Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/203541138/Goodmaster-Suit
Timestamp: 2016-08-29 01:56:47
Document Index: 618851041

Matched Legal Cases: ['§1331', '§ 1983', '§ 621', '§ 2000', 'art 1', 'art 1']

BrowseUploadSign inJoinBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicWelcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out moreCase 3:14-cv-00060-AVC Document 1 Filed 01/19/14 Page 1 of 22UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT RONALD GOODMASTER Plaintiff, VS. : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
THE TOWN OF SEYMOUR, TOWN OF SEYMOUR BOARD OF SELECTMEN, W. KURT MILLER, LUCY MCCONOLOGUE and MICHAEL METZLER, Defendants.
COMPLAINT COUNT ONE 1. This is an action for money damages to redress the deprivation by the defendants of rights secured to the plaintiff by the Constitution and laws of the United States and the State of Connecticut. The defendants engaged in age discrimination, harassment, hostile work environment, disparate treatment of and retaliation against the plaintiff, a Police Officer within the Police Department of the defendant Town of Seymour. The conduct of the defendants has resulted in the deprivation of the plaintiff’s constitutional rights to equal protection, due process and freedom of speech. The conduct of the defendants has violated rights secured to the plaintiff under the laws
Case 3:14-cv-00060-AVC Document 1 Filed 01/19/14 Page 2 of 22
of the State of Connecticut, a invoked pursuant to the supplemental jurisdiction of the court. 2. For an extended period of time continuing to the present, the plaintiff has been subjected to an ongoing pattern of harassment, discrimination, retaliation and disparate treatment based upon his age, and in retaliation for his protected complaints. The defendants have unfairly punished, disciplined and terminated the plaintiff and have treated him differently than similarly situated Police Officers not of the plaintiff's age or who have not complained about defendants’ unlawful conduct. 3. Said conduct is and was persistent and ongoing to the present, thus constituting a continuous course of conduct. 4. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under the provisions of Title 28 United States Code §§1331, 1343(3) and 1367(a), and Title 42 United States Code §§ 1983 and 1988. 5. During all times mentioned in this Complaint, the plaintiff, Ronald Goodmaster, was and is an adult citizen of the United States, residing in Naugatuck, Connecticut. The plaintiff is over 65 years of age, and was born on March 8, 1948. 6. During all times mentioned in this Complaint, the defendant Town of Seymour was and is a municipal corporation and the employer of the plaintiff. 7. During all times mentioned in this Complaint, the defendant Town of Seymour, Board of Selectmen, was and is a duly authorized governmental entity. Under 2
Case 3:14-cv-00060-AVC Document 1 Filed 01/19/14 Page 3 of 22
a charter adopted in 1971 and most recently amended in 2008, the defendant Town of Seymour has a Town Meeting form of government with a seven-member Board of Selectmen. The First Selectman serves as the full-time chief executive officer of the defendant Town with the defendant Board of Selectmen acting similar to a board of trustees. There are a number of commissions and authorities established under the charter. All boards and commissions are appointed by the defendant Board of Selectmen. 8. At all times mentioned herein, the defendant Board and its individual members were employees, officers and agents of the defendant Town of Seymour, acting in their official capacities. At all times mentioned herein, the defendant Board and its individual members are sued in their individual and official capacities. 9. During all times mentioned in this Complaint, the defendant W. Kurt Miller was First Selectman, and chief executive officer and employee, officer and agent of the defendant Town of Seymour, acting in his official capacity. The defendant Miller is sued both in his individual capacity and official capacity. 10. During all times mentioned in this Complaint, the defendant Lucy McConologue was Chairman of The Board of Police Commissioners, Town of Seymour, and employee, officer and agent of the defendant Town of Seymour, acting in her official capacity. The defendant McConologue is sued both in her individual capacity and official capacity. 3
Case 3:14-cv-00060-AVC Document 1 Filed 01/19/14 Page 4 of 22
11. During all times mentioned in this Complaint, the defendant Michael Metzler was Chief of The Police Department, Town of Seymour, and employee, officer and agent of the defendant Town of Seymour, acting in his official capacity. The defendant Metzler is sued both in his individual capacity and official capacity. 12. During all times mentioned in this complaint, the defendants were acting under color of law, that is, under color of the Constitution, statutes, laws, rules, regulations, customs and usages of the United States, the State of Connecticut and the Town of Seymour. 13. At all times relevant to the instant complaint, the plaintiff was employed by the defendant Town as a Police Officer in defendant’s Police Department. 14. At all times relevant to the instant complaint, the defendant Town was and is an employer with more than 50 employees. 15. The plaintiff has been employed as a Police Officer since 1983. The plaintiff was a Woodbridge, Connecticut Police Officer from 1983 to 1986. From 1986 to 1989, the plaintiff was a Police Officer for the Regional Water Authority of New Haven. 16. The plaintiff became a Police Officer for the defendant Town in 1989. Due to the excellence of his work, the plaintiff was promoted to Detective/Youth Officer in 1996. Due to the continuing excellence of his work, the plaintiff was promoted to Detective Sergeant in 2000.
