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00079-RLM-SLC document 31 filed 09/07/16 page 28 of 33
McKinney did not indicate that he was clocking out because you are at the academy – you do

everything at the academy and you don’t leave. Therefore, you are not clocking out for lunch

and he was never told to deduct time for lunch. [McK. Dep. p. 101, ll. 1 - 25] 

The Sheriff of Whitley County’s Answer to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 13 specifically

requested to identify the standard operating procedure that determines the policies and

calculation of compensable and non-compensable time while an officer attends the Indiana Law

Enforcement Academy within the last four (4) years. The Answer said, “There is no standard

operating procedure regarding...” [McK. Dep. p. 137, ll. 8 - 22 and App. Ex. 8] 

All of the time records produced by the WCSD never indicated any other deputy

attending ILEA clocked out. All of the white deputies put in for 10-hour days and didn’t have to

clock out but McKinney had to and was told the time sheet entries were wrong. [McK. Dep. p.

101, ll. 15 - p. 102, l. 1 and p. 107, ll. 1 - 16] 

Based on the WCSD Answer to Interrogatory No. 12, Chief Deputy Gatton filled out

McKinney’s time sheets. [McK. Dep. p. 147, l. 20 - p. 148, l. 21; and App. Ex. 8] 

The Whitley County Government Policy Manual 3.6 prohibits anyone but the employee

from filling out time on the Employee’s Service Record. However, Chief Deputy Gatton did

such for McKinney as well as other officers before and after McKinney. [App. Ex. 8 & 9 and

McK. Aff. ¶ 33 and Ex. F]

McKinney talked to both Chief Deputy Gatton and the Sheriff about how to mark down

the time to be put on the time sheet and was told to calculate his hours and send them in. [McK.

Dep. p. 149, ll. 1 - 13] 

29

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00079-RLM-SLC document 31 filed 09/07/16 page 29 of 33
The other deputies who did not have to clock out for lunch while at the academy were

Billy Maddox, Dustin Auer and Brandon Smith. At least one of them attended before McKinney

was at the ILEA and one of them was after he was at the ILEA. [McK. Dep. p. 101, l. 23 - p.

102, l. 6]

Deputy Dustin Auer was paid on a ten-hour day while attending ILEA as was deputy

Brandon Smith and deputy Billy Maddox and all are still employed with WCSD. [McK. Aff. ¶

32]

While attending the ILEA, McKinney asked for advice as to how to properly report his

work hours both from Michelle Jones, Administrative Assistant to the Sheriff, as well as Chief

Deputy Gatton. He was informed by email from Jones to put down ten hours each day without

deductions for breakfast or lunch [Ex. D]. On May 13, 2014, Chief Deputy Gatton emailed

McKinney stati ng, “Authority Sheriff Hodges will get paid 40 hours a week for now. He is

doing some research and will go back with you.” On May 12, 2014, Jones in a response email

told McKinney, “I will work on this. In the past it has been 10 hours 4 days a week.” [Ex. D]. 

[McK. Aff. ¶ 31]

Sheriff Hodges told McKinney while attending ILEA to “just keep your time. He said its

ten-hour days. Any time you do outside the ten hours, just blot down on your time and send it to

me.” McKinney checked with Sheriff Hodges after about four weeks of attending ILEA by text

and asking if he was doing alright and Sheriff Hodges responded, “Yep, just keep doing what

you’re doing.” [McK. Dep., p. 97, l. 25 - p. 98, l. 10] 

McKinney was told that he was going to get ten-hour days by Sheriff Hodges and other

deputies at WCSD. Ten-hour days yet McKinney sent in such time and was terminated for not

30

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00079-RLM-SLC document 31 filed 09/07/16 page 30 of 33
clocking out for breakfast and lunch. The time records produced by WCSD showed no white

deputies clocking out for lunch while at ILEA and no discipline while McKinney was terminated

for such. These deputies were Billy Maddox, Dustin Auer and Brandon Smith. [McK. Dep., p.

100, l. 22 - p. 101, l. 25] 

Chief Deputy Gatton told McKinney upon his inquiry about documenting work hours

prior to attending the ILEA – “Just mark down 10 hours.” [McK. Aff. ¶ 30]

10. Dispute – McKinney was subject to arrest and excessive force during the traffic

stop by Deputy Helfrich, who has a history of citizen’s complaints of excessive force.

Facts

McKinney was taking his refrigerator in his truck to Sears when he noticed deputy

Helfrich’s squad car going in the same direction as he was. McKinney pulled over to the right,

slowed down, so deputy Helfrich could pass him. Thereafter, deputy Helfrich turned around

with lights and siren on and McKinney had already stopped his truck. McKinney had no idea

what deputy Helfrich was going to do other than possibly talk to him. Deputy Helfrich told

McKinney to turn his car off, put the keys on top of the truck and “ordered me outta the car.” 

Deputy Helfrich was pointing his gun at McKinney after he got out. McKinney was very scared

and had no idea what this was all about. McKinney was ordered to lay on the ground, cross his

legs and he was handcuffed in the middle of the road. When deputy Helfrich handcuffed him, he

got on top of McKinney who was face down on the ground. McKinney was in shock and, when

he was instructed by deputy Helfrich to get up, he was pulled up by the handcuffs which were

behind his back. McKinney was detained for a certain amount of time but he didn’t remember

exactly how long – maybe two or three minutes. [McK. Dep. p. 111, l. 20 - p. 115, l. 13;

31

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00079-RLM-SLC document 31 filed 09/07/16 page 31 of 33
Defendants’ Memorandum Ex. 6 & 7]

When McKinney was originally handcuffed face down in the middle of the road, he was

at the side of his truck and then they moved to the back of the truck. [McK. Dep. p. 116, ll. 1 -

6] McKinney, who weighs 200 pounds, was pulled up by his handcuffs and it hurt him when

he was pulled up and it hurt him when he was handcuffed and he felt the knee or other part of the

body in his back when he was being handcuffed and it was uncomfortable. [McK. Dep. p. 142, l.

12 - p. 143, l. 22] 

The arrest and handcuffing incident affected McKinney by creating psychological

problems and it affected McKinney “big time.” It makes McKinney nervous. McKinney has

had to have counseling and because of this situation has taken medication called Zoloft at times

under a doctor’s prescription. [McK. Dep. p. 117, l. 25 - p. 120, l. 11] 

VEGELER LAW OFFICE LLC

By: /s/ Robert Owen Vegeler 

Robert Owen Vegeler (0947-02)

110 West Berry Street, Suite 1200

Fort Wayne, Indiana 46802

Ph: (260) 407-6161

Fax: (260) 407-6160

robert@vegelerlaw.com

Counsel for Plaintiff

32

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00079-RLM-SLC document 31 filed 09/07/16 page 32 of 33
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 7th day of September, 2016, a copy of the foregoing was filed

electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent to the following parties by operation of the

Court’s electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the Court’s system.

Julie J. Havenith, Esq.

TRAVELERS STAFF COUNSEL OFFICE

707 E. 80th Place, Suite 100

Merrillville, IN 46410

Attorney for Defendants

 /s/ Robert Owen Vegeler 

Robert Owen Vegeler

33

USDC IN/ND case 1:15-cv-00079-RLM-SLC document 31 filed 09/07/16 page 33 of 33