Case 3:14-cv-00060-AVC Document 1 Filed 01/19/14 Page 5 of 22
17. Throughout his work with the defendant Town, the plaintiff has received numerous accolades and citations. The citations have been both to him personally, and to the unit he commanded. 18. Throughout the his tenure with the defendant Town, the plaintiff has been outspoken in his criticism of, iter alia, the defendant Town, its Police Department, and the individual defendants. The plaintiff has challenged actions he perceived as unlawful, unethical and unfair. The plaintiff has taken the defendants to task when he believed them to be wrong. 19. The plaintiff has challenged the defendants’ actions by use of the grievance process available to him as a member of the collective bargaining unit. The plaintiff has filed Freedom of Information Act requests upon the defendants, and has gone to hearings before that Commission to compel the defendants to abide by the law. 20. The plaintiff has filed grievances and complaints against the defendant Town and against the defendant Police Chief Michael Metzler. The plaintiff’s complaints have been about age discrimination and defendants’ retaliation against him for trying to expose the mismanagement of the defendant’s Police Department. The plaintiff recently filed EEOC and CHRO complaints against defendant Town, upon which merit was found. These complaints against the defendant were resolved, and EEOC terminated its action in August, 2012. This was approximately one month before the defendants took their unlawful actions against the plaintiff. 5
Case 3:14-cv-00060-AVC Document 1 Filed 01/19/14 Page 6 of 22
21. The plaintiff has been successful in his challenges to the defendants. On no fewer than three occasions, improper disciplinary actions taken against him by the defendant Town have been reversed. 22. On March 8, 2013, the plaintiff turned sixty-five years old. 23. Connecticut law provides police officers the right to request that they continue to serve as Police Officers beyond sixty-five years of age. Implicit in this right is that determinations upon such requests are to be made fairly and objectively, without discriminatory or retaliatory animus. 24. As the plaintiff approached his sixty-fifth birthday, he timely made such a request to the defendants, by submitting a request to the defendants’ Board of Police Commissioners. 25. By and through its actions and the Town Charter, the defendant Town and Board held said Board out to be, and in fact was, the appropriate and legally correct entity to receive and decide such requests. 26. In every prior instance where a Police Officer of the defendant Town of Seymour sought to work beyond sixty-five years of age, that request was submitted to, and decided by the Board of Police Commissioners of the defendant Town of Seymour. 27. As detailed in its Minutes, all requests for such extensions were submitted to and decided by the Board of Police Commissioners of the defendant Town of Seymour:
Case 3:14-cv-00060-AVC Document 1 Filed 01/19/14 Page 7 of 22
On December 16, 1971, at the Regular Meeting of the defendant Board of Police Commissioners, a letter was received from Officer William King requesting a two year extension as a police officer as he was over the age limit with no pension. The request was approved by all Commissioners; On March 21, 1974, at the Regular Meeting of the defendant Board of Police Commissioners, a motion was made and accepted for a two year extension to March 14, 1976 for police officer Salvatore Feducia; On June 17, 1976, at the Regular Meeting of the defendant Board of Police Commissioners, a motion was made that the request for a one year extension of employment by Lt. Salvatore Feducia to March 31, 1978 be tabled; On July 15, 1976, at the Regular Meeting of the defendant Board of Police Commissioners, a motion was made the request for a one year extension of his employment by Lt. Salvatore Feducia to March 31, 1978 was again tabled; On August 19, 1976, at the Regular Meeting of the defendant Board of Police Commissioners, a motion was made to again table the request of Lt. Salvatore Feducia for a one year extension of his employment to March 31, 1978, which was unanimously carried; On September 16, 1976: at the Regular Meeting of the defendant Board of Police Commissioners, a motion was made that the request for a one year extension
Case 3:14-cv-00060-AVC Document 1 Filed 01/19/14 Page 8 of 22
of his employment by Lt. Salvatore Feducia to March 31, 1978, was again tabled and unamimously carried. On October 14, 1976, at the Regular Meeting of the defendant Board of Police Commissioners, a motion was made by Board member Arthur Baldwin to reject the request of Lt. Salvatore Feducia for a one year extension of his employment with the Seymour Police Department. A motion was also made to notify Miss Anna LoPresti, First Selectman, of the decision of the Commission so that the Board of Selectmen may take appropriate action. The motions were seconded by Board member Fritz Hummel, and unanimously carried; On August 18, 1977, at the Regular Meeting of the defendant Board of Police Commissioners, a motion was made to separate the position of Lieutenant – Detective into two positions, namely Lieutenant and create the new position of Detective upon the retirement of Lieutenant Detective Salvatore Feducia. Motion unanimously carried; On September 15, 1977, at the Regular Meeting of the defendant Board of Police Commissioners, a motion was made to present Lt. Salvatore Feducia at his retirement party a plaque from the Board of Police Commissioners and a watch from the Seymour Police Department. Motion unanimously carried. 28. The defendant Town’s Board of Police Commissioners is the body entrusted with personnel decisions related to the defendant’s Police Department. In every other 8
Case 3:14-cv-00060-AVC Document 1 Filed 01/19/14 Page 9 of 22
instance where a Police Officer of the defendant Town of Seymour sought to work beyond sixty-five years of age, that request was submitted to, and decided by the Board of Police Commissioners of the defendant Town. 29. As such, the plaintiff properly submitted his request to the Board of Police Commissioners of the defendant Town. 30. On September 13, 2012, the Board of Police Commissioners of the Town of Seymour lawfully voted to extend the plaintiff’s service as a Police Officer with the defendant Town by one year. The plaintiff was approved to work until March 8, 2014. 31. At the time of the Board’s decision, the plaintiff was, and he presently remains fit, fully capable, and eminently qualified to continue in the position which he has successfully filled for many years. 32. This was obviously the case, and known to the defendants. Agents of the defendant Town admitted and acknowledged that, due to his experience and abilities, keeping the plaintiff around as long as possible is a “no-brainer”, especially since the defendant Town’s Police Department had been struggling with manpower shortages. 33. Defendant Town admitted and acknowledged that extending the plaintiff’s service “is in the best interest of the Town . . . [The plaintiff is] a highly qualified and highly trained police supervisor with over 23 years of service to the Town of Seymour . . . that’s tough to replace.”
Case 3:14-cv-00060-AVC Document 1 Filed 01/19/14 Page 10 of 22
34. The defendant Town stated that, “We would be doing a disservice to the Town by not acting on this” to retain the plaintiff as an employee. 35. Another agent of defendant Town agreed, and reiterated that the Seymour Police Commission is continually hearing from the defendant’s administration about the manpower shortage. This agent also acknowledged and admitted that retaining the plaintiff would go far toward addressing the police manpower shortage problem. 36. The defendant Town admitted that extending the plaintiff’s employment would not cost it any extra money. 37. After deciding to do so, the defendant Town stated that it is a “reasonably prudent move” to retain the plaintiff. 38. Importantly, the defendant Town admitted that the determination to retain the plaintiff past his sixty-fifth birthday, made by defendant’s Board of Police Commissioners, is “consistent with what the [defendant] Town has done in the past.” 39. In no instance other than the plaintiff’s, has a lawful decision of the Board on a request to extend police service been disregarded by the defendants. 40. In no instance other than the plaintiff’s, has a lawful decision of that Board been assailed by the defendants. 41. In no instance other than the plaintiff’s, has a lawful decision of that Board been overturned by the defendants.
Case 3:14-cv-00060-AVC Document 1 Filed 01/19/14 Page 11 of 22
42. In no instance other than the plaintiff’s, has the defendant claimed that its Board of Selectmen, rather than the Board of Police Commissioners, has the exclusive authority to decide whether or not to continue an employee’s service as a Police Officer. 43. Nevertheless, the defendants did so in the plaintiff’s case, and immediately after it was made, the defendants refused to abide by the decision of the Board of Police Commissioners. 44. Thereafter, the defendants subjected the plaintiff to a hearing before, and decision by defendant Board of Selectmen. In no instance other than the plaintiff’s has a Police Officer seeking extension of his service had to submit to hearing before the defendant Board of Selectmen. 45. In no instance other than the plaintiff’s has the defendant Board of Selectmen, rather than the Board of Police Commissioners, ever made the decision whether to continue the service of a Police Officer beyond the age of sixty-five. 46. The defendants’ purpose in refusing to abide by the lawful decision of the Board to extend the plaintiff’s police service and to subject him to hearing before the defendant Board of Selectmen was to unlawfully deprive the plaintiff of his employment for discriminatory or retaliatory purposes. 47. At the Board of Selectmen hearing, the defendant First Selectman, W. Kurt Miller, through his statements and actions, clearly expressed his unlawful animus
Case 3:14-cv-00060-AVC Document 1 Filed 01/19/14 Page 12 of 22
toward the plaintiff, and demonstrated that his decision was based upon unlawful, rather than lawful motives. 48. At that hearing, the defendant Miller publicly admitted that he perceived the plaintiff to be a “liability” to the Town, despite the defendant Board of Selectmen’s, and his, admitted ignorance of the plaintiff’s work performance and of police personnel decisions generally. 49. The defendant Miller publicly admitted that he was motivated by concern for how the plaintiff’s extension of service would affect younger officers on the promotion list. 50. In fact, an officer significantly younger than the plaintiff was nearly immediately promoted to the plaintiff’s position. 51. After unlawfully refusing to abide by the decision of the Board of Police Commissioners and unlawfully imposing upon the plaintiff a requirement to submit his request to the defendant Board of Selectmen, the defendant Board refused to continue the plaintiff’s police service beyond the plaintiff’s sixty-fifth birthday. 52. As such, the defendants terminated the plaintiff’s employment on March 8, 2013, the plaintiff’s sixty-fifth birthday. 53. The defendant McConologue participated in the unlawful deprivation of the plaintiff’s employment. On her own and at the urging of defendants Miller and Metzler, McConologue acted unlawfully to pressure the Board of Police Commissioners to
Case 3:14-cv-00060-AVC Document 1 Filed 01/19/14 Page 13 of 22
change its decision to extend the service of the plaintiff and to subject the plaintiff to decision, and denial, by the defendants Board of Selectman and Miller. 54. Defendant McConologue knowingly or recklessly participated in hiring practices declared unlawful by the Connecticut Freedom of Information Commission. In violation of Connecticut General Statutes Section 1-231(a), inter alia, defendant McConologue unlawfully permitted the defendant Metzler to participate in the hiring process of the plaintiff’s replacement. 55. The defendant Metzler participated in the unlawful deprivation of the plaintiff’s employment. Metzler participated in pressuring the Board of Police Commissioners to change its decision to extend the service of the plaintiff, and to subject the plaintiff to decision, and denial, by the defendants Board of Selectman and Miller. 56. Defendant Metzler knowingly or recklessly participated in hiring practices declared unlawful by the Connecticut Freedom of Information Commission. In violation of Connecticut General Statutes Section 1-231(a), inter alia, defendant Metzler unlawfully participated in the hiring process of the plaintiff’s replacement. 57. The defendants refused to extend the plaintiff’s service and terminated him due to his age and in retaliation against him for the plaintiff’s complaints, inter alia, about personal mistreatment and departmental mismanagement.
Case 3:14-cv-00060-AVC Document 1 Filed 01/19/14 Page 14 of 22
58. The reasons given by the defendants for their unlawful actions are pretextual. At the hearing, the defendant Miller admitted that it knew nothing about the plaintiff’s performance and police personnel decisions, as such decisions were made by the Board of Police Commissioners. 59. For an extended period of time continuing to the date of the plaintiff’s termination, the plaintiff has been subjected to an ongoing pattern of harassment, discrimination, hostility and disparate treatment based upon his age and in retaliation for his complaints to and about the defendant. 60. The conduct of the defendants and defendants’ agents, officers or employees has been continuous, persistent and unabated. 61. On or about January 13, 2014, the defendant Miller blocked the plaintiff’s appointment as an unpaid, volunteer Fire Investigator to the defendant Town of Seymour’s Fire Marshal’s office. The plaintiff is fully licensed and qualified for the position, yet defendant Miller will not appoint the plaintiff due to his discriminatory and retaliatory animus against him. 62. The actions of the defendants therefore constitute a continuing course of conduct. 63. As detailed herein and continuing to the date of the plaintiff’s termination and to the present, the defendants subjected the plaintiff to an ongoing pattern of
Case 3:14-cv-00060-AVC Document 1 Filed 01/19/14 Page 15 of 22
harassment, discrimination, hostility and disparate treatment based upon the plaintiff’s age and in retaliation for the plaintiff’s complaints to and about the defendant. 64. The defendants further subjected the plaintiff to deprivation of his constitutional rights, including equal protection, due process and freedom of speech. 65. Throughout the plaintiff’s employment with the defendant as detailed herein and continuing to date, the plaintiff was subjected to an ongoing pattern of discrimination, harassment, retaliation and disparate treatment. The conduct was continuous, persistent and ongoing. The conduct was based upon the plaintiff’s age, and the plaintiff’s complaints to the defendants. 66. The plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies prerequisite to suit, and has received a Release of Jurisdiction from the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities and a Right to Sue Letter from the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission. 67. In the manner described above, the defendant Town has subjected the plaintiff to, inter alia, discrimination based upon his age. 68. In the manner described above, the actions of the defendant Town constitute violations of the provisions of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, 29 U.S.C.A.§§ 621, et seq. 69. As a result of the actions of the defendants, the plaintiff has suffered loss of his constitutional rights; humiliation and ridicule; economic losses, including but not
Case 3:14-cv-00060-AVC Document 1 Filed 01/19/14 Page 16 of 22
limited to loss of income and employment benefits; loss of employment and employment opportunities, advancement and training; loss of self esteem, peace of mind, emotional and physical well being; loss of reputation and standing in the Police Department, in the eyes of prospective law enforcement employers and in the public at large; and has suffered severe emotional and mental distress. COUNT TWO 1.-66. Paragraphs 1-66 of Count One are hereby made Paragraphs 1-66 of Count Two. 67. In the manner described above, the defendant Town has subjected the plaintiff to, inter alia, retaliation. 68. In the manner described above, the defendant Town of Seymour has violated the rights secured to the plaintiff by the provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C.A.§ 2000e. 69. As a result of the actions of the defendants, the plaintiff has suffered loss of his constitutional rights; humiliation and ridicule; economic losses, including but not limited to loss of income and employment benefits; loss of employment and employment opportunities, advancement and training; loss of self esteem, peace of mind, emotional and physical well being; loss of reputation and standing in the Police Department, in the eyes of prospective law enforcement employers and in the public at large; and has suffered severe emotional and mental distress.
Case 3:14-cv-00060-AVC Document 1 Filed 01/19/14 Page 17 of 22
COUNT THREE 1.-66. Paragraphs 1-66 of Count One are hereby made Paragraphs 1-66 of Count Three. 67. For the purpose of this Count, the individual defendants are sued in their individual capacity. 68. The aforesaid actions of individual defendants, as described herein, constitute invidious discrimination and retaliation in violation of the plaintiff's constitutional rights to equal protection, due process of the laws and freedom of speech as guaranteed by the United States Constitution. 69. As a result of the actions of the defendants, the plaintiff has suffered loss of his constitutional rights; humiliation and ridicule; economic losses, including but not limited to loss of income and employment benefits; loss of employment and employment opportunities, advancement and training; loss of self esteem, peace of mind, emotional and physical well being; loss of reputation and standing in the Police Department, in the eyes of prospective law enforcement employers and in the public at large; and has suffered severe emotional and mental distress. COUNT FOUR 1.-66. Paragraphs 1-66 of Count One are hereby made Paragraphs 1-66 of Count Four.
Case 3:14-cv-00060-AVC Document 1 Filed 01/19/14 Page 18 of 22
67. The defendant Miller is the highest policy setting authority on matters related to the instant complaint, including, inter alia the hiring, training, supervision, investigation and discipline of defendant Town personnel, including the plaintiff and all defendants. 68. A municipal policy or custom exists in the defendant Town of Seymour as a result of the municipality's deliberate indifference to the violation of constitutional rights. 69. The actions of the defendants as stated herein were and are approved, sanctioned, taken upon the direction of and adopted by the defendants Miller and Town. As such, the defendant Town has incurred liability for the actions of the defendants. 70. The actions and conduct of the defendant Town evidence an official policy or custom which has caused the plaintiff to be subjected to a denial of one or more of his constitutional rights. 71. As such, the defendant Town has incurred municipal liability. 72. As a result of the actions of the defendants, the plaintiff has suffered loss of his constitutional rights; humiliation and ridicule; economic losses, including but not limited to loss of income and employment benefits; loss of employment and employment opportunities, advancement and training; loss of self esteem, peace of mind, emotional and physical well being; loss of reputation and standing in the Police
Case 3:14-cv-00060-AVC Document 1 Filed 01/19/14 Page 19 of 22
Department, in the eyes of prospective law enforcement employers and in the public at large; and has suffered severe emotional and mental distress. COUNT FIVE 1.-66. Paragraphs 1-66 of Count One are hereby made Paragraphs 1-66 of Count Five. 67. The conduct of the defendant Town and its agents, officers and employees constitute violations of the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act, Sections 46a-60 et seq. of the Connecticut General Statutes. 68. As a result of the actions of the defendants, the plaintiff has suffered loss of his constitutional rights; humiliation and ridicule; economic losses, including but not limited to loss of income and employment benefits; loss of employment and employment opportunities, advancement and training; loss of self esteem, peace of mind, emotional and physical well being; loss of reputation and standing in the Police Department, in the eyes of prospective law enforcement employers and in the public at large; and has suffered severe emotional and mental distress. COUNT SIX 1.-66. Paragraphs 1-66 of Count One are hereby made Paragraphs 1-66 of Count Six. 67. The defendants have agreed and conspired to deprive the plaintiff of his rights as stated herein.
Case 3:14-cv-00060-AVC Document 1 Filed 01/19/14 Page 20 of 22
68. In furtherance of this conspiracy, the defendants have taken the substantial steps of, inter alia, refusing to recognize the validity of the plaintiff’s extension of employment as lawfully determined by the Board of Police Commissioners; unlawfully subjecting him to determination by the defendant Board of Selectmen; and, unlawfully permitting the defendant Metzler to participate in the hiring process. 69. In the manner described, the defendants have engaged in civil consipracy. 70. As a result of the actions of the defendants, the plaintiff has suffered loss of his constitutional rights; humiliation and ridicule; economic losses, including but not limited to loss of income and employment benefits; loss of employment and employment opportunities, advancement and training; loss of self esteem, peace of mind, emotional and physical well being; loss of reputation and standing in the Police Department, in the eyes of prospective law enforcement employers and in the public at large; and has suffered severe emotional and mental distress. COUNT SEVEN 1.-66. Paragraphs 1-66 of Count One are hereby made Paragraphs 1-66 of Count Seven. 67. The actions of the defendants were extreme and outrageous. 68. The actions of the defendants were intentional. 69. The actions of the defendants were likely to and did cause the plaintiff emotional distress, and that emotional distress was severe.
Case 3:14-cv-00060-AVC Document 1 Filed 01/19/14 Page 21 of 22
70. The actions of the defendants constitute the intentional infliction of emotional distress. 71. As a result of the actions of the defendants, the plaintiff has suffered loss of his constitutional rights; humiliation and ridicule; economic losses, including but not limited to loss of income and employment benefits; loss of employment and employment opportunities, advancement and training; loss of self esteem, peace of mind, emotional and physical well being; loss of reputation and standing in the Police Department, in the eyes of prospective law enforcement employers and in the public at large; and has suffered severe emotional and mental distress.
WHEREFORE, the plaintiff claims judgment against the defendants as follows: A. Compensatory damages, including but not limited to back pay, lost overtime pay, lost vacation pay, lost seniority and other employment-related benefits; and compensation for other economic losses, including but not limited to emotional distress, physical illness and attorney's fees; B. Punitive damages; C. Costs of this action; D. Reasonable attorney's fees;
Case 3:14-cv-00060-AVC Document 1 Filed 01/19/14 Page 22 of 22
E. Declaratory relief, recognizing the validity of the Board of Police Commission’s approval of the plaintiff’s employment extension and immediate restoration to his position, and restoration of all lost wages, benefits, rank, seniorty, etc. F. Such other relief as this Court shall consider to be fair and equitable.
CLAIM FOR JURY TRIAL The plaintiff claims trial by jury in this case.
/s/ William S. Palmieri WILLIAM S. PALMIERI Federal Bar No. ct14361 Law Offices of William S. Palmieri, L.L.C. 129 Church Street, Suite 405 New Haven, CT 06510 (203) 562-3100 (203) 909-6006 (fax) wpalmieri@hotmail.com His Attorney
Goodmaster Suit by Helen Bennett4 viewsEmbedDownloadDescriptionFormer Seymour police officer filed lawsuit against department and townFormer Seymour police officer filed lawsuit against department and townInterests: Types, Business/Law, Court FilingsRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentShow moreShow less
RelatedMy Digest - For Writingby joffrey_caguiaDrilon vs. Court of Appeals- Full Textby joFrydman v Equifax - Copyby JayHarvey Neville Thomas, A027 043 777 (BIA Feb. 27, 2015)by Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLCPetition for Relief From Domestic Abuse - DACV019509by thesacnewsVentura vs. NLRCby hurrikhenFlores v. Quirino - Document No. 3by Justia.comSan Francisco City Government Courts - Rule 2by politixSpec Proby MJ FermaPerkins v. Clarksdale Police Dept. et al - Document No. 11by Justia.comTorts Digest Unfair Competitionby jamesleeMBatch 3 Cases Part 1by callmeninin(PC) McConico v. Day et al - Document No. 3by Justia.comTenisini Taufalele, A200 673 398 (BIA Feb. 5, 2016)by Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLCgouldby Chris BuckCosmos vs Lobuby Jo ParagguaSHAC 7 Petition for Certby matthewstrugarWrit of Habeas Databy Alexander P. CaballeroCarter et al v. City Of New York et al - Document No. 2by Justia.comCase Legal Ethicsby Elvin Nobleza Palao4by Jes A.compiled casesby Gem MijaresRemedial Law Suggested Answers (1997-2006), Wordby Yumi Elopre PayponC-C-D-J-, A202 058 964 (BIA Oct. 29, 2015)by Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLCCase Digests on Civil Procedure (Part II)by Danniel AnchetaReilly v. Attar - Document No. 3by Justia.comFr. Reyes vs. Sec. Gonzales G7-1by Shara GaddiJose Santos Gomez-Amaya, A205 881 617 (BIA Nov. 5, 2013)by Immigrant & Refugee Appellate Center, LLCSimilar to Goodmaster SuitMy Digest - For WritingDrilon vs. Court of Appeals- Full TextFrydman v Equifax - CopyHarvey Neville Thomas, A027 043 777 (BIA Feb. 27, 2015)Petition for Relief From Domestic Abuse - DACV019509Ventura vs. NLRCFlores v. Quirino - Document No. 3San Francisco City Government Courts - Rule 2Spec ProPerkins v. Clarksdale Police Dept. et al - Document No. 11Torts Digest Unfair CompetitionBatch 3 Cases Part 1(PC) McConico v. Day et al - Document No. 3Tenisini Taufalele, A200 673 398 (BIA Feb. 5, 2016)gouldCosmos vs LobuSHAC 7 Petition for CertWrit of Habeas DataCarter et al v. City Of New York et al - Document No. 2Case Legal Ethics4compiled casesRemedial Law Suggested Answers (1997-2006), WordC-C-D-J-, A202 058 964 (BIA Oct. 29, 2015)Case Digests on Civil Procedure (Part II)Reilly v. Attar - Document No. 3Fr. Reyes vs. Sec. Gonzales G7-1Jose Santos Gomez-Amaya, A205 881 617 (BIA Nov. 5, 2013)G1Ligitation Law